Pierce County LINX (Legal Information Network Exchange) source code

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to RCW Ch. 42.56 (Public Records Act), I hereby request the following records:

Source code for Pierce County's LINX (Legal Information Network Exchange) system, along with associated metadata and revision history.

My preferences for format of the information, from most preferable to least, are as follows:

1. Remote access to the revision control system in which the source code is stored (read-only, of course) via Web browser or source code management system (e.g., Subversion, Bazaar, Git, Mercurial, etc.) client

2. A copy of the entire source code repository with all revision history

3. Snapshots of the software in the repository which correspond to the version of the software currently deployed and to the latest version committed to the repository at the time my request is processed

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Phil Mocek

Dear Mr. Mocek:

The captioned request under RCW Ch. 42.56 was for the following: “Source code for Pierce County’s LINX (Legal Information Network Exchange) system, along with associated metadata and revision history.” Please be advised the requested source code material is exempt under the following:

RCW 42.56.070 “Financial, commercial, and proprietary information”
RCW 19.108.010 et seq., “Trade Secrets Act”
RCW 42.56.420 “Security”

The material is exempt under RCW 42.56.070 because it is computer source code less than 5 years old the disclosure of which would produce private gain (including exploitation of valuable County property by you, MuckRock and/or customers or users thereof) and public loss (including loss of intellectual property rights in LINX and the investment related thereto, as well as impairment of the County’s ability to develop software and to contract for software acquisition in the future).

The material is exempt under RCW 19.108.010 et seq. because it is information, including a program or process that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

In addition, portions of the material are exempt under RCW 42.56.420 because they constitute information regarding the infrastructure and security of computer and telecommunications networks, consisting of security programs, security and service recovery plans, security risk assessments, and security test results to the extent that they identify specific system vulnerabilities.

As for your request for “associated metadata and revision history,” we are reviewing our records to determine whether we have any responsive material which is not exempt under the statutes discussed above, and expect to reply further to you in that regard by April 1, 2013.

Sincerely,
Susan Campbell

This response also sent via US Postal Service

Dear Sir or Madam:

I do not accept that the software written by public employees with public funding to run a public website is exempt from public disclosure under our stat's Public Records Act.

I do not stand to gain financially by making the source code for LINX easily accessible by the public any more than I would stand to gain financially by making any other otherwise-obscured public record more easily accessible to the public. You do not stand to lose any of the value of these records by allowing the public to examine them. They are not "county property"; they are information. They are a set of instructions that can be used to cause your computer or anyone else's to perform certain actions. When someone else learns what can cause a computer to do that which yours is currently doing, there is no detriment to you, as you continue to have knowledge of those instructions.

The public should be allowed to examine these descriptions of the processes by which our government presents our legal information to us.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

RE: appeal of denial of my records request of March 11, 2013

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please provide a status update on my appeal of your denial of access to this public record.

I do not accept that computer software---a set of instructions for a computer; a procedure---written by public employees with public funding and intended to run a public website that provides public access to public records, is exempt from public disclosure under our state's Public Records Act.

Please consider the following:

1. Disclosure of this record is in the public interest. Other entities may benefit from causing their computers to perform the actions described by the instructions known as "the LINX source code."

2. Withholding the LINX source code from public disclosure is not necessary for Pierce County employees' present or future use of those instructions.

3. Any monetary value of Pierce County employees' continued exclusive knowledge of the set of instructions known as "LINX source code" is difficult, if at all possible, to ascertain.

4. There will be de minimis or no expense or loss of revenue to Pierce County as a result of disclosure of the source code.

5. Disclosure of the LINX source code is in the best interest of Pierce County employees and in the best interest of the people of Pierce County.

6. Disclosure of the LINX source code will likely benefit Pierce County employees whose duties include maintenance of the machines currently instructed by these instructions, fostering collaboration on said maintenance, potentially resulting in derivative works which are beneficial to all users of the software, providing increased reporting and correction of software errors, and providing new contributions to software reliability, stability, and usefulness.

7. Disclosure of the LINX source code may encourage adoption of LINX by other counties and facilitate sharing of legal information among the counties.

8. I do not stand to gain financially by making the source code for LINX easily accessible by the public any more than I would stand to gain financially by making any other otherwise-obscured public record more easily accessible to the public, which is to say that any potential financial gain to come to me as a result of disclosure of this record is negligible.

