Questions on MATRIX Information Exchange System

You asked for background information on the MATRIX (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange), including a description of the system and what kind of data the database will maintain, how the Department of Public Safety (DPS) was able to participate without legislative approval, how the system will be funded when the federal government stops funding it, and whether there are any penalties for a law enforcement officer who misuses the system.

MATRIX is a centralized, multi-state database that combines a number of commercial and law enforcement databases, giving law enforcement officers quick access to crime fighting and other data, including sex offender lists, federal terrorists lists, criminal history information, and drivers’ license and motor vehicle registration information.

Only police have access to the system, and they may use it only for criminal investigatory purposes. Participating states must sign a memorandum of understanding with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which administers the project, agreeing to issue the license that provides access to the system only to individuals with proper credential. Both the license holders and agency must sign agreements holding them accountable for misusing the system or information retrieved from it.

MATRIX is funded with $ 12 million in federal money. Published reports indicate that it will cost each state an estimated $ 1. 7 million per year to participate in the program if federal funding is terminated in November when the pilot program is scheduled to end. DPS says it does not know how much it would cost Connecticut, but the department would seek federal grant funds to cover the cost.

As far as we have been able to ascertain, there is no law requiring DPS to get legislative approval to participate in MATRIX, which is one of several databases that the department uses or maintains, including the Connecticut On-line Law Enforcement Communications Teleprocessing (COLLECT) and the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). Similarly, it appears that none of the other participating states needed or got legislative approval.

The penalties for misusing the system are unclear. We believe that for DPS users they would be the same as those for misusing any of the other databases that the State Police now uses or maintains, including COLLECT and NCIC. According to DPS, there are presently 28 DPS MATRIX-trained and -certified users, all of whom were previously certified NCIC users subject to federal laws governing NCIC use.

Several states have declined to participate or opted out of MATRIX, mostly citing privacy or security and cost concerns.

The MATRIX database is maintained and operated by a private company, Seisint Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement administers the project, and a board of directors, comprised of law enforcement executives from participating states, provides oversight. Among other things, the board is responsible for setting operational policies and procedures governing information sharing among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

Participating states determine what data they will provide to MATRIX, based on their laws and federal law, and they are responsible for the accuracy of the data they provide. DPS provides Department of Correction files, including photographs; criminal history files; and sex offender files. It plans to provide motor vehicle files as well (registration and drivers’ license information but not drivers’ history files).

The states’ records are combined, and may be cross-referenced, with commercial and other public records maintained by Seisint. Seisint’s records include people’s Internet domains, bankruptcies, civil court history, liens, voter registration, business filings, federal firearms and explosives licenses, and professional licenses. When any state submits a request, the system reviews all the records simultaneously. The simultaneous review of the combined records speeds up the data retrieval process and allows law enforcement officers to create a comprehensive file on a person in minutes.

Currently, only primary state law enforcement agencies from participating states are involved with the MATRIX project. But the board of directors is establishing guidelines for other entities, such as local and federal law enforcement agencies to participate. Only legitimate law enforcement officers may access the system, and they may do so only for criminal investigative purposes using certified MATRIX operators. The system maintains a record of users and reasons for access.

The Department of Justice has provided $ 4 million for MATRIX and the U. S. Homeland Security Department has provided an additional $ 8 million. The project is scheduled to end in November. It is estimated that it will cost each state about $ 1. 7 million per year to use the system once the federal funding is terminated.

Connecticut is among five states participating in MATRIX. The others are Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Utah, which had signed on to participate, has decided to stay participation pending legislative review of the system because legislators expressed concerns that they did not know enough about the project. Utah’s governor has created an oversight committee to evaluate security, accessibility, and privacy issues of the system and has asked the Department of Public Safety and other state agencies to stop information sharing with MATRIX until the committee has evaluated the program and made recommendations. Published reports indicate that only Florida is using the system to its full capacity.

Originally, as many as 13 states had expressed their interest or signed up to participate in MATRIX. The following have withdrawn: Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Oregon, and South Carolina. Alabama, California, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia are among others that had expressed initial interest but did not sign the participation agreement.

Most of the states that withdrew or decided not to participate cited cost and security or privacy concerns. Louisiana expressed its lingering concerns about “security and control of information in our databases; uncertainty regarding future resources; and an ever-broadening scope extending far beyond the original counter-terrorism mission” (see Attachment 1). Kentucky cited the cost and other issues:

The first major concern is the cost of the project. Even though the projected $ 1. 2 million annual cost of the program is expected to be paid through federal funds, these funds are tax dollars that we feel could be spent more wisely within our state. The second major concern is the warehousing of information by a private corporation. Even though we have been assured that our state laws will follow any information from Kentucky, we have no way of tracking to determine if the information has been released lawfully until after the event occurs. We will be expected to provide all public and nonpublic data to a private corporation at no cost to the corporation and in turn purchase back the same information from the corporation (see Attachment 2).

Texas decided not to participate because of cost concerns and also because it considered some aspects of the system duplicative. In explaining the decision to withdraw, the public safety commissioner said:

The fiscal responsibility in participating in this endeavor cannot be reconciled in view of existing budget constraints and the potential recurring . . . cost of over $ 140,000 per month. Further there are presently legal, ethical, and financial considerations in providing non-public data sets at our expense to a private company to sell back to us. . . [Also] we already maintain and offer authorized law enforcement personnel access to a criminal and terrorism information web site. We also collaborate through other web partnerships in the anti-terrorism arena (see Attachment 3).

Other Attachments: Withdrawal letters from South Carolina, Oregon, California, and Georgia.


March 25, 2004		2004-R-0320
QUESTIONS ON MATRIX INFORMATION EXCHANGE SYSTEM

By: Veronica Rose, Principal Analyst