Discussion:

If a government entity's policy is to require that individuals seeking data about themselves state their requests in writing or fill out request forms, there are certain types of information that the government entity might reasonably require from those requestors. For instance, the government entity would presumably need the name of the requestor and a description of the requested data. In addition, if the requestor desired that copies of the data be mailed to her/his home, it would be necessary for the government entity to obtain the requestor's address. Furthermore, if the government entity needed clarification and needed to quickly reach the requestor, it might be appropriate for the government entity to obtain the requestor's telephone number. However, in collecting such data, government entities must recall the provision in Section 13.05, subdivision 3, which limits the collection of all data on individuals to those data necessary for the administration and management of programs specifically authorized by the legislature or local governing body or mandated by the federal government.

Aside from government entities collecting data to document and clarify a data request, another reason for requiring information about the requestor may be to verify that the requestor is, indeed, who s/he purports to be. In fact, Chapter 13 requires that responsible authorities establish appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. (See Section 13.05, subdivision 5.) In addition, pursuant to Section 13.08, government entities can be civilly liable if data about a data subject are released to an unauthorized person.

In an attempt to assist government entities in fulfilling the aforementioned requirements, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3, requires responsible authorities to establish written procedures to ensure that access to private data is gained only by those who are statutorily permitted access. In relevant part, Subpart 3 states:

In those procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for reasonable measures to assure, in those instances where an individual who seeks to gain access to private data asserts that he or she is the subject of that data or the authorized representative of the data subject, that the individual making the assertion is in fact the subject of the data or the authorized representative of the data subject. Examples of such reasonable measures include, but are not limited to, the following:

Thus, in summation, it appears that MSU's data request form should require collection of only those data necessary to properly document/clarify the request, or those data necessary to properly identify the data subject or her/his representative.

The first blank line on the data request form is for the Date submitted. In his response, Dr. Barden did not specifically address the appropriateness of collecting this data. Nevertheless, the Commissioner does not find it unreasonable for a government entity to require a data requestor to provide the date of the request. Such documentation will presumably benefit both parties for several reasons, one of which is that it should assist the entity in complying with the statutory time frame for responding to requests for access to data.

The second blank line is for the student number. In his response, Dr. Barden provided no compelling arguments to demonstrate that MSU needs to collect student numbers either for documentation/clarification or for identification purposes. In fact, he did not even discuss the issue of the student number. Rather, he made a very general comment which appears to be that the data request form, consistent with the requirements of Minnesota law, allows access to data while assuring that the privacy rights of students are protected.

Because MSU provided no information regarding the process it uses to document requests for access to data, it is difficult for the Commissioner to state whether collection of student numbers is consistent with that process. Thus, unless MSU can demonstrate that student numbers are a necessary part of documenting/clarifying data requests, the collection of student numbers is not appropriate.

Is it necessary for MSU to require collection of student numbers for purposes of identifying the requestor? The simplest way to answer this question would be to examine the procedures MSU has established pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3. However, while Dr. Barden's response included the language of Section 1205.0400, subpart 3, it is unclear if MSU has established any such procedures.

Based on the information provided by Ms. Jakobson, it does appear that MSU has implemented a process of requiring identification of in-person requestors of private data. At the financial aid office, Ms. Jakobson was required to produce two photo IDs. Once MSU staff examined the two photo IDs the reasonable measures standard required by Minnesota Rules was met. Therefore, it does not appear that MSU has the authority to request Ms. Jakobson to provide her student number for purposes of identification.

There is one final issue regarding MSU's collection of the student number. Upon examination of MSU's FERPA Policy, it does not appear that student numbers have been designated as directory information. Therefore, student numbers are private data. (For a more in-depth discussion of directory information data, please see Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinions 96-007 and 96-015.)

Pursuant to pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 2, when an individual is asked to supply private or confidential data about her/himself, the government entity is required to provide a Tennessen Warning notice. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.04 states:

Therefore, because the student numbers of MSU students appear to be classified as private data, MSU should provide a Tennessen Warning notice any time a student's number is collected from that student.

The third blank line on the data request form is for the SSN. From Dr. Barden's comments it is not clear if MSU requires collection of Social Security numbers for either documentation/ clarification or for identification purposes. Dr. Barden did state, The information requested on the form includes the student's Social Security number in order to reference the request to the student's financial aid records. Social Security numbers are required by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., in order to process federal financial aid.

The analysis of whether it is appropriate for MSU to require collection of Social Security numbers for either documentation/clarification or identification purposes is similar to the previous discussion regarding the collection of student numbers.

Because MSU provided no information regarding the process it uses to document/clarify requests for access to data, it is difficult for the Commissioner to determine whether collection of Social Security numbers is consistent with that process. On one hand, given that federal law strictly limits the situations in which government entities can require disclosure of Social Security numbers, it would likely be inappropriate for MSU to use the Social Security number as a method of documenting/clarifying requests. However, on the other hand, if, in the instance of financial assistance data, the Social Security number is required by federal law and must be used as an identifier, it might be appropriate for MSU to require data requestors to submit their Social Security number.

If MSU is asking requestors of data to submit a Social Security number for identification purposes, the attempted collection of the Social Security number does not, in a situation where two photo IDs are required, appear to be necessary as a check of identification. In addition, because of the federal law requirements relating to the collection of Social Security numbers, significant issues may be raised if MSU is using Social Security numbers as identifiers in this circumstance.

