Criminal Law Library Blog

Mary Alice Baish, Director of Government Relations and Emily Feldman, Advocacy Communications Assistant (both of the American Association of Law Libraries, AALL), have been doing a tremendous job serving as advocates for high quality and highly accessible legal information on the web in a format that can be authenticated.

The following is an e-mail from Emily which mentions the work of the White House open government working group and includes a request for suggestions regarding specific types of information and datasets you would like to see agencies publish. Although Emily's e-mail is directed primarily to law librarians I am posting it here because of the value of this initiative to the entire legal community.

FROM: Emily Feldman
March 10, 2010

The White House’s open government working group has held several meetings with stakeholders, including AALL, to develop criteria to measure agency open government plans, which must be published by April 7. At a meeting last Friday, I was pleased to learn that the working group adopted Mary Alice’s suggestion that Executive Branch agencies be evaluated based in part on whether they commit in their plans to publish new information (e.g., reports and publications) on their Web sites, in addition to new high-value datasets in XML on Data.gov.

We’re looking for specific types of information and datasets that you’d like to see agencies publish. The working group is also very interested in any cross-agency datasets you’d like to see added to Data.gov (e.g., crime data from DOJ/DHS, health data from EPA/HHS).

Some of the suggestions we’ve received so far include:

· All historic content that agencies have digitized (presuming that agencies followed the Paperwork Reduction Act and didn’t make exclusive deals)

· All the legislative histories that have been digitized by the Department of Justice Library

· Dataset on "charges of discrimination" filed from the EEOC

Are there other information holdings or datasets that you’d like to see added? Please email me the title and name of the publishing agency by COB next Wednesday, March 17.

Thanks,

Emily

Emily Feldman
Advocacy Communications Assistant
American Association of Law Libraries
25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001

202-942-4233

Fax: 202-737-0480
efeldman@aall.org

http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash

103nd Annual Meeting & Conference / Denver, CO. / July 10-13, 2010

Summary

The President's health care proposal as released on February 22 purports to put "...American families and small business owners in control of their health care. To help those who are following this issue we are providing in this post, links to a 10+ page Summary prepared by the White House. This document provides a good overview and discussion regarding provisions in the proposed legislation.

SUMMARY

Exploring the Proposal

This is a link for those who want to really explore the President Obama's Health Care Proposal through more comprehensive Section by Section analysis .

Both of the above links will lead you to very useful information. We would urge everyone to explore these documents.

The quest for health care reform continues. According to Roll Call the White House has developed its own version of a merged House-Senate health care reform package and plans to have it online for public review by Monday in advance of a bipartisan health care summit scheduled for Feb. 25. As reported, the White House has taken what it considers the best of the House and Senate bills and come up with their own proposal.

Roll Call article.

BY: Michael Chernicoff

President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has promsed to make its statistical body free from political manipulation. In making an independent statistical body, James Lynch may hope to reverse that likelihood that the BJS and its official are, "inappropriately treated in the future."

In 2009, James Lynch was a member of the Panel to Review the Programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), which provided recommendations to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on ways to improve the quality, creditability, and relevance of U.S. justice statistics. In that report, the Panel recommended that "BJS be moved out of OJP (Office of Justice Programs)," and further suggested, "that the position of BJS director be made a fixed-term presidential appointment with Senate confirmation." (A full-text copy of this report behttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/12671.html).

The Bureau of Justice Statistics was created under the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Public Law 96-157 (the 1979 Amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-351) on December 27, 1979. According to their website, the mission of BJS purpose is to, "collect, analyze, publish, and disseminate information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systmes at all levels of government."

A hearing to confirm James Lynch's nomination was held on January 20th, 2010.

Sources:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5205.pdf
http://mainjustice.com/2010/01/20/justice-statistics-nominee-pledges-independence/
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12671.html

As almost everyone knows, the 2011 U.S. Budget was submitted on February 1. Since this is such a huge budget, in terms of both bulk and scope, we have decided to limit this posting largely to links to some " Budget Fact Sheets" prepared by the Office of Management and Budget. Each separately linked fact sheet focuses on a particular priority or group of priorities related to this budget request, thus enabling you to quickly "pick and choose" those areas that interest and concern you without devoting considerable time to other parts of the budget. If you wish to examine this budget request in greater detail, go to the GPO Access link at the end of this posting.

