January 18th, 2016 IRC Meeting

From Mass Pirate Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Review & Decisions

S.734 Endorsement?

We have been asked to endorse the fusion center reform bill S.734, An Act to protect freedom of speech and association.

Campaigns Status

2016 Campaign

2016 Campaign Plan & Task Status

Pirate Pads:

  1. quick how to publicize and run a regional meeting document
  2. text for campaign site
  3. Post videos on:
    1. why run
    2. planning your campaign
    3. how to get on the ballot
    4. how to gather signatures

Event Planning

  1. June, PirateCon 2016

Upcoming Events

  1. 1/27, 6-9pm, Somerville Cryptoparty

Every Wed., Digital Fourth meeting, 11:20am-1:30pm, Voltage Cafe, Third Street, Cambridge


  • jokeefe
  • igel
  • srevilak
  • Kendra
  • bestpiggy


  • davidd
  • Pharyngeal
  • zby


Discuss endorsement of S734. Vote 5-0 to endorse (no abstentions)


21:02 < jokeefe> agenda -
21:02 < jokeefe> ids - James O’Keefe, Somerville
21:02 < srevilak> Steve Revilak, Arlington
21:02 < igel> william fleurant, arlington ma
21:03 < jokeefe> we have been asked to endorse S.734, An Act to protect
        freedom of speech and association.
21:03 < jokeefe> https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S734
21:04 < jokeefe> Section 2 ½. At least once annually, every criminal
        intelligence system shall conduct an internal audit, the report of which
        shall be a public record. This audit shall include:
21:04 < jokeefe> (1)For each database that contains personal data,
        the number of authorized users, each user’s level of access, and the
        quantity of data accessed by each user on a weekly basis;
21:04 < jokeefe> (2)For each database that contains personal data,
        the number of transactions performed by transaction type, unique user,
        and access location;
21:04 < jokeefe> (3)For each database that contains personal data,
        the quantity of data collected and maintained from each unique source,
        and the frequency of use in an investigation of data from each source;
21:04 < jokeefe> (4)The numbers of investigations authorized and denied
        under subsection (b)(4) of section 1A of Chapter 276;
21:04 < jokeefe> (5)The number of investigations authorized under said
        subsection (b)(4) that remain open;
21:04 < jokeefe> (6)For each open investigation authorized under said
        subsection (b)(4), the length of time the investigation has remained
        open and a justification for continued collection or maintenance of
        protected information;
21:04 < jokeefe> (7)The number of investigations authorized under said
        subsection (b)(4) that have led to indictments or prosecutions, and the
        names and docket numbers of resulting court proceedings;
21:04 < jokeefe> (8)The number of authorized disseminations under
        subsection (b)(3) of section 1A of Chapter 276, and to which entity each
        dissemination was made.
21:04 < jokeefe> Section 2 ¾. Every criminal intelligence system shall
        provide assistance and unrestricted access to the inspector general,
        who may from time to time prepare a report on the compliance of criminal
        intelligence systems with section 1A of Chapter 276, which report shall
        include recommendations for corrective action and be a public record.
21:05 < igel> hey Kendra
21:05 < jokeefe> ahoy Kendra
21:05 < Kendra> Hi All, Kendra Moyer in Highland Park, Michigan
21:05 < jokeefe> agenda -
21:06 < srevilak> kendra: talking about
21:06 < igel> public record..?
21:06 < srevilak> I like section 1A(a)
21:06 < srevilak> No state or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial
        office, criminal intelligence system, police or peace officer, or agent
        thereof shall track, collect or maintain information about the political,
        religious or social views, associations or activities of any individual,
        group, association, organization, corporation, business or partnership or
        other entity unless such information directly relates to an investigation
        of criminal activities, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the
        subject of the information is involved in criminal conduct.
21:07 < jokeefe> the report is public record
21:07 < igel> aah
21:07 < jokeefe> yes, srevilak, 1A seems to put limits on what they
        can gather
21:07 < igel> like.. when the police of boston looked up tom brady's
        info thousands of times one year
21:09 < srevilak> I'm in favor of endorsing.
21:09 < igel> same, why would this stuff not be logged?
21:09 < srevilak> Perhaps related: go to
21:09 < srevilak> and search for the phrase "wiretap"
21:10 < srevilak> You'll see a number of "Annual report of wiretap
        interceptions", from various DAs.
21:10 < srevilak> None of which are available from the legislatures
21:11 < jokeefe> ahoy bestpiggy
21:11 < bestpiggy> heythere
21:11 < jokeefe> discussing endorsing
21:11 < srevilak> I hope S734's `public records' are more public than
        these wiretap reports
21:11 < igel> hmm u have to req from senate clerk office?
21:12 < Kendra> I am curious as to how would this pertain to say, the
        Patriot Act?  Would it be a matter of state vs federal law?  What about
        RICO laws and such? Becasue they defiitely track  and psychologically
        profile based on your associations.
21:12 < srevilak> igel: yes, that's what it says
21:13 < srevilak> Kendra: since S734 applies to "state or local law
        enforcement agencies", I suspect it would pertain to MA agencies.
        Feds could still do what feds do
21:13 < igel> beyond wiretap, i assume S734 is for other databases?
21:14 < jokeefe> looks like it.
21:15 < jokeefe> just says information
21:15 < srevilak> Guess it depends on whether wiretaps go into a "database
        that contains personal data"
21:15 < igel> i see no argument against making these queries available
        to the public
21:16 < jokeefe> “A record of any such written authorization, which
        shall specify the reasons the dissemination is necessary, shall be
        maintained for a minimum of five years. The originating entity shall
        record each instance of dissemination, whether written or oral, in a log
        containing the name of the subject or subjects, the name of the entity
        with whom the information was shared, and the date of dissemination.”
21:16 < jokeefe> doesn’t say what form the record takes, I believe
21:17 < jokeefe> good to have a 5 year review, but that seems like a
        long time between reviews
21:18 < jokeefe> other observations?
21:18 < Kendra> There would very likely have to be identifying personal
        data to match wiretaps or any other evidence to the specific case
21:19 < Kendra> If cause for a case was well established.  I am
        unconvinced that anyone's privacy is really being respected in these
21:19 < igel> mm
21:20 < srevilak> On bright side, section 2-1/2 applies to "every criminal
        intelligence system", and BRIC is specifically listed in the definition of
        "criminal intelligence system".
21:24 < jokeefe> seems to be an improvement.  any reason not to endorse?
21:25 < igel> i hope it passes.. this city doesnt need insane nypd laws
21:25 < Kendra> I agree with endorsing, undeerstanding it has some
        potential limitations around transparency.
21:25 < srevilak> bestpiggy: any thoughts?
21:26 < igel> re:
21:26 < bestpiggy> i agree with endorsing.
21:27  * srevilak found answer to wiretap reports.
        section R.  Public record made available @ office of district attorney
21:28 < jokeefe> all in favor?
21:28 < srevilak> aye
21:28 < bestpiggy> aye
21:28 < igel> aye aye
21:29 < jokeefe> aye
21:30 < Kendra> aya
21:30 < jokeefe> any opposed?
21:32 < jokeefe> motion to endorse S.734 passes
21:34 < jokeefe> I’ll post it
21:34 < jokeefe> Anyone have an update on 2016 Campaign?
21:35 < srevilak> I need to write some blog posts.  Hoping to have one
        ready for Thu
21:35 < jokeefe> thanks.
21:36 < jokeefe> me too
21:36 < jokeefe> that is all I have.  Been a busy week
21:36 < igel> no nope..
21:37 < srevilak> I have a (short) quartermaster update
21:37 < igel> can we ping h to see if next week at parts is setting a
        topic or requests
21:38 < igel> cool update us then =)
21:38 < jokeefe> please do, srevilak
21:38 < srevilak> filed our 2015 annual report about a week ago, ahead
        of 1/20 filing deadline
21:39 < srevilak> everything balanced out nicely
21:39 < srevilak> We have $624 remaining in the bank
21:39 < srevilak> Also noteworthy: a recent OCPF enforcement action
21:39 < srevilak> MA prohibits political groups from fundraising at
        public buildings
21:40 < srevilak> this also means you can't sent fundraising requests
        to public officials work email addresses
21:40 < Kendra> Thanks for keeping track and doing all of that.
21:40 < Kendra> Interseting timing on that new development during
        campaign year
21:40 < srevilak> Guess that means we have to filter out @mass.gov when
        sending requests for donations
21:41 < jokeefe> good to know.
21:41 < jokeefe> also cities & towns
21:41 < srevilak> There's also public comment we might want to condsider
21:41 < srevilak> http://www.ocpf.us/
21:42 < srevilak> on feb 24th, state folks will discuss what exactly
        constitutues coordination between candidates and independent expenditure
21:42 < srevilak> At any rate,
        http://files.ocpf.us/pdf/newsletters/2016winter.pdf has more interesting
        enforcement actions
21:43 < srevilak> end of quartermaster report
21:44 < jokeefe> write up a comment for us to endorse
21:44 < jokeefe> igel, somerville cryptoparty doesn’t yet have an agenda
21:45 < igel> okay cool,
21:45 < jokeefe> Anything else?
21:45 < igel> ch, yeah. nope
21:47 < srevilak> nothing here
21:47 < Kendra> Nope, move to adjourn?
21:47 < jokeefe> 2nd
21:47 < jokeefe> all in favor?
21:47 < Kendra>  aye
21:47 < igel> aye
21:47 < srevilak> aye
21:47 < jokeefe> aye
21:47 < srevilak> will post transcript