Michael A. Sims
738 E. 6th St. Apt 1C
New York, NY 10009
(212) 529-2748
jellicle@inch.com
Jannette Goodall
Executive Secretary
State Records Committee
Utah State Archives
PO Box 141021
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
May 23, 1998
Appeal of a decision made under the Utah Government Records Access and
Management Act, to the State Records Committee
Dear Utah State Records Committee,
Pursuant to the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act
(title 63 section 2 of the Utah Code), I have requested copies of
records maintained by the Utah Education Network. My original
request was sent on April 20, and received by them on April 23. A
response from UEN was received by email on May 11. A copy of my
request and a printout of UEN's response are attached. I would like
to appeal their decision in several areas. My comments below refer
to the points outlined in my initial letter and in the UEN response
letter.
1) I consider my request fulfilled by the provision of the URL to
access the requested documents. No appeal.
2) "primarily verbal in nature" indicates a written portion. I
request the release of all written portions of the above-mentioned
report made to the state Board of Education and mentioned in a recent
Associated Press story. Indeed, the AP story "quotes" from the
report, suggesting that the report was not "primarily verbal" but
indeed issued in written form - otherwise the AP would have quoted the
individual speaker rather than the report. It is highly likely that
the AP writer was in possession of a written copy of that report, and
it is this document that I seek. I believe that there is no legal
ground on which to justify withholding a report made to a public
entity, by a public entity, on a matter of significant public
interest.
3) I do not accept the UEN argument that they are custodians of data
for the school districts. It is self-evident that the state Board of
Education treats the UEN as custodian of the log files and goes to
them for reports and analyses of this data. The individual school
districts likely have no knowledge of or concern for the log files
maintained by UEN, on UEN-administered computers, by UEN employees.
This tactic seems designed to force the public to request documents
from dozens of individual school districts who have no connection with
the records desired, and who would then have to direct the UEN to
release the files anyway. Common sense, at the minimum, suggests that
the UEN be the central site for matters related to these log files.
I also deny the UEN's assertion that these logs would be considered
protected by statute. The log files probably consist of files which
contain many thousands of lines such as this (this is an actual
example of a line from another filtering program, but the program
employed by the UEN will likely generate very similar files).
04/25/1998,10:30:47,"Prevented","209.153.133.62","208.28.152.88","www.
botcw.com","HTTP","Multiple",0,0,""
One line such as this will be generated for each access to a site on
the filtering program's blacklist. The log includes a number of
fields of data separated by commas, which in this case are:
a) date and time of the attempted access
b) a word which describes the result of the operation. "Prevented"
means the user was prevented from accessing the site. c) The IP
(internet protocol) address of the computer attempting to access the
site. d) The IP address of the computer which hosted the banned site.
e) The domain name of the banned site. f) The method of access to the
banned site (HTTP = Hypertext Transfer Protocol, which is the standard
means for accessing sites on the World Wide Web). g) The remaining
information indicates the categories under which the given site was
banned.
The only information which could possibly be personally identifiable
is c). This information, coupled with a detailed knowledge of the
Utah school system's internal network (which only a few people, all
employed by UEN, would have) may allow this record of a site block to
be connected with a specific computer at a specific school. For
instance, the UEN's technical personnel may be able to say that
209.153.133.62 in the above example is the number 2 computer in the
school library at school XXXX. People outside the UEN's technical
administrators (which includes me) will have no idea which computers
and which IP addresses go together, and the firewall technology
employed will make it impossible to identify the computer from the
outside.
Even if the specific computer is identified, however, it is not
possible to identify who was using the computer at the time. Any
student, employee, or faculty member could have been using the
computer at that time. This log data thus does NOT personally
identify or violate the privacy of any individual, especially any
student, at any Utah school. (Although it does not identify anyone,
records which relate to staff or faculty accesses should probably be
releasable anyway - the public has a right to know what paid public
employees are doing with their time.)
And finally, even if the Committee disagrees with me regarding the
personally identifiable information contained in the log files, at
MOST only one field of the data, the IP address of the originating
computer, contains anything which even remotely identifies the user
involved. That field can be excised from each line of the log files
and the rest of the log files provided. I request that the UEN be
ordered to search for and disclose all releasable sections of the log
files requested in my original request.
4) My argument for 4) is much the same as that for 3) above. I
request that the UEN be ordered to search for and disclose all
releasable sections of the log files requested in my original request.
5) My argument for 5) is much the same as that for 3) above. I
request that the UEN be ordered to search for and disclose all
releasable sections of the log files requested in my original request.
Obviously the files requested in 3), 4) and 5) may overlap to some
extent.
