Content-Type: text/html
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
Public Access to GIS Information:
Legal Issues Concerning the Technology
Rene Qun Chen
Doctoral Student
School of Journalism
University of Missouri-Columbia
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 573 771 0034
Charles Davis
Assistant Professor
School of Journalism
University of Missouri-Columbia
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 573 882 5736
Office: 76-M Gannett Hall
The paper is submitted to the Law Division of the Associate for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Conference in August, 2002.
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
Abstract
GIS technology is being widely applied by governments and governmental agencies in land use, urban planning, environmental protection, real estate, taxation, census and many other areas in government administration. A large amount of public information is stored and processed, or starts to be stored and processed in GIS. As a technology that has the ability to handle enormously large amount of information, compile information from different datasets and present the final results in graphics, GIS changes the balance among different social interests that the courts have been striking for in their decisions on journalistic and public access to public records. The paper considers how the issues of compilation, copyright of GIS products and of software, invasion of privacy, economics and technical problems challenge the current legislature on public access.
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
Ever since their creation in the 1960s, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been applied in increasingly wider areas around the world. Governments and non-governmental organizations in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, many European countries and the United Nations are using GIS technology in land-use, natural resources management, comprehensive planning, urban planning, environmental protection, ecological design, real estate, property taxation, mapping of voting districts, census, law enforcement, criminal records and traffic control, just to mention a few.[1]
As more and more public information, such as demographics and urban planning, is being processed by GIS technology, it has become necessary to explore the issue of public access to GIS information in terms of the social and legal implications of the technology[2]. Access to GIS data is being debated from technical, economic and institutional perspectives.[3] In its institutional sense, data access is concerned with the issues of copyright, intellectual property, protection of privacy, and confidentiality.[4]
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at the federal level and state public records laws provide for the legal basis of public access to government information, although the courts' interpretations of the law have been inconsistent and
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
contradicting.[5] As government information gathering, storage, analysis and retrieval are becoming increasingly digitalized, many have realized that various interests surrounding public access should be redefined in light of new technology. In 1996, the Clinton administration passed the Federal Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendment (EFOIA) as a major Amendment that aims to answer the challenges imposed to FOIA by digital technology. Many states have also changed their public records laws to address electronic information.[6] However, the issue of public access to digitalized public records is far from being solved. This paper attempts to examine how GIS technology challenges the legal balance between various interests pertaining to the issue of public access.
What is GIS?
Techniques for geographic inquiry have existed for several centuries in the form of mapping overlays and cartographic analysis, which are the essence of GIS technology.[7] However, GIS technology in its modern sense remained impossible until the advent of computer technology. In the 1960s, the Canadian government sponsored the first industry-scaled computer-based GIS, the Canadian Geographic Information Systems (CGIS), for the purpose of land use management.[8] At the same time, many universities in the US and Europe, including Harvard, the University of Oregon and the Royal College of Art in Britain, were also trying to develop GIS technologies in
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
their labs.[9]
GIS is essentially a computer-assisted information storage and processing technology that uses spatial information as the pivotal index for collecting, storing and analyzing information about certain features (objects and phenomenon) in space. A GIS should be able to 1) use computer to support a wide range of alternative methods of representations or data models, including raster and vector options; 2) be used to structure data in a rigorous way to make it easy to share and communicate with others; 3) perform a full range of editing, retrieval and analysis functions; and 4) provide the means to make high-quality maps.[10]
Compared with other database management systems that offer generic functionalities of storing, retrieving and presenting data, GIS is exclusively used to deal with geographic data.[11] Cartography and software for automating cartographic production is inseparable from GIS.[12] GIS handles two types of information, spatial and tabular (or non-spatial) information. Spatial information is data regarding the locations of the features, which is usually presented in the form of maps. Tabular information contains data associated with other aspects of the spatial features, which is added to the data on locations.[13] Tabular information includes physical, demographic and meteorological data, which can be calculated in conjunction with spatial information to produce integrated data in the forms of maps and tables.[14] The
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
maps can be layered one on top of another with each layer containing different types of information.
