alison poe, deputy director wisconsin office of justice assistance alison.poe@oja.state.wi

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 computer systems

Is privacy important in Wisconsin?

Absolutely!

State Privacy Advocate in 1990’s

Legislative championsStrong media interestStrong agency support i.e.,

DOTAmount of sharing raises

privacy issueWIJIS 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.

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

The Workgroup

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

● 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.

The Challenges?

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

●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

What to tell Policymakers?