Here are links to the Budget Fact Sheets::

Keeping America Safe and Secure

Clean Energy

Suppoting World Class Education for Children

Create Industries and Jobs

Secure and Affordable Health Care

Supporting America's Military Families

Supporting America's Middle Class Families

Supporting Our Nation's Seniors

Opening Doors for College and Opportunity

Those who are interested in more extensive regarding Budget for the U.S. Governmenrt for fy 11 can go to the GPO Access site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html and follow the various links at that location,

THOMAS was launched on January 5, 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress. The leadership of the 104th Congress directed the Library of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public. Since that time THOMAS has expanded the scope of its offerings to include many features and content including those listed below.:

Bills, Resolutions
Activity in Congress
Congressional Record
Schedules, Calendars
Committee Information
Presidential Nominations

Now, fifteen years later in response to user feedback and in celebration of its fifteenth
anniversary, THOMAS has been updated for the second session of the 111th
Congress.

As reported by Emily Carr of the Public Services Division at the Law Library of Congress, the new items include a bookmarking and sharing toolbar, top five bills of the week, a new RSS feed, highlighting how to contact Members of Congress, a tip of the week, enhanced visibility of bill PDFs, and an increased timeout interval.

The bookmarking and sharing toolbar, found near the top of most THOMAS pages, allows users to save or share a permanent link via bookmarks,email, or social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook. The toolbar also includes quick links to subscribe to THOMAS RSS feeds and to print.

The five most-searched-for bills from the past week will be listed in the center box on the right side of the homepage. Hovering the mouse over the bill number will display the title of the bill.

The new Bills Presented to the President RSS feed and email update lists bills that have passed both the House and Senate and have been sent to the White House for the President's signature.

It's now easier to contact your Members of Congress. A link to this page of tips about how to contact your Representative or Senator is included on the homepage.

Each week, a new tip about using THOMAS will be displayed on the right-hand side of the THOMAS homepage, below the “Top Five” list.

Based on user feedback, links to the bill PDF are more visible and accessible. Clicking on a PDF link will bring you to the Government Printing Office (GPO) PDF for a specific version of a bill.

Search results within THOMAS are displayed on temporary pages. The timeout interval has been increased from 5 minutes to 20 minutes..

THOMAS can be accessed at http://thomas.loc.gov.

In the e-mail below Camilla Tubbs, Chair of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) Government Relations Committee provides useful information regarding efforts by the Obama admiinistration to create greater transparency and openness in and among federal departments and agencies. She is also asking what types of information people want to see on federal agency web sites? These are important questions that merit serious consideration. Although this e-mail was originally directed to a group of law librarians everyone should be concerned about these issues. Comments from both librarians and non librarians are welcome. We will be glad to forward comments on to Camilla upon request.

E-mail from Camilla Tubbs:

In his Memorandum on Transparency and Open
Government http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/
President Obama instructed the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to issue an Open Government Directive. Responding to that
instruction, on December 8, 2009, a
memorandum http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf was
issued directing executive departments and agencies on how to take
specific actions to implement the principles of transparency, participation,
and collaboration. The memo was broken up into four main points, each
having their own action items: (1) Publish Government Information Online;
(2) Improve the Quality of Government Information ; (3) Create and
Institutionalize a Culture of Open Government; and (4) Create an Enabling
Policy Framework for Open Government

Aside from the major points mentioned above and the action items posted in
the memorandum http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive ,
*what types of information would you want to see on agency web sites? *For
example, some ideas from the open government community include:

1. List of government agency employees and how to reach them.

2. Visitor logs of each agency and calendars for top-level agency
officials should be made public in timely fashion. The public has a right
to know who agencies are consulting, and a "timely fashion" needs to be
narrowly defined.

3. Contract and award documents include Requests for Proposals,
Contracts, Task Orders, Contract Modifications, etc.

4. Communications between the agency and Congress, including responses to
inquires, testimony before committees, reports mandated by Congress, etc.

5. A records retention policy along with a schedule of records that will
be declassified and the timetable for such action, as well as a list of all
FOIA requests.

*What else would you like to see? What types of documents are your patrons
requesting? What suggestions should be passed along to make the federal
government more transparent and participatory?