GIS technology has four key components - hardware (including computer, monitor, plotter, disk drives, etc.), software, database and personnel to operate the system.[15] The power of GIS technology lies in its ability to aggregate data and present the resulting aggregations and calculations in graphics.[16]
One example of how GIS works is the Eisenhower Interstate System.[17] The database contains tabular information of each interstate, such as volume, average width and bridge tonnage. The spatial information is arranged in layers and overlays, with each added layer, for example, flood plains, being laid out across the other. The tabular information is then linked with the spatial information, allowing each to be accessed by the other at a coordinate.[18]
Although GIS technology is born in the field of geography and ecological design, its application has grown far beyond the mother discipline. The acronym "GIS" now represents much more than what it stands for originally. The number of installed GIS in the United States is estimated to be around 100,000.[19] Worldwide GIS is a sizable enterprise with a turnover estimate of about ten billion US dollars annually that include hardware, software and other ancillary services.[20] Some predict that
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
development of GIS is still on its rise, far from reaching its peak.[21]
Applications of GIS technology in everyday life have started to grow. Examples include laptop mapping systems, in-car navigation, digital maps and digital library of geographic data. Nevertheless, GIS technology still remains a heavily professional domain at present and its most important area of application still being those specialized departments in local governments, utilities, resource industries and resource agencies. GIS information is now widely used to support government policy decisions, particularly at the local level. Access to public information stored and produced with GIS has become increasingly critical for journalists, researchers and activists. However, due to a variety of reasons, public access to GIS information is still blocked in many states. In the following sections, the paper will discuss various issues pertaining to public access concerning GIS technology.
Public Access
Public access to GIS has never been a simple issue. George Cho suggests that the future for developing GIS technology should take into consideration the legal, economic and technical issues in acquiring such systems and a conception of a theory on the economics of information.[22] In the same vein, public access to GIS should also consider these factors.
Public Records
In order to argue for public access to GIS data, the critical issue is to establish the
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
public record nature of the information and decide whether GIS information meets statutory definitions of public records.[23] EFOIA clearly states that information stored in electronic format is covered by FOIA and that agencies are required to "provide information in any form or format requested, including in electronic form, if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format."[24]
At the state level, fourteen states (Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin) have laws that explicitly define public records to include all kinds of data stored electronically.[25] Twenty-five other states do not have such definitions of public records, but the general language they use, such as "regardless of physical forms of characteristics" of the information, make it practically impossible to exclude electronic data.[26] In still the other states, case laws make it possible to include electronic information under the umbrella of public records.
In half of the states, there is legislation dealing specifically with GIS.[27] United States, v. Asarco (1998) is one of the few cases that directly address public records produced by GIS technology.[28] The United States government, joined by the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe, filed suit against Asarco and other mining companies for
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
compensation for natural resource damages pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). An administrative assessment process conducted by the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe utilized GIS to establish a large portion of the administrative record. The defendant requested access to the GIS database as a public document.
It was not disputable that the GIS database was a critical part of the administrative process, that it was not a work product or that it was very expensive to create. The disagreements between the two parties as to if such a database was truly a public document fell on the issues of who actually paid for the creation of the database. The tribe argued that the database was tribal property because they paid for it. The defendant contended that the government paid for the development of the database.
