October 19, 2000; City of Minneapolis
10/19/2000 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On August 22, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 17, 2000, from James Moore, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney. In his letter, Mr. Moore requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the rights of data subjects in relation to certain data the City maintains. A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Moore wrote: ...The City of Minneapolis is considering making certain public data available on the internet. Specifically, the City is looking to make information about particular parcels of real estate available to the public via the internet. Among data to be made available on the internet about properties includes the name of the taxpayer for the property, land area, total property tax amount on file, delinquent taxes, and business licenses for the properties. The City also keeps fire and housing code inspection records in electronic form.... In designing the system for dissemination of the code inspection data over the internet, staff has a concern about what steps must be taken to comply with the accuracy and completeness requirements of Minn. Stat. section 13.04, subd. 4. It seems to staff that the code inspection data is in the nature of data about a person and is thus susceptible of challenge under section 13.04, subd. 4. Given that possibility, what level of specificity is required to describe a challenge to data in the event of a challenge? For example, if a property owner claims that a housing order has been abated but staff determines that the order has not been abated, must the substance of the property owner's challenge be immediately at the same location on the website. Does the statute allow for a warning at a more general level of inquiry that the data contained on the internet may be subject to challenges for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to appropriate staff or internet links? Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Moore asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, an individual has the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about him/her that a government entity maintains: ...To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (2) notify the individual that the authority believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual's statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data. [Emphasis added.] Although section 13.04, subdivision 4, does not state specifically how a government entity must include an individual's statement of disagreement with challenged data, the Commissioner is of the opinion that common sense dictates. In situations where the data exist in paper form, it would be reasonable for the entity to temporarily attach, i.e., staple, paperclip, etc., the statement of disagreement to the data in dispute so that if a member of the public were to inspect the data, s/he would not miss the fact that the data subject had challenged the data. It is important to be mindful that the Legislature, by stating that data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the statement of disagreement is included, determined that during the time a data subject is disputing data, the entity must disclose both sides of the dispute. Regarding data that exist in electronic form - in this case, the Internet - the Commissioner again recommends a common sense approach. The Commissioner's understanding of web-based technology is that in most situations when a document(s) or database is posted to a website, it is possible to create a link in that document or database directly to another document. In other words, if certain information posted on a website are in dispute, it is possible to create a link from that information to a web page that displays the statement of disagreement. It would be best if the link itself indicated that the data are in dispute and that the purpose of the link is to transfer the viewer to a challenge statement. This process seems akin to physically attaching a paper copy of a disagreement statement to a paper copy of data in dispute. Two additional points are in order. First, the City should keep in mind that pursuant to section 13.05, subdivision 5, government entities are required to: 1) establish procedures to ensure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current; and 2) to establish appropriate safeguards for all records containing data on individuals. As government entities make more data available over the Internet, there exists a greater risk that a data subject's rights may be violated under this provision. Second, in order for a data subject to exercise his/her right to challenge data per section 13.04, subdivision 4, the data subject must follow the procedures outlined in statute and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205. In other words, if a data subject calls the City and objects to certain data that the City maintains about him/her, the data subject has not formally challenged the data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Mr. Moore raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: October 19, 2000 |
Data subjects
Electronic data
Legislative authority and intent
Challenge accuracy and completeness of data
Email/internet
Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5)
