Posted on 05/18/2010 8:41:44 AM PDT by butterdezillion
The Hawaii Department of Health claims in official communications that the original birth index and index of foreign births (which are both required to be retained permanently) don't exist.
When vital records were converted to their current electronic format and the computer itself allowed sorting and locating, the HDOH submitted the old, original paper indices (VR-1)to the comptroller for a determination of what should happen to them. The comptroller agreed that those indices should be retained permanently, as originals and/or as security and search microfilms.
The HDOH at the same time made a separate request for the certificates themselves (VR-2)to be analyzed and it was decided that they, too, should be kept as originals and microfilm security and search copies authorized.
So there were 2 different requests for 2 different kinds of documents which were in physical form, able to be microfilmed.
The Hawaii State Archivist says that microfilm copies were not requested for the indices and the Vital Statistics Office should have the originals as required in the retention schedule.
I asked the HDOH for their documentation regarding the destruction of these documents. (Every department is required to keep detailed records of what documents they have destroyed, showing that they followed the retention schedule.) The deadline for them to respond is past and they have not provided those records.
The illegal destruction of permanent records SHOULD prompt an investigation in Hawaii. We will see what the Ombudsman does with this. (Don't hold your breath)
The documentation for all this is on a new post at my blog, which I will link to in the 2nd comment.
I just finished reading the thread and I have a question: Is it a TROLL HOLIDAY?
Wrong. The effect is not the same. What's "under the hood" does matter to the user when it affects the speed and performance of the database.
The link I provided addresses and answers all of your questions.
The link I provided addresses the issue of index data for vital events.
From their review of HRS and UIPA. The link I provided answers your questions.
As a software developer and DBA, I think you simply don't understand the nature of electronic data processing. There may not be a transaction log in the format that you think it should exist. The law doesn't require the DoH to manufacture "a record" to respond to a request. So if the information you're requesting is not easily retrieved, they don't have to ask a DBA to run a bunch of database queries to gather and compile the information you want. Doing so would absolutely "frustrate" their function.
As an example, when I configure a server and database to track all access to certain types of records, there is no single "transaction log" that contains all of the "tracking" information. The tracking can be configured in multiple ways by multiple layers of software.
You seem very frustrated. If you'd like to understand basic system security, database administration, and such, I'd be happy to give you an overview and answer your questions. Freepmail me if you'd like. I'll tell you how to get in touch with me.
I agree with r9 — the ‘when’ is important. If you are correct, and key papers were destroyed this year, then it is that much more fishy. I take it the ‘public servants’ are being evasive about when this happened?
That said, you are doing IMPORTANT work! God bless you.
From THEIR review. That’s the problem. The OIP has already addressed the issue of whether computer tapes provided an excuse to not disclose what is on them, even though what is on them is public information. The OIP - the agency responsible for analyzing such things - said that the form of the record makes no difference.
When it comes to retrievability, this is what the OIP Manual says. After explaining that difficulty in retrieving the data may be an extenuating circumstance which allows an agency to be given more time to respond, and before explaining that if there are extensive records there may be a fee and the records may be disclosed in increments, it says (pp 40-41 at http://hawaii.gov/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf ) :
“For records not immediately accessible, the agency must:
(1) Locate the requested record; and
(2) Where the agency has identified possible exceptions to disclosure, review and segregate the information it must withhold or is allowed and has made the determination to withhold. Information that may be withheld must be segregated if it may reasonably be removed from the record (rather than withholding the entire record) and must be done in a way that makes it reasonably apparent that information has been deleted from the record.”
UIPA itself (In HRS 92-F(3)) says: “Government record” means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.
HDOH talks a good line, but the questions I asked still stand. How would disclosure of these government records compromise the security of the system or the integrity of the records, or keep the HDOH from efficiently adminsitering HRS 338-18? Just because they are in electronic form, that doesn’t mean that they are any different from any other government record.
Very important. Made a summary and special ping in Monster Ping.
[For those who don’t know, link is in my profile ‘home page’.]
As I said, you’re missing a basic understanding of electronic data management. Just because data is on a computer does mean it is “maintained” or a “record.”
The UIPA says that an agency doesn’t have to compile data to respond to a request. For example, the mother’s age is probably recorded on the long-form BC. Images of those long forms are also stored electronically. But if you asked for the age of every birth mother in August of 1961, the DoH would likely respond that they have no records responsive to your request. And that would be true. They don’t necessarily maintain that information. It’s on the computer, but they don’t have to compile the data to respond to you.
I didn’t ask for anything on a birth certificate. I asked for the records of activity on that file. Government processing. Stuff like the electronic record’s origination, being viewed, being printed, and being altered.
The HDOH did not say they COULD NOT disclose the data. They said that doing so would frustrate a legitimate government function. And I’m asking how disclosing the GOVERNMENT actions above would compromise the integrity of the record or the security of the system, or prevent the HDOH from the efficient administration of HRS 338-18 - especially if information can be redacted as long as it is clear that a redaction was made.