The following is the announced U.S. Senate floor schedule for 2010:

Jan. 5 - Second session convenes in a pro forma session

Jan. 19 - Senate reconvenes for legislative business

Feb. 15-19 - Presidents Day recess

March 29-April 9 - Spring/Easter recess

May 31-June 4 - Memorial Day recess

July 5-9 - Independence Day recess

Aug. 9-Sept. 10 - August recess

Oct. 12 - Columbus Day recess

Nov. 11 - Veterans Day recess

Target Adjournment – To Be Determined

A Report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared by R. Eric Petersen, Analyst in American National Government November 5, 2009.*

Summary

Periodically, concerns have been raised about the number and variety of products created to
document congressional activity. Other concerns focus on the process for authorizing and
distributing printed government documents to Members of Congress, committees, and other
officials in the House and Senate. These concerns reflect broader issues related to the manner in which government and private information is created, assembled, distributed, and preserved in
light of the emergence of electronic publishing and distribution.

From its establishment in 1861, the Government Printing Office (GPO) has compiled, formatted,
printed, bound, and distributed documents that have recorded the activities of Congress (and the
work of other governmental entities). In current practice, more than half of all government
documents originate in digital form, and are distributed electronically. As a consequence of
electronic production and dissemination, some congressional materials are now more readily
available to wider congressional, governmental, and public audiences than when they were only
produced and distributed in paper form.

Some have argued that eliminating paper versions of some congressional documents, and relying instead on electronic versions, could result in further cost and resource savings and might provide environmental benefits. At the same time, however, current law regarding document production, authentication, and preservation, as well as some user demand, require a number of paper-based documents to be produced and distributed as part of the official record of congressional proceedings.

As a result of requirements for both electronic and paper-based versions of congressional
documents, GPO oversees an information distribution process that produces and distributes most of the congressional information for which it is responsible in both electronic and printed forms. This process provides the necessary information and appropriate formats for Congress to carry out and document its activities, but it may also result in some unwanted printed copies of
congressional documents being delivered to congressional users who prefer to access those
resources electronically. More broadly, the transition to electronic distribution of materials may
raise questions about the capacity of current law and congressional practices to effectively
oversee GPO’s management and distribution responsibilities regarding congressional
information.

This report, which will be updated as events warrant, provides an overview and analysis of issues
related to the processing and distribution of congressional information by the Government
Printing Office. Subsequent sections address several issues, including funding congressional
printing, printing authorizations, current printing practices, and options for Congress. Finally, the
report provides congressional printing appropriations, production, and distribution data in a
number of tables.

Click here to see the complete Report
_____________________________________
* Thanks to Rick McKinney, Federal Reserve Board Library and Janet Fischer of the Golden Gate University Law Library for forwarding information about this Report..

This posting is prompted out of concern for the need to provide open, online access to public documents including CRS reports, two e-mails received during the past two weeks, and two recent requests for recent CRS report referenced in a previous post to this blog.

First the e-mails. About a week ago I received a widely distributed e-mail from Emily Feldman, Advocacy Communications Assistant for the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) framing the issues related free online access to CRS Reports and emphasizing the urgency of taking action now to help get this accomplished. Emily can be contacted at either 202-942-4233 or efeldman@aall.org This was followed up today by an e-mail from a law librarian Susan Nevelow Mart responding to Emily's e-mail and reinforcing Emily's call for action. Here are the two e-mails

From Emily Feldman:

Last week, AALL held a free online advocacy training session, Join AALL’s Advocacy Team: How to Deliver Our Message, with Director of Government Relations Mary Alice Baish, Advocacy Communications Assistant Emily Feldman, and “Advocacy Guru” Stephanie Vance. Many of you on this listserv participated, and we thank you for making this Webinar a success! Webinar resources are now available in AALL’s Advocacy Toolkit and the recorded Webinar will soon be available on AALL2go.

Whether or not you were able to participate in the Webinar, we need your help to keep the momentum going on one of the key topics we covered: free online access to Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. In the Senate, we need you to put pressure on Sen. Schumer (D-NY), Chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee, to bring S. Res. 118 before the committee immediately. In the House, we need your help in getting additional co-sponsors for H.R. 3762.

We have issued an Action Alert that makes it easy for you to write to your senators and House representatives. The Alert includes our specific asks, sample emails, and links to the Webmail forms of your members of Congress so that you can start writing an email with just a click of your mouse. Please help us ensure access to these valuable, tax-payer funded reports by writing to your members of Congress today!

Thanks,

Emily Feldman
Advocacy Communications Assistant

American Association of Law Libraries
_________________________________________

Susan Nevelow Mart's followup:of 10/28/2009:

About a week ago, Emily Feldman posted an action alert about CRS reports, with a link: http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash/aa10162009.pdf. If you care at all about getting public access to CRS reports, take a look at this link. It not only tells you what is going on in Congress with CRS reports, it lists the sponsors of the legislation, and what to say to them. The alert lists the committee members, and what to say to them. And if your senators and representatives are not sponsors and not on the relevant committees, there’s a message for every other legislator. And it’s all linked. In other words, the alert makes it so easy, if this is an issue you’d like to be heard on, there is no excuse. Please take a look, and just cut and paste and click send your legislators an email.

As for me, I have long been concerned both as a librarian and a concened citizen about the accessibility of public documents including CRS Reports. That concern has been reinforced by the inability of readers to gain access, online or otherwise, to a CRS Report I discussed in a recent posting on this blog,, CRS Report-Juvenile Justice: Life Without Parole., September 14, 2009. Although the Report is summarized at some length, I was unable to post a link to it because no link was yet available. Almost immediately I started receiving inquiries from readers as to how they could obtain a copy of the entire Report. They too were unable to obtain a complete copy. This example points up the need for online access to very recent CRS reports as well as those that have been around awhile.

David Badertscher

BY: Alison M. Smith, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service (CRS)
September 14, 2009.

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Some question whether the United States justice system appropriately handles juvenile offenders.

Since the late 1960s, the juvenile justice system has undergone significant modifications resulting from U.S. Supreme Court decisions, changes in federal and state law, and the growing perception that juveniles are increasingly involved in more serious and violent crimes. Consequently, at both the federal and state levels, the treatment of juvenile offenders has shifted from a mostly rehabilitative system to a more punitive one, with serious ramifications for juvenile offenders.

One of these ramifications, sentencing juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole, continues to be a source of debate at both the state and national levels. For example, H.R. 2289, the Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009, would, if enacted, establish requirements for states to meet in order to retain eligibility for grant funding. Specifically, the bill requires states to provide all juvenile offenders a chance at parole at specified intervals during incarceration. This bill strives to strike a balance between holding
juveniles accountable for their actions, while at the same time providing them with an incentive to work toward rehabilitation while in prison.

In addition to the penological, moral, and legislative issues presented by a sentence of life without parole (LWOP) for juvenile offenders, courts are beginning to address the constitutionality under the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment of sentencing juveniles to long prison terms. The Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has divided Justices for years, resulting in a series of 5-4 decisions.

The Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits not only barbaric punishments, but also sentences that are
disproportionate to the crime. In capital cases, the Court has found the death penalty
disproportionate for crimes such as rape and felony murder. In later death penalty cases, the Court shifted from a punishment-crime methodology to a punishment-offender culpability methodology.

In finding the death penalty unconstitutional for mentally retarded and juvenile offenders, the
Court considered the physical characteristics of the offender and focused the proportionality
inquiry on the offender’s reduced culpability. In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the
Supreme Court recognized an established and evolving national consensus that quantifiable
behavioral and cognitive limitations diminish the moral culpability of juvenile offenders and,
consequently, impact their appropriate punishment. As such, the Court held that the death penalty is unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.

One question the Court left open is whether a minor’s reduced culpability can be a factor to mitigate additional sentencing options, or whether it applies only in capital cases. Is sentencing a juvenile offender to life without the possibility of parole sufficiently analogous to the death penalty to warrant an extension of Roper?

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases that may answer some of these questions. In
Graham v. Florida, the defendant was earlier convicted of committing an armed robbery and
assault. While on probation for these offenses, he committed a home invasion and robbery while
in possession of a firearm. Upon revocation of his probation, the defendant was sentenced to
LWOP. In Sullivan v. Florida, the defendant was 13 when he received the same sentence for a
sexual assault committed during a burglary. The Court’s resolutions in these cases are likely to
have a significant impact on the treatment of juvenile offenders at both the federal and state
levels.

This report examines Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and the legal issues involved with
juvenile LWOP sentences, and will be updated as events warrant.

Through various means, both web based and print, we are monitoring as best we can discussions related to the ongoing health care discussions. Below is an edited and excerpted version of some information we received recently from GalleryWatch in Washington, DC. We would like to share it with you. This updates our earlier posting on the Criminal Law Library Blog
____________________________

You might have noticed over the past little while that the Senate Finance Committee has been marking up a bill to reform our health care system.( see links following this discussion to the October 1 version of the bill from the Finance Committee and to a list dated October 5, 2009 of technical corrections to that bill).

This week,[last of September and beginning of October 2009] the last regular committee markup session on health care reform legislation wound down in the Senate Finance Committee. A conceptual draft proposal offered by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was amended with over 40 changes as of Thursday evening. CongressNow reported Thursday that the committee adopted an amendment offered by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that creates optional state-level public insurance plans.

The committee started its session with more than 500 possible amendments and considered over 100 amendments. There were reports Tuesday on the adopted amendments from last week's sessions and the committee defeated proposals to add a public insurance option offered by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday afternoon. Roll Call reported Wednesday morning that Rockefeller and Schumer are optimistic about the chance of new amendments on a public insurance option on the Senate floor.

On Wednesday, the committee rejected several amendments (view first and second amendments) restricting abortion coverage offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and another amendment requiring identity verification offered by ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Also on Wednesday the committee adopted an amendment by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) that allows senior citizens to deduct health expenses. CongressNow also reported Wednesday on Democratic efforts to tweak the tax treatment of high-end insurance plans.

TEXT OF AMERICA'S HEALTH FUTURE ACT OF 2009, AS AMENDED 10-02-09

TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO AMERICA'S HEALTH FUTURE ACT OF 2009, OCTOBER 5, 2009.

As Gallerywatch also notes: "With all the activity by the Senate Finance Committee, don’t forget about the two other health care bills out there, HR 3200 from the House and the Senate HELP Committee’s bill S 1679, named in honor of the late Senator Kennedy"

Hearing and listening to all of the media hype of the last few days, one could be convinced that the Baucus version released a couple of days ago is the only legislation being seriously considered in the present debate. Far from it. Not only do he have at least one House version of proposed health reform legislation, we also have another Senate version which was Reported by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP on July 15, 2009 and introduced yesterday as the Affordable Health Choices Act S. 1679 by the Senate HELP Committee Chairman,Tom Harkin.

This bill certainly represents a different viewpoint on health care reform than the Baucus bill and we hope it will help to level the playing field in the ongong debates and discussion on health care. The HELP Committee legislation does provide for a public option. Here is some of the language from TitleXXXI Affordable Health Care Choices for All Americans that appears on page 43 of the proposed legislation:

‘‘(3) OFFERING OF COVERAGE.—
17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A Gateway shall make
18 available qualified health plans to qualified individuals and qualified employers.
20 ‘‘(B) INCLUSION.—In making available
21 coverage pursuant to subparagraph (A), a Gateway shall include a public health insurance option.

Like the Baucus bill, the HELP Committee legislation has been going through its own evolution, the September 17, 2009 version contains changes from the July 15 version,. To enable you see these changes we have provided a link below to the Affordable Health Choices Act as introduced on September 17 and a second link to a chart which compares the July 15 and September 17 versions of the HELP Committee legislation.and indicates the changes between them..

Affordable Health Choices Act

Comparison Chart of Differences Between earlier (July 2009) Version of the HELP bill and the Harkin Version Introduced 9/17/2009

Today Sept. 16, 2009, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released the first draft of the committee's long awaited proposed legislation to overhaul the country's health care system. The proposal is the result of more than a year of preparation and more than three months of intense negotiations between a small group of Democrats and Republicans led by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.

The following are a few highlights of interest included in this 223 page proposal:

The bill includes a slimmed down price-tag of $856 billion over 10 years. Earlier versions of the health care legislation had come in costing $1 trillion or more

13 percent. That’s the share of family income that the Baucus plan envisions middle-class American families having to pay in health insurance premiums before co-payments, deductibles and other cost-sharing.

bill as proposed seeks to extend health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured American citizens. To do so, it would broadly expand Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, and provide government subsidies to modest-income individuals and families to help them buy coverage.

The bill has no public option. Instead, it would expand coverage by creating a network of state-based non-profit health insurance cooperatives. These cooperatives would be seeded with $6 billion in federal money, enough to cover start-up costs and meet insurance insolvency requirements.

All of the insurance plans in the exchange would have to meet strict new government requirements. Insurance companies could not bar coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and could only increase the cost of premiums based on a small number of factors, like age, tobacco use and whether a plan is for an individual or a family.

The Baucus health care proposal is now called the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009

For those who would like additional insight into the thinking of Senator Max Baucus and his Committee regarding health care issues we are also including a link to The Call to Action: Health Care Reform 2009, a white paper released by Senator Baucus and his Committee on November 12, 2008.

We are forwarding the following message from Emily Feldman of the Government Relatiojns Office of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) because it contains important information that we believe should be distributed widely:

OpenTheGovernment.org today released the latest edition of their annual Secrecy Report Card (http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/SecrecyRC_2009.pdf). This year's report card found slight decreases in government secrecy overall, though secrecy still trumps openness in many instances. This year's report also includes a special analysis of the Obama Administration's mixed track record on transparency.

Some of the highlights from this year's report include:

-FOIA backlogs were reduced slightly in 2008: government-wide, 17,689 more FOIA requests were processed than received in 2008.

-The Department of Justice reports 24,744 National Security Letter (NSL) requests pertaining to roughly 7,225 different U.S. persons were made in 2008, an 18% increase over requests in 2007—but a 50% decrease from reported 2006 numbers.

-More than 65% of the 6,840 meetings of federal advisory committees that fall under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) were completely closed to the public in 2008.

We encourage you to take a look at this year's fascinating report. The 2009 Secrecy Report Card is available here: http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/SecrecyRC_2009.pdf

After posting two articles on this Web site here and here related to the Obama administration seriously considering allowing much greater flexibility regarding the use of cookies and tracking devices on government Web sites, I thought I was finished with the topic. That is until this morning August 25 when I notices a well written and thoughtful editorial about "cookies" and the web in the New York Times. Since the editorial helped to clarify my thinking I wanted to share it with you here.

After a discussion of the issues, here in a nutshell are the concerns raised and approaches presented in the editorial:

1. More stringent requirements regarding the permanent and prominet display of notices on all government Web sites to clearly inform users that use of the Web sites is being tracked.

2. Make it easy for Web site users to opt out of being tracked if they so choose.

3. Have systematic procedures for purging information obtained on government Web sites through the use of "cookies" or other tracking systems as quickly and regularly as possible.

4.It is of greatest importance that the government build robust privacy protections into any tracking technology used on its Web sites.

5.. These rules and regulations should apply to outside parties that operate on government Web sites.

To see the editorial go to: I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25tue3.html

David Badertscher

Volume 2 Number 8 August 2009.

From the Desk of David G. Badertscher

Mmmm… cookies - chocolate chip and oatmeal with raisins! Cookies are one of the most popular snacks that exist today. Did you know you can get “browser” cookies almost every time you go on the Internet? These cookies help with Internet commerce, allow quicker access to web sites, or can personalize your browsing experience. However, there are some privacy and security issues to be aware of, so it is important to understand the purpose of a “browser” cookie and manage their use on your computer appropriately. This tip will help you understand what a “browser” cookie is, what it is used for and what risks might be associated with using cookies.

What’s a Browser Cookie and How is it Used?

Browser cookies are simply reference files stored on your computer, just like pictures and documents. When you visit a web site, the visited web site will often place a cookie on your computer. Cookies do not contain active content (executables) or links, just text-based information. The information in the cookie might indicate how often you visit the site, what kind of products you bought, what kind of things you searched for, etc.

There are two different types of browser cookies that are stored on your computer – session and permanent cookies. Session cookies are stored in the computer's memory only during your browsing session and are automatically deleted from your computer when the browser is closed. These cookies usually store a session ID that is not personally identifiable, allowing you to move from page-to-page without having to log-in repeatedly. Session cookies are never written to the hard drive and they do not collect any information from your computer. They are widely used by commercial web sites; for example, to keep track of items that a consumer has added to a shopping cart. For instance, when you add an item to your shopping cart while shopping online, the information on that item is placed into a cookie. When you are finished with your online shopping, the application then references the appropriate cookie, tallies up your purchases, and bills you for those items.

Permanent cookies are stored on your computer’s hard drive and are not deleted when the browser is closed. These cookies can retain user preferences for a particular web site, allowing those preferences to be used in future browsing sessions. Permanent cookies can be used to identify individual users, so they may be used by web sites to analyze users' surfing behavior within the web site. These cookies can also be used to provide information about number of visitors, the average time spent on a particular page, log-in information stored in an account, and generally the performance of the web site.

In addition to session and permanent cookies, many sites allow their advertisers to place “third-party” cookies on your computer. Third-party cookies allow the marketing or an advertising company to track your interests and browsing through multiple web sites and companies. Third-party cookies, ones used by companies you are not dealing directly with, are more of a privacy issue than a security issue. The more you allow companies to track your online behavior, the more they can market directly to your specific interests. How cookies are processed and/or stored on your computer is controlled by your browser’s privacy settings.

Risks and What Should I Do?

Although permanent cookies may be useful and convenient, there are risks associated with stored log-in credentials. Storing credentials in a cookie can increase the risk of your log-in information being discovered if someone else uses your computer or in the event your computer may be compromised. If your computer or the website you are visiting is compromised, cookies can be used for malicious purposes, such as hackers altering data in the cookie or intercepting traffic between your computer and the web site.

Is recommended that you:

Set your cookie preferences using your browser privacy settings.

Periodically delete cookies from your computer.

Session cookies should be automatically deleted when you have completed a financial transaction online. By clearing your cookies from your browser periodically you can decrease the risk of the misuse of information accidentally or intentionally stored in cookies.

Do not allow cookies to store login information.

Keep your system and browser up-to-date on patches, update your anti-spyware software, and only visit trusted web sites.

If you do not want to share your online behavior data with third-parties, set your privacy settings to not allow third-party cookies. Note, this may impact your browsing experience.

Be cautious when sharing your computer. If you stored credential information using a browser cookie (user names and password), the individual using your computer will have access to your account and will be able to process transactions in your name.

For More Information on Cookies Visit:

Web Browser Attacks: www.msisac.org/awareness/news/2008-07.cfm

Browsing Safely: Understanding Active Content and Cookies: www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST04-012.html

Evaluating Your Web Browser's Security Settings: www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST05-001.html

Http Cookie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

Free Security Checks: www.staysafeonline.info/content/free-security-check-ups

How to Control Cookies: www.aboutcookies.org/Default.aspx?page=1

The above comments are based on information tips provided by the Multi-State Information and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC). To learn more about MS-ISAC go to http://www.msisac.org/
_____________________

SHOULD COOKIES BE USED ON FEDERAL WEB SITES?

They say timeing is everything; sometimes I wonder. Late in July I begain receiving a number of e-mails about the federal government reconsidering the question of whether cookies and other technological tracking devices should be used on federal web sites. When this matter had been raised before, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House and presumably others decided that use of cookies on federal web sites should be greatly restricted in not prohibited. That decision was based on privacy and other concerned deemed especially important at the time. See a discussion of the issues from the perspetive of OMB at:
http://blog.ostp.gov/2009/07/24/cookiepolicy/

Now, with newer, more advanced and more accessible techology, and other concerns, the question is being reopened and revied. I have submitted comments to the Office of Management and Budget, but certainly wish that I had received the above information from MS-IAC before doing so. The public comment period ended August 10 (unless it has been extended) and I did not receive the very helpful information and resources included above until two days ago August 19. I guess timing is everything after all.

