Own a dog, lose your privacy? Battle rages over dog license data in Minnesota

It's not just responsible breeders getting caught in the machine of government regulation. Now it's responsible pet owners, too.



Although to be fair, in this particular instance at least one local government agency is fighting to protect the privacy of law-abiding dog owners in Duluth, Minnesota. From the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:

For the past seven months, the city of Duluth has been fighting a request for what would appear to be warm and fuzzy data - information about city pet license holders. This month, it took the extraordinary step of asking the state for a “temporary classification” of the data - saying that allowing the data to become public “could adversely affect the public interest or the health, safety, well being or reputation of the data subject.” It would remain secret until the Legislature made it so permanently, or decided not to.

The deputy city attorney, M. Alison Lutterman, offered this as part of the rationale behind the action:

“Any legitimate need to know what the government is doing does not include a need to have access to the name, address and phone numbers of persons who obtain pet licenses, nor does this need to know outweigh legitimate privacy concerns of pet owners.”

The reporter didn't give a damn, apparently; he made fun of the idea that people who don't want their names and addresses offered up with the names, numbers, and types of their pets have any kind of legitimate beef.



I'd love him to tell that to the dog fancier told by her local animal control that it was their mission to drive every last breeder in their county out of existence. Or run it past the person doing rescue who ignored her local limit laws and squeezed in those dogs from the puppy mill raid that the local pound didn't have room for.



Or tell it to to any regular pet owner with one two many cats, or a yardful of strays she's feeding. Or maybe someone with a vindictive neighbor or ex who knows most pet owners will capitulate over just about anything if you threaten their dogs or cats.



Setting aside the civil liberties argument for a minute -- you know, the one where we have a right to privacy and oh yeah, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- anyone who can't see the very real implication of making dog licensing records public hasn't done his homework, or even spent ten seconds really thinking about it.



But by no means should the civil liberties argument be set aside. As at least a couple of commentors on the story point out when someone says that any information we give to the government is public, that's nonsense. My driving record isn't public, my taxes aren't public, and my social security number isn't public. Plenty of government information is private, and when it's not, there's usually at least some pretense of a state or public interest to justify it. There's nothing about simply owning a pet that even comes close to passing that test.



Besides, if my choice is to obey the law and lose my privacy or break the law and keep it, then I'll choose the latter every time. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Let's hope the city of Duluth isn't alone in how they see this issue, either.

Comments

[Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT]

Pat, I will have to check. A lot of people use it as a mailing list. I never have.

[The OTHER Pat]

Nancy, can they also get number, breeds, gender, and so forth of any and all animals you own?

[Lis]

Crap. This is the way they’re wasing *my* taxes? Time to pick up the phone and turn into a MAJOR pain in the ass…



Just be a pain in the ass it the right people! Remember that the City of Duluth is trying to keep the information private.

[Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT]

Here in Maine it is common knowledge that anyone can go to city hall and get a listing of every registered pet owner. It is valuable info for ownenrs of any pet biz.

[Janeen]

Crap. This is the way they're wasing *my* taxes? Time to pick up the phone and turn into a MAJOR pain in the ass...

[YesBiscuit!]

The blogpost talks about an "economic hurricane" and yet criticizes the city for its actions. The city's actions in this case would be *fiscally wise* (avoiding the loss of revenue), even if you care nothing about a citizen's right to privacy.

[EmilyS]

Bluedogstate has been posting about the abuse of animal licensing laws to track citizens for quite a while (sometimes aided/abetted by PRIVATE security firms). For example:

http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/2009/01/dog-owners-stand-up-to-abuse-of-power.html

http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/2009/01/hsus-sics-private-security-firm-on-dog_18.html



Dogpolitics raised an extreme alert a couple of years ago about NAIS

http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/nais_us_govt_ma.html

[YesBiscuit!]

Don't they realize this will drive revenue DOWN for the city? Or am I being too generous here?

[eli]

unh-huh. in the state I live in, a local television station makes it a point to maintain an annual database of the name, home address, position, and salary of every state employee. mostly, because it can. sometimes, on the off-chance it finds a salacious tidbit. _this_ is one way "public right to know", "public" information is used.

[Eucritta]

I'm having trouble coming up with a justifiable reason for anyone outside of government to even *want* this data.

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 20, 2009 @ 7:51 am



Don’t they realize this will drive revenue DOWN for the city? Or am I being too generous here?



Let's remember that the City is actually trying to KEEP the information private in this particular instance. So any letters sent should be supporting them in that position. Here is contact information for Alison Lutterman who is trying to keep this information private:



City Attorney's Office

Room 410, 411 West First Street

Duluth, MN 55802

Phone: (218) 730-5490

Fax: (218) 730-5918

[The OTHER Pat]

Here's a bit of legalese I found on this:



http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/2009/09005.html



Not enough caffeine yet this morning to attempt a lucid interpretation.



But I WILL say that if licensing my critters means my name, address, and listing of all the critters I own can be published in a newspaper somewhere, then I'm sorry, but that takes licensing my critters off the table!

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by Social Mange — April 21, 2009 @ 5:50 pm



Now, why doesn’t this Wee Willie Whistleblower disclose who’s asking for the data?



From his piece:



"It all started with a request from Brandon Stahl of the Duluth News Tribune"



And here is a link to Brandon Stahl's blog discussing his urgent need to get the CIty of Duluth to pony up this data:



http://www.areavoices.com/buzz/?page=listing&tag=70861

[Social Mange]

Now, why doesn't this Wee Willie Whistleblower disclose who's asking for the data?



It's fiscally responsible to keep it confidential. You don't need an employee to fulfill requests for data. There is also the matter of personal security; the city might be liable for anything that happened because of released personal data.



I hope the City wins the fight to keep this data private.