These records are supposed to be routinely provided to an auditor so that the “integrity of the records” CAN be ascertained - because somebody has to hold the bureaucrats accountable. Maybe if I charged a fee and said I was contracting to audit their file it would be OK, huh? If disclosing these records was going to wreak so much havoc that it would shut down their office, then the HDOH is saying that their work can never be audited.
What would that tell you? Would that be an acceptable situation? Why would somebody want that to be the case?
And BTW, I also asked for any paper records of processing that occurred before the file was converted to digital. They never even responded to that portion of my request. This isn’t about it being a difficult-to-access computer record. It has to do with the fact that they don’t think that processing records should be public. But processing records are the records of GOVERNMENT ACTION and are specifically why UIPA exists.
I tried to explain earlier that tracking information is not stored in a nice, neat format in one file. Security tracking information is configured in multiple places and by multiple methods. It is not simple to retrieve that kind of information. It would require significant effort from IT experts in various areas: operating systems, database, the application used to view and print BC's. And since they aren't required to compile data for you, which is essentially creating a record where one did not previously exist, it would frustrate the legitimate purpose of the employees whose expertise was needed to obtain the data for which you asked. And as far as providing that data to auditors, they don't "provide" it. Security auditors typically have direct access to the servers, databases, and applications while they are performing a security audit.
The security and access tracking required by HIPAA and SOXS was a nightmare to implement. It's time consuming and tedious to audit as well. We don't just print out a bunch of information for the auditors to review. It's not that simple. You are way oversimplifying something that is very complicated from an IT perspective.
Also, the fact that they print out an abstract (COLB) says that they don’t just have an image of the birth certificate on file. They have the data from the birth certificate entered in individual data fields. That’s how they can compile lists at will containing the type of event, name, and gender as well. They also have print-outs with the name of the parents and date at least (because that was on the COHB index list they printed out for John Charlton).
Since 2001 they have had all their birth certificates from hospitals submitted via electronic files. The hospital employee keys in the information. For older records that information had to be keyed in over 20 years ago, according to Okubo. That’s the “conversion to electronic” that Okubo talks about, even though it has nothing to do with Obama’s records unless his record only ORIGINATED since 2001. If Obama had anything on file with them before 2001 it was on paper and the data was entered into a database over 20 years ago.
So even if I had asked to see records showing the age of every birth mother in 1961, they couldn’t say they don’t have the information. They could say that they can’t disclose anything from the BC’s, and that would be a proper response. If I was a researcher they could disclose the ages as long as they didn’t also disclose the names.
But what I’m asking for is the record of government processing, with anything redacted that would disclose something on the BC itself.For instance, the origination date of the record would tell us about the GOVERNMENT’s action. The origination date of the electronic record can’t be Aug 8, 1961 so there should be no problem showing the origination date of the electronic record on the basis that it would reveal the “date filed” on the BC. The origination date should be sometime in the late 70’s to early 80’s. If it’s not, then it tells us that Obama’s BC was not complete by 1980 and the HDOH includes legally-deficient birth certificates (delayed) in their standard index data - and thus the index data that they claim is so conclusive actually DOESN’T mean there is a legally-valid BC at their office.
At this point my concern is with the HDOH, not with Obama. Obama could not “get away with” shenanigans if the HDOH obeyed the laws and rules. My gripe is with the HDOH, and that is the exact reason that the public is supposed to have access to government records: to hold government accountable. If the department in question gets to decide when it would be too frustrating to disclose government records, then there is no, zero, nada accountability.
I’m sure it is complicated, and it’s a good thing that it is. That way only the most educated crooks can exploit it. =P
What you’re giving as a reason could be a legitimate reason. It’s not the reason that the HDOH gave. Their reason wasn’t about the difficulty in getting the record; their reason was that somehow having that information available to the public would make the HDOH office fall apart, make the certificates all suspect, and allow anybody in the world to hack their system.
That’s also the reason they won’t provide the paper records I requested - for which the reasons you gave cannot be cited.
I never suggested that all they have is an image. I was giving you an example of data that is stored in electronic format but not actually maintained as a record. If they have to print data, then of course that data is stored in a record. I never suggested otherwise.
I know what you’re asking for and I’m telling you that it isn’t stored in a nice neat format in one place. They can’t just press a button and print a report for you.
You’re making conclusions based on a lack of knowledge about electronic data management. Some (not all) of your assumptions are simply contrary to the nature of electronic data management.
Actually, sometimes disclosing what information is tracked can truly compromise a system.
“This is admissible evidence.”
The forward to Dreams says parts of it are not based on fact without specifying which parts, so that places a legal deniability around the whole book.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I have read about evidence, there is not a single thing in Dreams that meets the FRE standards for evidence.
In my view when the truth comes out it is likely that Dreams will provide evidence of willful fraudulent falsification of eligibility by claiming an HI birth (and claiming to have seen his BC attesting to an HI birth) when Obama had knowledge that he was born in Kenya and conspired with others to hide that fact.
Dreams will be proof of intentional lies, not evidence of any Obama biographical claims.
Here’s the index list:
http://theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaDOHBirthList.gif
Post & Email link:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/26/okubo-responds-to-public-outcry-for-investigation/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