6) UEN's response to this request is completely non-responsive. No
indication is provided that a search has been made to locate documents
which may fulfill my request. Although the policies of the state
Board of Education are interesting, they are not a valid answer to my
request, which specifically seeks information pertaining to the
filtering policies now in force at Utah schools and enforced by the
UEN. UEN must have information on this subject, since they are the
implementors/enforcers of such policies. The website referenced does
not fulfill the request. I reiterate my request, and request that the
UEN be ordered to act on it. There is no legal basis for withholding
information about the policies in effect at Utah public schools.
7) Technical background: In general, for a user who is receiving
filtered access at a Utah school or other entity to "override" the
filtering and be allowed access to the website (for instance, if the
filter is found to be blocking a site useful for schoolwork or other
reasons) will require the cooperation of the people administering the
network and proxy server, the UEN. Therefore, I assume that they will
know what procedures are in place to implement such overrides, and
possess documents related to them. There is no indication that UEN
has made any search for documents related to my request. I request
that UEN be ordered to act upon my request.
8) There is no indication that UEN has made any search for documents
related to my request. While the documents they referenced at the
given URL are a report on the effectiveness and outcome of the use of
filtering software, there is no reason to believe it is the only one,
especially given the apparent reporting to the state Board of
Education. I consider the request fulfilled in part, but request that
the Committee order the UEN to undertake a search of its records for
other documents which may fulfill the request and to disclose them to
me.
9) The response given somehow assumes that filtering is a free
service. There are many costs involved, from the cost of the
filtering program, to the costs of the proxy servers to implement the
filtering, etc. The AP story suggests that these costs may have been
tallied in the report to the state Board of Education, and they are
certainly tallied somewhere, since it is not the standard practice of
any governmental agency to take public money for services without an
accounting of it. I request that UEN be ordered to search for and
disclose records which fulfill my request.
10) The UEN did not undertake to filter the internet access at Utah
schools completely of their own accord. Although my request was less
than perfectly clear, I am seeking any document which either requires
or authorizes the UEN to do so. The response may take the form of
public legislation, a mandate from the state Board of Education, or
other form. I request that the UEN be ordered to search for and
disclose any such documents in their possession.
As in my original request, I agree to pay reasonable duplication fees
for the processing of this request in an amount not to exceed $50.00.
Please notify me prior to incurring any expenses in excess of that
amount.
As in my original request, I understand that some or all of these
files may be maintained in an electronic format. The same formats
will be acceptable for fulfillment of this appeal.
For any files which exist in electronic formats, no
duplication/conversion of the file(s) to a paper format is necessary
or desired.
Due to the nature of the response received from the UEN which
indicates a certain lack of familiarity with these types of requests,
I request that if the Committee finds for me in whole or in part,
that they provide specific instructions and/or guidance to the UEN
regarding the proper means of fulfilling a request under GRAMA, and
provide any assistance required to the UEN personnel tasked with
fulfilling it.
If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that the Committee
justify all deletions by specific reference to the Utah Code. I will
also expect the release of all segregable portions of otherwise
exempt material.
For the Committee's information, I am making this request as part of
a group which examines and reports upon software filtering programs
and the uses made of them in public institutions. Some of our work
is available on-line at:
http://www.spectacle.org/cwp/
We are an all-volunteer group which intends to stimulate a national
debate on the proper and Constitutional uses of filtering software in
the nation's schools, libraries, and other institutions. We believe
accurate information on what filters do and do not block is of
considerable importance to this ongoing debate and we will undertake
to perform that analysis on the data sought in this request. All of
our work has been and will be made freely available to the public,
including the Utah Board of Education, who may find it of interest
and more detailed than any reports provided by the UEN. Nor do we
make any profit whatsoever off of our work, and indeed it has been
costly both in time and money. Both the public and public officials
should be cognizant of what sites, both appropriate and
inappropriate, are banned by a particular software filter being used
- otherwise no rational decisions about its use can be made.
Currently the state of Utah is taking the software vendor's word for
what sites are sexually explicit, obscene, etc, and the encryption
present on the program's lists of banned sites prevents any
reasonable review. An open review of the results of such filtering
will be extremely beneficial to every member of the public and every
parent of a schoolchild in Utah state and elsewhere, and justifies
releasing all of the sought information.
I appreciate the Committee taking the time to hear my appeal, and the
latitude it has given me to "appear" via telephone rather than in
person. Thank you for your assistance.
Michael Sims
on behalf of The Censorware Project:
Seth Finkelstein
Bennett Haselton
Jamie McCarthy
James S. Tyre, Esq.
Jonathan Wallace, Esq.
and
David Smith
encl:
1) printout of response emailed to me by the Utah Education Network
on May 11, 1998. 2) my original request letter sent to UEN and
received on April 23, 1998. 3) Cable News Network story (from the
Associated Press) dated April 17, 1998, "Logs show student access
to prohibited sites blocked by filters"