9. Neither the people of Pierce County nor public employees of Pierce County stand do to lose any of the value of this record by allowing the public to examine them.

10. This record is not "county property"; it is information---a set of instructions that are infinitely replicable. Those instructions comprise a procedure by which a computer performs specific actions. When someone else learns what can cause a computer to do that which Pierce County's computer does when it executes those instructions, there is no detriment to Pierce County, as anyone who currently has knowledge of those instructions will continue to have that knowledge, and Pierce County's computer will continue to execute those instructions in precisely the same manner in which it executes them today.

The public should be allowed to examine these descriptions of the processes by which our government presents our legal information to us by way of the Pierce County Legal Information Network Exchange. We should have the freedom to cause our computers to run these instructions for any purpose. We should have the freedom to study how LINX works, and make adjustments to our copy of the LINX source code so it will cause our computers to do as we wish. We should have the freedom to redistribute copies of LINX source code so we can help our neighbors. We should have the freedom to distribute copies of our modified versions of the LINX source code to others so we can give the whole community a chance to benefit from our improvements in derivative works.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve us. The people, in delegating authority, do not give our public servants the right to decide what is good for us to know and what is not good for us to know. We, the people, insist on remaining informed so that we may maintain control over the instruments that we have created.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

RE: appeal of denial of my records request of March 11, 2013

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please provide an update on status of my appeal of your denial of my request for this public record.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

RE: appeal of denial of my records request of March 11, 2013

Dear Ms. Campbell:

I received your letter of December 31, 2013, which apparently was printed, scanned, attached, and e-mailed to me by Linda Gerull, who reported in her cover e-mail that you were out of the office on that day.

As a computer software developer and as an advocate of institutional transparency, I am particularly interested in software developed on behalf of the public by government staff. I strongly believe the public should be allowed to examine the source code for our public software. The majority of my professional work is done with the use of open source software, and I am keenly aware of the public benefit of open access to such. In an effort to facilitate public access to software prepared by public staff, I have previously requested and received the source code for Seattle Police Department's Online Reports application, then published it for all the world to see at <https://github.com/pmocek/seattle-police-online-reports>.

At the Washington State Open Government Conference I attended on March 9, 2013, a representative of Pierce County publicly described a website operated by your department, Pierce County LINX (Legal Information Network Exchange), noting that the software used to operate the site was written in-house by county staff. I was, of course, eager to review this public work that your colleagues prepared. I hoped that the source code for the site had already been published somewhere that the public could easily find it, but despite performing multiple keyword searches of the World Wide Web, I was unable to locate it.

After placing a Public Records Act request on March 11, 2013, for the LINX source code---a set of human-readable instructions that can be automatically compiled into one or more computer programs, that were written on the job by public employees, that are intended to be used to operate a public website that provides public access to public records---I e-mailed your office a total of 15 times (not including this e-mail), on the following dates: April 13, May 15, May 22, July 11, July 26, August 10, August 25, September 9, September 24, October 9, October 24, November 8, November 23, December 8, and December 27. Each of those messages was addressed to the same e-mail address at your department. During that time period, I successfully used the same system many dozens of times to contact other public agencies regarding public records.

I am puzzled by your claim that you received only one of those messages. I am familiar with the Internet e-mail delivery protocol, SMTP, and I know that due to the store-and-forward nature of that protocol, messages do not simply disappear. Perhaps you are using faulty e-mail filtration software that obscures messages after your mail server confirms receipt of them.

A comprehensive archive of our contact regarding this matter has been automatically created and is available for anyone with a Web browser to examine at <https://www.muckrock.com/foi/pierce-county-74/pierce-county-linx-legal-information-network-exchange-source-code-3284/>. Today, I carefully reviewed that archive and found it to be accurate.

I continue to await response to my April 13, 2013, appeal of your denial of access to the public records I requested and to the additional detail I provided to you via e-mail on May 22.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

RE: appeal of denial of my records request of March 11, 2013

Dear Ms. Campbell:

I have not received any contact from you or anyone at Pierce County regarding this matter since my e-mail to you on February 2. I believe that by continuing to deny my access to this public record, you remain in violation of the Public Records Act.

Please respond.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on March 11, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.