Re: [PLUG] City Lawyer: We Don't Store Data on Hard Disk

[Edmund Goppelt <webmaster@hallwatch.org>]

> Their "lie" is very plausible to both Barry and me. We don't think
> that they're telling the whole truth. We do think that there exists
> work that they don't want to do, that it is, in fact, not totally
> trivial, and that if they don't want to do it, you can be stuck
> asking them to for *years* with no result. It won't get you
> anywhere.

If the City isn't lying, then why won't they say what is preventing
them from copying their database records to CD?  It seems to me they
have nothing to lose and everything to gain by explaining what the
technical hold up is.

> > Ok, so what do you think we should be concentrating on in Court?
> 
> You should forget about court, go web scrape the data, and go on
> with getting something useful done. Litigation is not a functional
> process here.

I disagree.  Private businesses have to do two things or go broke:

1. they must keep their costs in line
2. they must please their customers.  

Government operates under no such constraints.  IMO, litigation is
often the only way to ensure that government addresses its own
inefficiency and unfairness.

> > Why assume? Information about the BRT's computer systems is a matter
> > of public record.  The BRT is in the midst of a transition from a
> > Mainframe/VSAM environment to Oracle.  According to public records,
> > the BRT currently maintains its property file on both the mainframe as
> > well as an Oracle 9i database with a web front end:
> > 
> > http://www.hallwatch.org/rtkasuits/suits/brt/brtweb
> 
> Who says their design actually meets that spec? Who says that all of
> the data truly exists in the same place? More importantly WHO CARES?

For somebody who doesn't care, you sure write a lengthy email!  As I
told Barry, this question is currently being looked into by the Court.

> > Were you aware that the City uses Linux?  Check out this photo taken at
> > the BRT's offices at 34 S. 11th St.:
> > 
> > http://www.hallwatch.org/rtkasuits/suits/brt/cama/brt_closet_cama.jpg
> 
> So, they've got a text book hand-labeled Linux buried in a closet.
> Are we to assume from that picture that they also still use Lotus
> 1-2-3?

Yes, I think it's a fair assumption.  The City budgeting process is
done with 1-2-3.  They probably use it for that.

> What's more, how does Linux-use prove competence at *anything*? I
> drive a VW Jetta. Does that make me qualified to work on its air
> conditioning system, let alone rebuild its engine?

The point I was responding to was Barry's assertion that City computer
folk are incompetent.  IMO, it's unfair and wrong to assume that the
City IT people are idiots.  They're not.  At least not in my
experience.

> > 2. The BRT will currently provide any member of the public who can
> > pony up $100 with a CD with their property file on it.  The file
> > consists of 73 fields.  How much more work could including the two
> > additional fields possibly be?
> 
> It means a change in their application. They're a beauracracy. That
> means it takes even more time than it would for a corporation.

If the Revenue Dept. can do it in a day, then why can't the BRT?  But
if they can't, then all the BRT needs to do is to provide a credible
explanation of why they can't.  So far they haven't provided one.

> > If I lose the suit, I will "spider" the information.  But there is a
> > larger issue here.  Is it reasonable to expect the City to be honest
> > about what it can and cannot do with its computer systems? I think it
> > is.
> 
> If that's what you want to get done, then you need to have someone
> familiar with how their systems actually work (that is NOT someone
> who's speculating; ALL of us on PLUG are speculating) on your side.
> Nothing else is going to convince any court.

Again, I must respectfully disagree.  Inference is not speculation. It
is using your head, not sticking it in the sand.  Myself and four
people from this list, working from known facts, came to the
conclusion that:

1. the BRT's claim that it doesn't store its database on disk is false.

2. the BRT is probably exaggerating how hard it would be to copy the
requested records to CD.

> They said, "No!". You accused them of not knowing how their system's
> designed. They chose to be obstinate. They can be obstinate for an
> indefinite period of time. If what you want is a petty lawsuit
> against the city of Philadelphia, go to town, but whining about it
> at PLUG and getting affidavit's isn't going to help much. If what
> you want is for your web site to provide useful information, you've
> GOT a way to get that information. Go get it, go on with your life.

As I see it, the requirements of PA's Right to Know Law should be the
floor and not the ceiling of our government's efforts to inform its
citizens.  Our government should strive wherever possible to "go the
extra mile," when it comes to making public records available to
citizens, especially those stored on computer.  Good government
requires nothing less.

Gabriel, I think I've got a good idea of where your sympathies lie at
this point. I don't think I'm ever going to persuade you, nor you me.
Let's agree to disagree.

--

Ed Goppelt
http://www.hallwatch.org
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --       http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug