Bill Description: House Bill 88 would allow cities to delete most media records after 90 days rather than two years as is currently required.
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
House Bill 88 would amend Section 50-907, Idaho Code, to allow cities to delete "municipal media recordings" after 90 days if they are not "associated with a law enforcement report or prosecution."
Even law enforcement media recordings will fall under this 90-day timeline if they are not classified as being "associated with a law enforcement report or prosecution."
It is not difficult to envision a scenario where the public might not realize the significance of a media recording within the first 90 days. House Bill 88 may well end up allowing for the destruction of records that could prove important after the retention period has expired.
The Fiscal Note for House Bill 88 suggests that shortening the retention period will "save the citizens of Idaho Falls more than $1.7 million annually," which calls into question how much the city is paying (and to whom) for its data storage.
Many factors determine the cost of commercial data storage, including the frequency of access. The cost of data storage decreases for data that is accessed infrequently, though the data retrieval costs are higher. If cities believe this video footage is so unlikely to be needed that it can be safely deleted, it could also be moved to inexpensive cloud storage intended for infrequently accessed data.
STAY CONNECTED with the latest news, research and opinions from the Gem State.