Comment by mbreese
2 months ago
This is a technical solution to a people problem. My reading is that the city doesn’t want to give up this information. If that’s the case, a technical solution wouldn’t work, no matter how easy it is. And given that this has already gone to the Illinois Supreme Court (and lost), the only solution is what is discussed at the end: updating the law.
I agree this is something of a technical solution, but the court wasn't interpreting whether you could ask for rows from a database, but whether you could ask for the schema directly. I don't think the court had the option of saying "you can't ask for the schema, but asking for a sample row is ok".
The short answer is yes, you can do this. I've seen this work for emails, where the request is basically, "Give me the most recent email of blah@gov.com".
And yeah, the plan was to eventually submit a batch of requests using the table names, similar to `SELECT * FROM {table_name_from_schema_request} LIMIT 1`, but one FOIA request per-table.
I have once wrote a script that translated sql requests into proper Ukrainian legalize invoking the equivalent of FOI to quite citizenship statistics from the agency. It worked, but they were not very happy when I had to get to them on the phone.
Seems like you could asked for a verbally masked description? Like an enigma coda specific to the FOIA.
"Describe to me the columns, in simple non-programmatic english, and what the purpose of the table is for, for each table related to parking tickets"
Essentially a human to schema DSL That is only technically decipherable by the admin of the database. Then you're not having actual code and only the admin could decipher.
But yah, as you said, if the humans don't want to disclose their foibles, how the request is filled is technically meaningless.
3 replies →
No offense, but how can you be 1) insisting it's safe to give up the information to you and 2) openly planning to use the information obtained for further exploitation, at the same time? You can't have the cake and eat it too, unless the information available in 2) technically do not depend on 1) but doing it this way would only save them massive time or something.
> the only solution is what is discussed at the end: updating the law.
That, and actually penetrating the data system and subsequently "leaking" parts of it. Which is nearly always illegal, but could be considered a form of "Civil Disobedience" especially if done ethically - e.g. removing sensitive data or leaking only aggregates of the data. Either from outside, or by a whistle-blower.
I'm not saying "hack the government!". But I am arguing that the pressure of "getting hacked" is like the pressure of protests, blockades, occupying facilities etc, all of which civil disobedience, and often simply illegal too. All are tools in the belts of civilians to keep a government in check. Extracting information that a government is not willing to give but that would benefit the governed, should IMO often be considered such a tool as well.