Seems the latest FOIL (Freedom Of Information Law request) to hit the town offices has everyone stirring. The request from CB Smith seeks the IP address of the town clerk’s computer. For the casual computer user, IP means Internet Provider. Each computer is assigned by the provider with a unique address like your phone number. When you use the internet, even for email, your IP address is used to send and receive internet traffic.
In this case the town clerk declined to provide the address of her computer citing “security concerns”. (An apparent fear that disclosure would result in hackers invading the computer.) Hmmm, is that possible? Frankly we do not know. However the reason for seeking the address apparently revolves around identifying the source of certain libelous materials contained on a local blog so that court action can be initiated. The IP addresses are traceable with today’s software and if a town computer was utilized to post libelous materials, the town and those responsible could be held liable for the action.
All of this was to be considered last evening after an appeal was filed with the town board. However, because of the security question, it became, and rightly so, more of a computer security and technical issue, as opposed to a simple records request available under FOIL. No one on the board or its legal staff would have that technical knowledge. Neither apparently does Robert Freeman, the Executive Director of the Committee for Open Government at the NY Department of State. Smith requested a formal opinion from Freeman on this first of its kind FOIL request. He presumably will seek advise from computer security experts in the State before rendering an opinion. A town resident with expertise in this area recommended against disclosure citing a lack of any extraordinary safeguards within the current computer system in town hall. In other words, computer security in town hall is likely limited to the basic Windows firewalls which are incorporated into the operating system of each computer. These measures of often greatly enhanced by Federal and State governments, universities and business which invest substantial sums to add layers of security to their computers. Odds are most local governments have not invested in this security and clearly need to given the many incidences of hacking that have been reported involving government and businesses alike.
In this case the town clerk declined to provide the address of her computer citing “security concerns”. (An apparent fear that disclosure would result in hackers invading the computer.) Hmmm, is that possible? Frankly we do not know. However the reason for seeking the address apparently revolves around identifying the source of certain libelous materials contained on a local blog so that court action can be initiated. The IP addresses are traceable with today’s software and if a town computer was utilized to post libelous materials, the town and those responsible could be held liable for the action.
All of this was to be considered last evening after an appeal was filed with the town board. However, because of the security question, it became, and rightly so, more of a computer security and technical issue, as opposed to a simple records request available under FOIL. No one on the board or its legal staff would have that technical knowledge. Neither apparently does Robert Freeman, the Executive Director of the Committee for Open Government at the NY Department of State. Smith requested a formal opinion from Freeman on this first of its kind FOIL request. He presumably will seek advise from computer security experts in the State before rendering an opinion. A town resident with expertise in this area recommended against disclosure citing a lack of any extraordinary safeguards within the current computer system in town hall. In other words, computer security in town hall is likely limited to the basic Windows firewalls which are incorporated into the operating system of each computer. These measures of often greatly enhanced by Federal and State governments, universities and business which invest substantial sums to add layers of security to their computers. Odds are most local governments have not invested in this security and clearly need to given the many incidences of hacking that have been reported involving government and businesses alike.
In the mean time, we will wait for Mr. Freeman, known for his outstanding knowledge of FOIL and the complete body of court cases which have shaped the law over the years, to weigh in. When that opinion is rendered, it will likely provide the appropriate guidance to all parties. Until then, Smith has agreed to postpone his right to a Board decision in their role as Appeals body for the town. The input of Freeman will take no sides and offer the solution that respects the law and the security issues which may sometimes cause conflict with its intent and spirit. We’ll keep you informed of the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment