|
|
License plate identification, picture-taking drones and GPS tracking devices are legal in certain cases and their users may have only the best of intentions. So, what could possibly go wrong if these tools are deployed for purposes other than those for which they were intended? Welcome to the new privacy.
Just before Christmas the Lower Hudson News published a map of gun permit holders in two New York counties. The map included names and addresses of permit holders and was published in response to the shootings in Newtown, CT the week before. Most local readers and even those who viewed the map from afar have criticized the paper for its actions. Did the paper make the right decision?
Last week a discussion of Spatial Information Technology (SpatialIT) came to a bit of a head. The conversation, led by OpenGeo’s Paul Ramsey, may have unearthed a truth many would rather not hear: “... as we know, GIS courses are just the bait in the trap, to suck naïve students into a career where 90% of the activity is actually in data creation (digitization monkey!) and publication (map monkey!), not in analysis.” Is that right?
Last week Apple announce the well-anticipated iPad Mini. About a dozen articles focused on the fact that the wi-fi version of the device does not have a GPS chip. That's true of its big brother, the iPad, and its tiny cousin, the iPod Touch. The cellular versions all do have GPS. Why do these wi-fi versions miss out?
The Lower Hudson Journal News has been under fire for publishing a map of gun permit holders in two counties in New York State before Christma. (APB coverage 1, 2, podcast). On Friday January 18 the paper removed the interactive map. Why? Publisher Janet Hasson gave answers in a media statement and in a letter to readers.
In a statement in response to The Poynter Institute (a journalism school) she argued:
With the passage this week of the NYSAFE gun law, which allows permit holders to request their names and addresses be removed from the public record, we decided to remove the gun permit data from lohud.com at 5 pm today. While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit. For the past four weeks, there has been vigorous debate over our publication of the permit data, which has been viewed nearly 1.2 million times by readers. One of our core missions as a newspaper is to empower our readers with as much information as possible on the critical issues they face, and guns have certainly become a top issue since the massacre in nearby Newtown, Conn. Sharing as much public information as possible provides our readers with the ability to contribute to the discussion, in any way they wish, on how to make their communities safer. We remain committed to our mission of providing the critical public service of championing free speech and open records.
In a letter to readers published on Friday she wrote:
So intense was the opposition to our publication of the names and addresses that legislation passed earlier this week in Albany included a provision allowing permit holders to request confidentiality and imposing a 120-day moratorium on the release of permit holder data.
She goes on to say that during the 27 days the map was online any one interested would have seen it and that the data would eventually be out of date. She also noted that the paper does not endorse the way the state chose to limit availability of the data.
The original map/article still includes a graphic - but it's a snapshot, a raster image, with no interactivity. Says Hasson in the letter to readers:
And we will keep a snapshot of our map — with all its red dots — on our website to remind the community that guns are a fact of life we should never forget.
I continue to applaud the paper for requesting the data via a Freedom on Informat request, mapping it, keeping the map up despite threats and criticism and now responding to state law. I think the paper did a service to the state, to citizens and to journalism.
- via reader Jim and Poynter