Despite of the debates between the two parties, the court ruled that the GIS database was a public record no matter who paid for the creation of the database. The ruling therefore decreed that a copy of the GIS database that had been completed by the tribe should be provided to the defendant at a nominal cost of copying. The decision was made on the basis that the database was part of the administrative record relied upon in completing the assessment as required by the statute and regulations for a natural resource damages action.[29]
Other cases, while not directly addressing GIS, provide indications of the public records status of the systems. The issue of compilation is a factor commonly
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
considered in courts' ruling on whether a record is a public record. In Cincinnati Post, v. Schweikert (1988),[30] compilation did not prevent the court from recognizing the public record nature of a document. The Cincinnati Post requested under the Ohio Public Records Law[31] to examine statistics about individual inmates and individuals who were about to be sentenced. The statistics were compiled and maintained by Schweikert to facilitate the decision-making by the county justice system on the issue of prison overcrowding. The court ruled that although the records were "work products" through compilation, they should still be regarded as public records due to the nature of the information and the fact that the compilation was done by public officers for the purpose of carrying out public policy decision, and therefore should still be disclosed as public records.[32]
The compilation issue is more complicated in the case of GIS than in other IT records, however, because GIS information output is usually produced through the compilation of existent databases at the demand of a requestor. The creativity on the part of the GIS operator is more demanding than for most other IT. The notion of compilation in GIS operation implicates many other legal issues, such as copyright and invasion of privacy.
Copyright
Copyright is an issue pertaining to data compilation that has great potential to impact judicial decisions about public access to GIS information. There are many
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
copyright cases about GIS databases. Mason, v. Montgomery Data Inc (1991 & 1992) is one that directly deals with information products produced by GIS.[33]
The plaintiff created some land ownership maps for Montgomery County, Texas based on U.S. Geological Survey maps and data from other sources. The maps contained identification, location and relative position, size and shape of land grants and real property in Montgomery County and representations of survey lines, tract boundaries, identification of deeds, abstract numbers, and other information that the plaintiff claims as original work. These maps were later published with copyright marks. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants made unauthorized derivative editions of the maps by cutting and pasting the copyrighted maps into new configurations and by copying the surveys, tract boundaries, topography and other features on transparent overlays.
In the1991 ruling, the Southern District Court of Texas denied Mason's copyright claim based on the argument that Mason's maps were not copyrightable. Granting the copyright would mean granting someone monopoly over facts obtained from public records. Mason appealed in 1992 and the Circuit Court reversed the previous ruling by admitting that Mason's maps were original in their expressions and therefore copyrightable.
Both rulings employed the "merger doctrine" of copyright law. The Copyright
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
Act does not exclude compilations from copyright protection. However, the copyright protection extends only to the unique work contributed by the author to the compilation, that is the arrangement of the facts or the expression of the ideas.[34] In cases where the expression and the ideas are inseparable, the compilation is not considered copyrightable.
A more complicated situation in copyright debates is the copyright of the software that is necessary to access public records stored in electronic format. The case of Recodat Company, v. Buchanan (1989) shows how reluctant the courts are in contradicting software copyright to FOIA interests.[35] The Recodat Company asked the defendant, the Licking County Auditor office and its auditor George D. Buchanan, to provide copies of magnetic computer tapes of real estate transactions that the defendant maintained pursuant of their duty as a public office, and also the software needed to access the information contained on the tapes.
The defendant did not contest that the records requested were public records. However, defendant argued that although it owned the information on the tapes, the records stored on the tapes were maintained by a third party, the ATEK Information Services in Ohio. The defendant stated that it had contracted with ATEK that the software needed to access the information on the tapes was the property of ATEK. After a meeting of the three parties, ATEK agreed to provide a copy of the magnetic tapes to Recodat Company, but not a copy of the software.
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
There was no dispute over the public record nature of the information. The disagreement focused on whether the software necessary to access the public information stored on the magnetic tapes were also a public record. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio pointed out that some of the public records in dispute were stored both in traditional and electronic tape formats. Although the tapes contained additional information that was not available in the traditional format, the court argued that "most of the records on the magnetic tapes are not essentially different from the records that can be copied in the auditor's office during regular business hours. _ The tapes are not, however, a separate public record".[36] Based on this single public record argument, the court ruled that the defendant was responsible for making the requested records stored in electronic format available for copying in their office at the same price they charged for records not stored in electronic format.
The court's ruling on this case represented the complexity of judicial attitudes toward software copyright issue when it contradicts FOIA interests. By decreeing at the same time that information stored on traditional and electronic formats were not separate records and that records stored on the tapes contained additional information that should not be revealed to the public, the court implied that information and the means to store information (software in this case) was completely separated concepts and contained different sets of information. In this way, it was able to avoid the conflict between software copyright laws and public records laws. The separation denied the public's right to choose the favorable format of information. What's more,
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
it rendered it more difficult for the public to access public information on electronic format.
The courts' standpoint on software copyright issue when it clashes with public record laws has created easy excuses to block public records in some cases. Some governmental agencies also started to copyright their software that was developed to store public records. Among them is the case of County of Suffolk, v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (2001).[37]
Suffolk County in New York State was required by law to create a series of tax maps and an index system reflecting the ownership, size and location of real estate in each of the county's political subdivisions. It was the county's duty to keep the maps updated and made available to the public. The maps were registered for copyright protection based on the claim that they contained a substantial amount of originality and were the result of substantial work, efforts and expense.[38] The defendant, First American Real Estate Solutions, requested free access to and re-distribution of the maps based on the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
The district court originally denied the defendant's motion. However, in its reconsideration of the case, the court reversed the original ruling and held that the county could not use its copyright to prevent public access to the public records, the tax maps. The court noted that the core of copyright protection was "personal gains", an economic incentive, which was not the purpose for the County to produce those
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
maps.[39] The copyright was denied due to the plaintiff's responsibility under FOIL. However, the ruling was reversed again in the later cross-appeal, which demonstrated again the courts' general principle to be blurry on the issue of software copyright and public access laws in clashes.
The opinion issued by the court pointed out that the Copyright Act states that the federal government does not possess a statutory right to obtain copyright protection for its work, but it is silent about the rights of the states and their subdivisions. Therefore, the court argued that by specifying a limitation to copyright protection against the federal government alone, the Copyright Act implies that states and their subdivisions are not excluded from the act.[40]
However, the court was fully aware of the possible damages to freedom of information interests by granting state agencies the right to copyright their software. It stated that armed with the weapon of copyright protection, state agencies could turn FOIL's goal of maximum public access into minimum public access.[41] However, the court opinion went on to argue that allowing Suffolk County to retain its copyright protections did not necessarily have to contradict the public records law's provision of public access. It suggested that the free press or an individual's right to use the state agency records to educate others or to criticize the state or the state agency be protected by the Copyright Act's fair use doctrine.[42] The opinion argued that the Suffolk County was not attempting to restrict initial access but only subsequent
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
redistribution. It ruled that Suffolk County could comply with FOIL by providing public access to the tax maps and at the same time preserve its copyright by preventing re-distribution of maps.[43] By separating initial access from subsequent redistribution, the court was able to make a compromise between copyright and FOIA laws.
Invasion of Privacy
In the U.S., the issues of information policy have been generally described as access versus privacy.[44] Invasion of privacy, recognized by FOIA exemption six and contained as an exemption to many state public records laws, is one of the major reasons for the courts to deny FOIA requests in many cases.[45] The courts' rulings on access to public records always demonstrate a compromise between the First Amendment right to know and the right to privacy, or between public access and privacy interests.[46] The two rights correspond to the two concepts of positive liberty and negative liberty.[47] Courts and legislatures have been struggling to strike a balance between various social interests pertaining to access and privacy.[48] As memtioned before, compilation of bits of information, a major characteristic of GIS technology, constitutes a potential threat to privacy interests.
Privacy
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
Privacy is a complex concept with multiple meanings supported by multiple justifications. Michael Curry presents a list of rights that has been used by David Flaherty to define privacy.[49] Privacy includes the right to individual autonomy, to be left alone, to a private life, to control information about oneself, to limit accessibility, to minimize intrusiveness, to control exclusively access to private realms, to expect confidentiality and to enjoy solitude, intimacy, anonymity, reserve and secrecy.[50]
Legal definitions of privacy depend on development of technology. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the house was seen as the central locus of intimate activities, hence the place where prevention from interference was most strongly justified. That can be regarded as the first definition of "curtilage" as opposed to "open field" in term of defining areas protected by privacy right or not.[51] The range of curtilage seems to widen as the technology becomes increasingly advanced. Now, legally defined privacy areas have extended to workplace, automobile, and even telephone booth.