Federal law imposes strict limitations on the collection of Social Security numbers by government entities. In general, federal law provides the following: 1) no federal, state, or local government entity can lawfully deny an individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law if that individual refuses to disclose her/his Social Security number, unless the collection is for the administration of any tax, general public assistance, or drivers' license or motor vehicle registration; and 2) when asked to provide her/his Social Security number, the individual must be informed of the uses to which the number will be put, and whether the disclosure is voluntary or mandatory. (See Public Law 93-597, Section 7, and 42 U.S.C. section 405(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iii).)

In addition, because state law classifies Social Security numbers as private data (see Section 13.49, subdivision 1), any such collection must be accompanied by the four components of the Tennessen Warning notice. (For a more detailed discussion of federal and state requirements surrounding the collection of Social Security numbers, please see Advisory Opinion 95-007.)

The fourth blank line on the data request form is for the specific location of the data requested. According to Dr. Barden, this information is included in the form to allow the student to simply make one request to inspect data that may be kept in many different offices. He also wrote, This process allows the student to make arrangements to inspect data kept in many different MSU offices by only making one request.

The Commissioner agrees that allowing students to request several types of data on one data request form is time-efficient. However, the data request form asks the requestor to identify the office which maintains the particular data sought by the requestor. What if the requestor does not know the location of certain data? Does this mean that the student will be denied access to the data s/he is seeking? By requiring data requestors to fill in the location of the data being sought, MSU places the burden of determining that location on the data requestor. There is no provision in Chapter 13 which requires an individual making a data request to know the location of those data.

Therefore, if, as it appears, MSU is collecting this information for the purpose of documenting/ clarifying the request, it would be much more appropriate to ask data requestors to provide the kind/type of data being requested.

The final three blank lines on the form (with the exception of one blank line for the requestor's signature) are for the student name, address, and telephone number. The issue, therefore, is whether MSU requires these data either to document/clarify the request or to identify the requestor. (Dr. Barden did not specifically address the issue of MSU's collection of the data requestor's name, address, and telephone number.)

With regards to documenting/clarifying the written request, as previously discussed, it seems appropriate and reasonable that MSU would require the data requestor to provide her/his name. However, the issue of collecting the requestor's address and telephone number raises some different questions. If the requestor seeks only to view his/her data, it does not appear necessary for the government entity to collect the requestor's address and telephone number, let alone require it as a condition of viewing the data. In fact, only if the requestor desires that copies of the data be sent to his/her home would it seem appropriate for the government entity to collect an address, and, perhaps, a telephone number.

Ms. Jakobson was apparently seeking only to view the data. She did not indicate that she desired copies mailed to her home. Furthermore, if MSU needed additional clarification regarding her request, she could have answered those questions in person. Therefore, while it is appropriate for MSU to collect Ms. Jakobson's name prior to her gaining access to the data about her, it is not necessary for MSU, in the circumstances of this particular request, to collect Ms. Jakobson's address and telephone number prior to her gaining access to the data.

As the MSU procedure of requiring two photo IDs seems to ensure proper identification, there is no need for collection of the data requestor's (in this case, Ms. Jakobson's) name, address, and phone number for purposes of properly identifying the requestor (Ms. Jakobson).

The second issue raised by Ms. Jakobson is whether, after inspecting the data or being informed of the contents of the data about her, she is required to sign a statement that she is or is not satisfied with the accuracy and/or completeness of the data. Section 13.04, subdivision 4, does provide that an individual subject of the data may contest the accuracy and/or completeness of those public or private data. However, while Chapter 13 does provide a process for challenging data, that process is not statutorily tied to a request for access to data. In part, subdivision 4 of Section 13.04 states:

In the current situation, it appears Ms. Jakobson went to MSU's financial aid office only to inspect data about her, not to initiate a data challenge. Yet, Ms. Jakobson was presented with a data request form which appeared to indicate that a condition had been placed on her gaining access to the data; she would be required to make an on-the-spot decision regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of those data.

In his response, Dr. Barden did not discuss the issue raised by Ms. Jakobson. Rather, he presented arguments which appear intended to demonstrate to the Commissioner that the data request form is a good place to collect information about a student's satisfaction regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data. Dr. Barden wrote:

The Commissioner finds Dr. Barden's goals laudable. However, to actually meet those goals, MSU may wish to consider some additional items. First, if one purpose of including the aforementioned statements on the data request form is to notify individuals of their right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data, then MSU should probably provide more detailed information about the process of initiating a challenge. Part of providing more information should include a citation to Chapter 13 so individuals can become self-informed.

Second, while placement of the aforementioned statements on the data request form may appear to create a simple and efficient method for students to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data, it may also be misleading and, as it has done in this instance, create confusion about the process. For one thing, a student could assume that if s/he signs the statement saying s/he is satisfied with the accuracy and/or completeness of the data, s/he forfeits any other opportunity to challenge the data. Such an assumption would be wrong. Another point of confusion could be that a student assumes s/he can initiate a data challenge only by filling out a data request form. Again, such an assumption would be wrong. In addition, if a student chooses to initiate a data challenge using the data request form, s/he may assume that her/his remarks must fit on the single blank line provided on the data request form. Again, such as assumption would be wrong.

However, none of the above comments alter the fact that no provision exists which requires a data subject to make a decision regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of data immediately after having inspected or having been informed of the data. Therefore, Ms. Jakobson is not required to sign either of the statements in section three of MSU's data request form.

Opinion: