{
  "id": "1992-december-two-weapons-fight-unfair-database-pricing-old-fashioned-haggling-and-knowing-the-law",
  "slug": "1992-december-two-weapons-fight-unfair-database-pricing-old-fashioned-haggling-and-knowing-the-law",
  "url": "https://dwillis.github.io/uplink/article/1992-december-two-weapons-fight-unfair-database-pricing-old-fashioned-haggling-and-knowing-the-law.html",
  "year": 1992,
  "month": "December",
  "monthNum": 12,
  "headline": "Two weapons fight unfair database pricing: old-fashioned haggling and knowing the law",
  "kicker": "",
  "author_name": "Sandra Davidson Scott",
  "author_title": "Attorney",
  "affiliation": "St. Louis Post-Dispatch",
  "summary": "Missouri's public records law caps fees for computer data access to only duplication and staff costs, resulting in much lower prices than states like Texas that allow overhead charges; agencies often quote inflated prices hoping requesters won't negotiate, but those who push back can achieve significant reductions.",
  "keywords": [
    "records",
    "fees",
    "Missouri"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Data & Databases",
    "Investigative Methods",
    "Government & Politics"
  ],
  "technologies": [
    "mainframe"
  ],
  "full_text": "Recently I got a call from a man in Texas who wanted computer tapes of Missouri's drivers license records. He had called the Department of Motor Vehicles. The price quoted to him? $9,000. Three years ago, MICAR and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch got copies of DMV tapes. When first asked the cost, the DMV said $7,000. Fortunately for us requesters, Missouri has one of the nation's best statutes for keeping costs low. Missouri Revised Statutes § 610.026(2) limits fees to duplication costs and staff time only: 'Fees for providing access to public records maintained on computer facilities shall include only the cost of copies and staff time required for making copies.' That statute gave MICAR and the Post-Dispatch ammunition to take aim at the high price. Quickly the DMV dropped its price to $1000. After a meeting attended by then-Director of MICAR Elliot Jaspin and myself, the attorney for the Post-Dispatch, and a host of persons from the DMV (including the Director of Revenue, who supervises the DMV, and computer experts), the asking price dropped to $550. Negotiations on costs in Missouri are fairly straightforward because only two questions on costs arise- duplication costs and 2) staff time required for the requester's project. Period. Jaspin, ever a prankster, later popped into my office to tell me, 'The DMV isn't going to give us the tapes for $550.' He waited until he saw steam and then said, 'Nope. $440.' The process had taken less staff time than anticipated. For nearly 4 million records, $440 wasn't bad. So why the $9,000 asking price to the requester from Texas? I asked that question of the current Director of Revenue. 'Maybe he talked to the wrong person?' came the reply. Maybe. But the $7,000 asking price first quoted to MICAR a couple of years ago came to mind. But even $7,000 was cheap compared to the $30,000 price quoted to the Texas requester for some Texas computer records. Texas puts requesters on notice that its costs may be Texas-sized. Under Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 6252-17a, § 8(b), 'The costs of providing the record shall be in an amount that reasonably includes all costs related to providing the record, including costs of materials, labor, and overhead.' 'Overhead' could include helping to pay for the building and utilities! Why would state agencies ask such high prices, though, even in states with user-friendly cost statutes? My observation is this: Agencies sometimes ask a higher price than statutes warrant, and if the requester pays it, that's the end of it. But, if the requester balks, then negotiations may occur, and prices may drop to the maximum amount allowed by statute. The reason that agencies sometimes quote such high prices is that some requesters pay without even batting an eyelash. To, say, a large insurance company or telemarketer, $7,000 or even $30,000 may be no big deal-a simple cost of doing business and not a call to arms. The information business is highly lucrative. The Information Industry Association (IIA), based in Washington, D.C., represents more than 650 companies. Companies such as Knight-Ridder and Dow Jones are buying government data on tapes, loading it into mainframes and granting subscribers on-line access. That government might want to partake more in this multibillion-dollar industry is not surprising. Should government have a straightforward policy of charging commercial users more for records than other users? The federal government and some states do. Of course, this entails screening requests on the basis of 'purpose,' something which some states do not permit. On the federal side, the Office of Management and Budget published its Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986; Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines on Jan. 18, 1987. The report said that Congress clearly intended to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial users and to shift 'some of the burden' of costs onto the commercial users. The Kentucky statute continues: 'It shall be unlawful for a person to obtain a copy of all or any part of a database. for a: a) commercial purpose without stating the commercial purpose; or b) specified commercial purpose, and to use or to knowingly allow the use of the database. for a different commercial purpose; or c) noncommercial purpose, and to use or knowingly allow the use of the database. .for a commercial purpose. A newspaper, periodical, or radio or television station shall not be held to have used or knowingly allowed the use of the database for a commercial purpose as a result of its publication or broadcast unless it has given its express permission for such commercial use.' (Emphasis added.) Clearly, in Kentucky the news media are not considered 'commercial.' (How noncommercial some news outlets truly are, of course, is a regrettable fact.) Arizona § 39-121.03 is more restrictive than Kentucky's law and so broadly worded that it is not clear whether newspapers would be 'commercial users': '[C]ommercial purpose' means the use of a public record. for any purpose in which the purchaser can reasonably anticipate the receipt of monetary gain from the direct or indirect use of such public record.' (Emphasis added.) Arizona also provides for a trebling of costs of records, as well as attorneys' fees, if a requester 'obtains public records for a commercial purpose without indicating the commercial purpose or who obtains a public record for a noncommercial purpose and uses or knowingly allows the use of such public record for a commercial purpose New Mexico § 15-1-9(C) restricts all use of government's computer databases. A requester of a database has to agree, among other things, 'not to make unauthorized copies of the database'; 'not to use the database for any political or commercial purpose unless the purpose and use is approved in writing'; and 'not to allow access to the database by any other person unless the use is approved in writing.' The requester also must 'pay a royalty or other consideration to the state.' New Mexico law adds: '[A]ny person who reveals to any unauthorized person information contained in a computer database or who uses or permits the unauthorized use or access of any computer database is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction the court shall sentence such person for a definite term not to exceed one year or to payment of a fine not to exceed $5,000 or both....'",
  "provenance": {
    "extracted_by": "pre-v2",
    "extracted_at": "",
    "verified": true
  },
  "similar": [
    {
      "slug": "1991-may-cpu-time-part-two",
      "score": 0.237
    },
    {
      "slug": "1995-september-indiana-goes-electric",
      "score": 0.179
    },
    {
      "slug": "1994-september-japanese-equipment-prices-rising",
      "score": 0.166
    },
    {
      "slug": "2004-july-august-housing-prices-on-rise",
      "score": 0.156
    },
    {
      "slug": "1996-november-electronic-battles",
      "score": 0.154
    }
  ],
  "html_url": "https://dwillis.github.io/uplink/article/1992-december-two-weapons-fight-unfair-database-pricing-old-fashioned-haggling-and-knowing-the-law.html",
  "json_url": "https://dwillis.github.io/uplink/article/1992-december-two-weapons-fight-unfair-database-pricing-old-fashioned-haggling-and-knowing-the-law.json"
}