Well, with all of the coming and goings of the weekend, I forgot to “note” that we had received a response to our latest Right To Know request that read, in part:
As noted in that final response:
When a user enters a URL or IP address for a particular web page, the outbound request passes through the state’s internal network until it reaches the internal firewall. There, the request is routed through DOIT’s web filtering software. That software categorizes web sites based on historical content. Agencies establish filter policies that determine which categories are accessible or blocked. Based on a user’s login information, the software is able to associate a user with his or her IP address and based on the policy assigned to that user, determines whether the requested page is allowed or blocked. If allowed, the software permits the requested web page to be sent from the requested server to the user for viewing. The date, time, and destination of the outgoing request, as well as all IP information sent to the user from the destination web page, are recorded by the web filtering software. The actual content of what was either sent or received is not recorded.
We hereby request, in electronic digital form (in order to minimize time and cost on behalf of DES and DoIT), those records bolded in the above paragraph and to which the State has now admitted to possessing. Further, we also request the file / record layout description of the resulting file (fixed or variable field lengths, data types, et al). As computer consultants, our expertise will allow us to examine the data once received (we have several projects in mind for that data).
This request is asking for those records from January 1, 2005 to the present time (i.e., April 20, 2012), inclusive.
We also request that you name a single point of contact who will be in charge of complying with this RSA 91-A request. If possible, we would request Mr. Peter Demas be that person – we established a very good working communications protocol with Mr. Demas that proved to be beneficial to both parties in our last request.
Well, I think that the tenor of this RTK is going to be a bit “different” than the last one, given the inbound email:
Read more