Katz v. United States (1967) established an important principle in the legal definition of privacy.[52] Katz was convicted of transmitting wagering information by telephone in the District Court for the Southern District of California. During the trial, the government introduced evidence of his end of telephone conversations overheard by FBI agents through an electronic listening and recording device attached to the
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
outside of the public telephone booth from which he placed the calls.[53] The Supreme Court reversed the original ruling based on arguments that the telephone booth was more like a home than a field and therefore enjoyed constitutional protection from both physical and electronic intrusion. Justice Harlan argued that "there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognized as 'reasonable.'"[54] The criterion of "reasonable expectation of privacy" leaves room for the courts to interpret reasonability as technology changes in the society.
The case of Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1985) represents the role of technology in defining reasonable expectation of privacy.[55] The Dow Chemical Company operated on a 2,000-acre manufacturing facility, heavily secured from entry on the ground but partially exposed to visual observation from the air. The company filed suit when it found out that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in order to monitor the plant's emission pollution, had employed a commercial aerial photographer to take pictures of the facility from legal airspace using a precision aerial mapping camera without a search warrant. The court ruled that the facility complex was an open field, not an industrial curtilage, and therefore exempted from privacy protection. As everyone who took a flight over the area and looked down would see what the EPA had obtained, Dow should not expect privacy from the air. Taking aerial photographs from navigable aircraft was not a search prohibited by the
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
Fourth Amendment. However, Justice Powell argued that the warrantless aerial photography of a private commercial enclave, using a sophisticated camera capable of recording a great deal more than the human eye could ever see, violated legitimate privacy interests and was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.[56]
Privacy and GIS
There is no case so far directly addressing the issue of GIS technology and public access and privacy issue. However, the same logic of privacy interest in technology that has been discussed above can be applied to GIS. In this way, we can find substantial privacy interests here. Used in combination with technologies of remote sensing, satellite surveillance and global positioning system, GIS has great potential for effective digital surveillance of individuals.[57]
The hallmark of GIS technology is its ability to add layers and layers of spatial and tabular information together. The capacity of data compilation or aggregation imposes great threats to privacy interests, as the process of matching up databases could yield unforeseeably revealing and intrusive information without the consent of the information provider. This greatly weakened their control of personal information, hence their privacy. "Disclosure of one or more categories of information may not individually invade privacy; but, the sophisticated analysis of aggregated information might".[58]
In the case of Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee (1988), one of the
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
courts' arguments to deny the request by the reporters' committee was that the FBI rap-sheet, computer compilation of an individual's criminal history, had great privacy interests and therefore was exempted from public access under FOIA exemption 7. The logic was that although arrests, indictments, convictions and sentences were public events, the computer compiled file of all these information were not and should be exempted from public records. The court contended that the compilation of otherwise hard-to-obtain information altered the privacy interest implicated by disclosure of the information. In other words, "there is a vast difference between the public records that might be found after a diligent search of courthouse files, county archives, and local police stations throughout the country and a computerized summary located in a single clearinghouse of information."[59] Here, the court was arguing the level of difficulty in finding a piece of information defined at least partly the public record nature of the information. Applying this logic directly to GIS, which has the ability to handle large amount of information in several databases with the utmost level of ease, we can argue that public access to GIS information should be blocked because of substantial privacy interest.
Concerns over data compilation has been so great that in the US, people would rather develop a decentralized information management system than a centralized system at the expense of convenience.[60] In the 70s, anxiety about government using some common identifiers such as social security numbers to combine separate data on
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
computers finally led to passage of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988.[61] The two acts intended to make data merging more difficult for the government.
