REPORT OF THE BJSSEARCH NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON PRIVACY, TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION

1
REPORT OF THE BJS/SEARCH NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON
PRIVACY, TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATIONMay 31, 2000Washington, DC

• Presented by
• Robert R. Belair

2

• Why did BJS and SEARCH undertake this project?
• Why are BJS and SEARCH qualified to undertake
  this project?
• How did we conduct this project?
• What did we conclude?
• What did we not conclude?
• What are the next steps?

3
WHY THIS PROJECT?

• Law and policy for CHRI has changed little since
  mid 1980s
• Smokestacks -- Law and policy focuses on source,
  not content
• Information held by law enforcement
• Information held by courts
• Information held by commercial compilers

4
WHY THIS PROJECT?

• Technology -- Outflanking de facto protections
• Automation
• Name indexes
• Cumulative and comprehensive
• The Internet
• Privacy -- The American public more worried than
  ever before

5
WHY THIS PROJECT?

• Demand -- Appetite for CHRI for non-criminal
  justice risk management purposes at all-time high
• Integration -- Criminal justice agencies
  developing integrated information system
  strategies
• Commercial compilers -- Private sector compilers
  and resellers have emerged using new technology
  to meet mushrooming demand

6
WHY THIS PROJECT?

• Distinction between CHRI and other types of CHRI?
• Intelligence and investigative information?
• Victim information?
• Witness information?
• Distinction between selected non-criminal justice
  users and the general public?

7
WHY BJS AND SEARCH?

• BJS has been the lead agency in addressing CHRI
  and privacy issues and numerous other CHRI
  information policy issues
• BJS predecessor agency developed and promulgated
  DOJ criminal history regulations at 28 C.F.R.
  Part 20
• BJS/SEARCH CHRI recommendations in Tech 13 were
  the template for most state CHRI law

8
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Conducted extensive research for a 185 page
  report
• History of information privacy
• Structure of criminal justice information system
• History of constitutional, common law and state
  and federal statutory CHRI standards

9
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Current status of CHRI law and policy
• Subject access and correction
• Accuracy, completeness and timeliness
• Fingerprint requirements
• Disposition reporting requirements
• Sealing and purging requirements
• Security standards
• Use and dissemination standards for criminal
  justice non-criminal justice and the public

10
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Three case studies -- Florida, Washington,
  Massachusetts
• Research for report identifies ten change
  drivers
• Public concern about privacy
• The information culture
• Technological change
• System integration

11
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Research for report identifies ten change
  drivers (continued)
• Criminal justice business models
• Non-criminal justice demand
• Commercial compilation and sale
• Government statutes and initiatives
• Juvenile justice reform
• Intelligence systems

12
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• First-ever survey about the publics attitudes
  toward uses of criminal history information
• Relationship between Task Force recommendations
  and survey results
• Concern about privacy
• Role of the Internet
• Distinction between conviction and arrest records
• Distinction between selected non-criminal justice
  access and access by general public

13
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Relationship between Task Force recommendations
  and survey results (continued)
• Approval of the use of fingerprints
• Approval of fair information practices
• Concern about commercial compilers and large
  majority support for applying same protections to
  private sector as apply to government
• Eroding support for special juvenile record
  protections

14
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Established a national Task Force comprised of
  experts from
• Criminal history record repositories
• Courts
• Commercial compilers of CHRI
• Criminal justice and non-criminal justice users
• The media/open records advocates
• Privacy advocates
• Academics
• Government officials

15
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Task Force held three multi-day meetings
• Task Force reviewed content of report and
  provided extensive input especially about change
  drivers
• Task Force reviewed draft survey topics and
  questions and provided extensive input
• Task Force debated and adopted 14
  principles/recommendations for CHRI and CJRI

16
HOW DID BJS AND SEARCH CONDUCT THE PROJECT?

• Role of the National Conference
• Input from speakers and discussions
• Survey reaction/validation
• Reaction to recommendations
• Final report will be revised and published in
  fall 2000

17
WHAT DID THE TASK FORCE CONCLUDE?

• Global Rules. To the extent practicable, law
  enforcement, the courts and the private sector
  should be covered by the same rules for CHRI
• Remedies. Legal remedies for misuse of CHRI
  should be re-examined
• Fingerprints. To the extent practicable, CHRI
  held by law enforcement, courts and commercial
  compilers should be fingerprint-supported and
  accessible

18
WHAT DID THE TASK FORCE CONCLUDE?

• Sealing and purging. CHRI should be sealed or
  purged when the record no longer services a
  public safety interest
• Privacy Rights. Record subjects should have
  enhanced privacy rights, including notice and
  access to disclosure logs
• Juvenile Records. Where public safety
  considerations require, treat records of serious
  juvenile offenses the same way as adult records

19
WHAT DID THE TASK FORCE CONCLUDE?

• Profiling. CHRI databases should not include
  other types of sensitive personal information
• Integration. Integrated CJRI systems should be
  encouraged but should take privacy and profiling
  threats into account
• Conviction vs. Arrest Only. The new generation of
  law and policy should continue to recognize a
  distinction between the two types of CHRI

20
WHAT DID THE TASK FORCE NOT CONCLUDE?

• No policy recommendations for CHRI held by the
  media
• No policy recommendations for intelligence and
  investigative information
• No policy recommendations for integrated
  information systems

21
WHAT DID THE TASK FORCE NOT CONCLUDE?

• No specific policy recommendations for CHRI and
  the Internet
• Did not address the specifics of a new generation
  of CHRI policy -- addressed the conceptual and
  structural outline

22
WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

• Report will be published in fall 2000
• SEARCH will seek support for recommendations from
  other organizations
• Task Force recommends a statutorily chartered,
  three-year commission to develop detailed model
  CHRI policies
• Task Force recommends creation of a new task
  force to review privacy issues raised by
  intelligence and investigative systems