At the time I received the earlier information, I did some research and posted information and links for those who might want either more background information, submit comments to the OMB blog or comment directly to the Federal Register, or all the above on this Criminal Law Library blog . To see my posting, which incorporates material I submitted to the OMB, visit:

http://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/2009/08/should_cookies_be_used_on_fede.html

MORE;

Message Labs, now part of Symantec, has produced a white paper on what they consider the Top 5 Security Tips for 2009. The tips discussed are: Endure more than one line of defense; Educate your users about the risks; Control web access; Stay ahead of threats; and Know your legal obligations. To see the white paper go to:

http://whitepapers.technologyevaluation.com/download/9784/Top-5-Security-Tips-for-2009.html

OCTOBER IS NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH

“CYBER SECURITY IS OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY”
www.staysafeonline.org/ncsam

The Unclassified Report of the President's Surveillance Program released on July 10, 2009 is a review of the National Security Agency Warrantless Search Program, created during the presidency of George W. Bush some time after September 11, 2001. The unclassified report was prepared by the inspectors general of five government bodies involved in the original program. Among its many observations it raises questions about both whether the extensive secrecy of the original warrantless surveillance program limited its effectiveness and the legal basis of the original program..

The following is an excerpt from the Introduction to the Unclassified Report followed by a link to the entire Report:

From the Introduction:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct a classified program to detect and prevent further attacks in the United States. As part of the NSA's classified program, several different intelligence activities were authorized in Presidential Authorizations, and the details of these activities changed over time. The program was reauthorized by the President approximately every 45 days, with certain modifications. Collectively, the activities carried out under these Authorizations are referred to as the "President's Surveillance Program" or "PSP."

One of the activities authorized as part of the PSP was the interception of the content of communications into and out of the United States where there was a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication was a member of al-Qa'ida or related terrorist organizations. This aspect of the PSP was publicly acknowledged and described by the President, the Attorney General, and other Administration officials beginning in December 2005 following a series of articles published in The New York Times. The Attorney General subsequently publicly acknowledged the fact that other intelligence activities were also authorized under the same Presidential Authorization, but the details of those activities remain classified.

The President and other Administration officials labeled the publicly disclosed interception of the content of certain international communications by the NSA as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

UNCLASSIFIED REPORT ON THE PRESIDENT'S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM July 10, 2009.

The background information regarding U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor at our earlier posting has been updated to include her completed questionnaire which was delivered to the Committee of the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate on Thursday June 4, 2009. For those who have not seen it, that posting which is at:

http://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/2009/05/judge_sonia_sotomayor_backgrou.html

Web based criminal justice issues cannot be addressed in a rational manner without also the establishment and ongoing maintenance of a trusted and resilient information and communications infrastructure. Realizing the paramount importance of these objectives the Obama administration has been engaging in a mumber related activities including President Obama's recent call for the creation of a cybersecurity coordinator who will orchestrate and integrate federal cybersecurity policies and agendas, and the release by the White House of a Report: Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information Infrasturcture

These measures could not be more timely. The increasing rate that information on the web is being compromised in many ways including identity theft, willful distortion of information,and illegal wiretapping to name a few. Other organizations such as the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) have long been concerned with issues related to the continuing integrity or authenticity of information on the web and are actively engaged in developing recommendations and helping others understand the importance of achieving and maintaining information authenticity of the web but additional help and support is needed. It is therefore most encouraging to see indications that the Obama administration is interested in taking an active role in addressing these and related issues.

The following are links to documents and articles discussing recent cybersecurity initiatives of the Obama administration.

DOCUMENTS:

Fact Sheet Prepared byWhite House: Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure

Report Released by White House: Cyberspace Policy Review, Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure

ARTICLES:

Cybersecurity Review Finds U.S. Networks 'Not Secure'
The report dovetails with President Obama's call for the creation of a cybersecurity coordinator who will orchestrate and integrate federal cybersecurity policies and agendas. InformationWeek Daily Newsletter June 1, 2009.

Reaction toObama speech and 60-day report is widely positive Several senior lawmakers on Friday applauded President Barack Obama’s plans to improve cybersecurity. Federal Computer Week Daily June 1, 2009 Includes highlights of some inital reactions by members of congress.

Obama Announces White House Cybersecurity Position InformationWeek Daily Newsletter June 1

Obama Action Plan Calls for Cybersecurity Coordinator
By William Jackson
May 29, 2009
Federa; Computer Week June 1, 2009.
New White House post will anchor a suite of initiatives declaring that, “the status quo no longer is acceptable, we can and must do better,” President Barack Obama today announced creation of the position of a cybersecurity coordinator who will direct national cybersecurity policy from the White House. Federal Computer Week June 1, 2009