1. REPORT OF THE BJS/SEARCH NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON PRIVACY, TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION May 31, 2000 Washington, 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 public’s 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