120 likes | 275 Views
Alison Poe, Deputy Director Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance alison.poe@oja.state.wi.us. Wisconsin Justice Information Sharing. “Privacy Implications for Information Sharing” NGA CJIS Regional Meeting June 21, 2005. Welcome to Wisconsin. Long tradition of local control
E N D
Alison Poe, Deputy DirectorWisconsin Office of Justice Assistance alison.poe@oja.state.wi.us Wisconsin Justice Information Sharing “Privacy Implications for Information Sharing” NGA CJIS Regional Meeting June 21, 2005
Welcome to Wisconsin • Long tradition of local control • Culture of “open” government • Early implementer of: • Statewide law enforcement data switch • Statewide court computer system • Statewide prosecutor computer system • Statewide public defender computer system • Statewide justice gateway pilots-current • Extensive sharing in place and planned
Justice Environment • 600+ law enforcement agencies • 71 state prosecutor offices • 50+ state public defender offices • 69 state circuit courts • 7+ state agencies with justice/law enforcement responsibilities (DOJ, DOC, DOT, DNR, SPD, DOA, OJA) and multiple computersystems
Is privacy important in Wisconsin? Absolutely! • State Privacy Advocate in 1990’s • Legislative champions • Strong media interest • Strong agency support i.e., DOT • Amount of sharing raises privacy issue • WIJIS Privacy Workgroup-for Gateway
WIJIS Privacy Workgroup • Why a Privacy Workgroup? • “Technology, Values, and the Justice System” - U of WA Symposium Jan. 2004 • Info sharing problems in other states • Cultural value in Wisconsin • Privacy is a values issue-must discuss
The Workgroup • Goals for group re: Justice Gateway: • Identify data ok to share(primarily LE) • Identify privacy implications • Privacy expert led group/prepared report • Met for 18 months • 13 members including: Law professor, private practice attorney, police, judge, court clerk, victim/witness advocate, prosecutor, Assistant AG, etc.
The Workgroup • Workgroup Results: • Briefing of WIJIS governance group - Jan 2005 • Draft Report on Privacy Issues • Recommendations to build on • Immediate impact—changes in data to be shared
Lessons Learned • Compromise makes all unhappy • Framing productive discussion a major challenge • Should not rush to decision • Must have broad representation at table • We have a lot left to do on privacy
The Challenges? • Meaningful discussion of privacy-fear, easy solutions, time limits and limited perspectives make clear thinking difficult. • Getting the right voices involved-must include experts, unpopular perspectives, public in the discussion. • Shaping technical solutions to reflect privacy (and other) values-it takes more time and effort.
Guidance? • Justice Management Institute Draft-March 28, 2005 • “Technology, Values and the Justice System”-Washington Law Review (www.law.washington.edu/wlr/symposium.html) • “Privacy Schmrivacy?”-Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority • Policies from other countries-Canada, EU • U.S. Constitution
Guidance? • “Information Privacy:A Spotlight on Key Issues” NASCIO Feb. 2004 (www.nascio.org) • “Federal Privacy Law Compendium Version 1.0” NASCIO April 2003 (www.nascio.org) • BJA/Global papers on Privacy & Public Access (www.it.ojp.gov) • NCSC papers on privacy (www.ncsconline.org) • Web-sites of privacy and civil rights organizations
What to tell Policymakers? • Fund broad-based privacy efforts • Sponsor symposia on “Information Sharing, Values and the Criminal Justice System” • Require training on privacy for info system users • Look for privacy concerns in technology legislation • Make privacy a high priority issue