Geo-demographic systems, an application of GIS, make it possible to circumvent the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. Combining census and other data, geo-demographics is able to create social, cultural and economic profiles of areas and of residents.[62] The techniques used by geo-demographics to compile data are not computer matching, but data profiling. The new technology does not collate individual data across government agencies using common identifiers, but combines data with other publicly available aggregate data, data geographically coded at the level of census block groups, postal carrier routes, and rooftop geo-coding. In this way, one can create a very probable image of a person while at the same time get around the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act. Such personal profiles invade privacy not only in the sense of revealing personal information, but also in the sense of creating an image or a stereotype that filte
rs the information the person will obtain through suppositions of his/her personal likes and dislikes.[63]
Economics
Economics issues are another major point in the debates about public access to GIS information. Cost has always been an issue in debates on access to public
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
information. The issue is especially salient for GIS because of the much higher cost of the information.
Public records laws provide that copies of public records should be open to the public for the cost of copying and reasonable search fees. GIS information is very expensive, especially when the cost of data collection is taken into account. The construction of a GIS database represents a very large investment of public money, as much as four-fifths of the total expenditure. Another factor that could increase the cost of GIS information is the need to constantly update the database. However, when the private sector provides value-added information sell on the market, the investment by the public sector is not reflected in the market value as the private sector does not need to pay for the data collection directly.
GIS managers face a dilemma over the issue of cost recovery.[64] On the one hand, refusing access because the data is too valuable or fits one of the FOIA exemptions will close off opportunities for subsequent sale or distribution of the databases. On the other hand, open access could preclude agencies from undertaking an enhancement of the data, adding value to the data and providing online services.
Technical Issue
Technical issues could also become a hinder to public access to GIS information. Metadata is a major technical issue.[65] Metadata refers to the descriptive data of the data itself that is needed if the data is to be shared with others. It includes information
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
analogous to a catalog of books, subject, title, author, data format, file names and data quality. It is a means to communicate data from the custodian to the potential users. The Federal Geographic Data Committee published its Content Standard for Geo-spatial Metadata in 1995. Metadata handling is also being added to many GID software products.
Conclusion
In the United States, access to GIS information is fairly restricted[66] because the technology has great potential for challenging the balance between various social and economic interests surrounding the issue of public access, as has been shown in this paper. Technology has been talked of as if it is a neutral driving force behind social changes. There may be some objective elements in technology, but different social and economic factors play a role in the formation, development, access and use of any technology. The impact of technology on social life is also a complex interactive process as the two mutually define each other. The paper tends to demonstrate the fact that it is very hard to separate technology from its social and economic context.
GIS is still a growing technology. At present, the professional requirements of the technology prevent an easy access to GIS databases by general public. High cost of the systems limits access to those rich and powerful in the society. Software, hardware, copyright, invasion of privacy all lead to restricted access. With its penetration into everyday life, the process wherein technology and society mutually redefine each other will be intensified.
Running Head: public access, GIS, legal issues
A look at the current legislations on GIS reveals that they are still premature and inconsistent across the states and between the federal and the state levels.[67] More academic work needs to be done in the area in order to facilitate the policy-making process. However, it is predictable that information policies on GIS technology will be a complex balance and compromises of different social interest as usual.
[1] See Jeremy Speich, The Legal Implications of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 11 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 359 (2001).
Also see George Cho. 1998. Geographic Information Systems and the Law: Mapping the Legal Frontiers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
[2] For a detailed exploration of the social implications of GIS technology, see John Pickles ed. 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York: The Guilford Press.
Aslo see, Cho, 1998.
[3] See Timothy W. Foresman, ed. 1998. The History of Geographic Information Systems: Perspectives from the Pioneers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR, page 379.
[4] See H. J. Onsrud and G. Rushton, eds. 1995. Sharing Geographic Information. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
[5] See Cho, 1998 at p.140.
[6] See id.
See also Bush and Chamberlin, 2000.
[7] See Foresman, 1998, p.4.
[8] See id.
[9] See id.
[10] See id at p. 374.
[11] See id at p. 374.
[12] See id at p. 370.
[13] See Speich, 2001.
[14] See id.
[15] See id.
[16] See Cho, 1998 at p.292.
[17] See id.
[18] See id.
[19] See id.
[20] See Cho, 1998.
See also Forseman 1998.
[21] See Cho 1998.
[22] See id.
[23] See id.
[24] See James X. Dempsey, October 22, 1996. Electronic FOIA Act Adopted: Will Affect Paper Records Too. National Security Archive Special Counsel, online at www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/efoiacom.html.
[25] See Michel Bush and Bill F. Chamberlin, Access to Electronic Records in the States: How Many are computer-friendly? In Charles N. Davis and Sigman L. Splichal, eds. 2000. Access Denied: Freedom of Information in the Information Age. Iowa State University Press.
[26] See Bush and Chamberlin, 2000.
[27] See Cho, 1998 at pp.278-280.
[28] See United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Asarco Incorporated; government gulch mining company, Inc.; Hecla Mining Company, Inc.; Sunshine Mining Company, Inc.; Sunshine Precious Metals, Inc.; Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation; and Callahan Mining Corporation, Defendants. 1998 U.S.Dist. 1998.
[29] See id.
[30] See State, ex rel. Cincinnati Post, v. Schweikert, et al 38 Ohio St. 3d 170; 527 N.E. 2d 1230; 1988.
[31] See Ohio Public Records Law R.C.149.43.
[32] See State, ex rel. Cincinnati Post, v. Schweikert, et al 38 Ohio St. 3d 170; 527 N.E. 2d 1230; 1988.
[33] See Hodge E. Mason and Hodge E. Mason Engineers, Inc., v. Montgomery Data, Inc., et al. 765 F. Supp. 353; 1991 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7322; 19 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1393; 1991.
See also Hodge E. Mason and Hodge E. Mason Engineers, Inc., v. Montgomery Data, Inc., et al. 927 F.2d 135; 1992 U.S. App. Lexis 17321; 23 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1676; 1992.
[34] See id.
[35] See the State, ex rel. Recodat Company v. Buchanan, Auditor, et al. 46 Ohio St. 3d 163; 546 N.E.2d 203. 1989.
[36] See id.
[37] See County of Suffolk, New York, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. First American Real Estate Solutions, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., TRW Redi Property Data, Defendants. 261 F.3d 179; 2001 U.S. App. 2001.
[38] See id.
[39] See id.
[40] See id.
[41] See id.
[42] See id.
[43] See id.
[44] See Cho, 1998 at p. 140.
[45] See Charles Davis, 2001. Electronic Access to Information and the Privacy Paradox: Rethinking "Practical Obscurity". Conference paper presented to TPRC, October.
[46] See id.
See also Bush and Chamberlin, 2000.
[47] Positive liberty is the freedom from constraints or the right to do and to be. Negative liberty is the freedom from inferference or the right to be left alone.
[48] See Bush and Chamberlin, 2000.
[49] See Michael R. Curry (1998) Digital Places: Living with Geographic Information Technologies. London:Routledge.
[50] See id at p. 101.
[51] See id at p. 112.
[52] See id at p. 114.
[53] See Katz, v. United States. 389 U.S. 347; 88 S. Ct. 507; 19 L. Ed. 2d 576; 1967 U.S.
[54] See id.
[55] See Dow Chemical Co., v. United States. 476 U.S. 227; 106 s. Ct. 1819; 90 L. Ed. 2d 226; 1986.
[56] See id.
[57] See The Guardian, May 3, 1995 at pp. 10-11.
[58] See Bush and Chamberlin, 2000.
[59] See Department of Justice et al v. Reporters' Committee. 489 U.S. 749;109 S. Ct. 1468; 103 L. Ed. 2d 774; 1989.
[60] See R. Brian Black (2001) Legislating U.S. Data Privacy in the Context of National Identification Numbers: Models from South Africa and the United Kingdom. Cornell International Law Journal, 34, 397.
[61] See Curry, 1998.
[62] See id.
[63] See id at p. 126.
[64] See Cho, 1998 at p. 134.
[65] See Foresman 1998 at p.379.
[66] See Bush and Chamberlin 2000.
[67] See id.