Rebane's Ruminations
April 2011
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my KVMR-FM bi-weekly commentary recorded on 21 April 2011.  I have added a relevant addendum about information from a subsequent conversation I had with a Nevada County staffer.]

Not many people have been paying attention to a complicated lawsuit whose defendants include Nevada County, Mr Greg Diaz, its initially appointed then elected Clerk-Recorder, and Aptitude, a Florida software company.  The whole thing would be forgettable, except for two things – the legal bills the county is running up, and the pile of unanswered questions that just seem to be getting more curioser by the week.

Let’s back up.  ATPac, a software company located in Auburn, provided software and services to our county’s Clerk-Recorder office for about ten years before Mr Diaz arrived.  The software was used to handle, store, and retrieve county records.  In 2008 Mr Diaz decided that it was time to re-select the county’s record-keeping software vendor, and the county issued an RFP, request for proposal, and thereby opened up a bidding process which culminated with Aptitude replacing ATPac.  During the migration from ATPac’s software to Aptitude’s software, some irregularities occurred.  As a result ATPac sued, alleging that its intellectual property had been compromised by the county and Mr Diaz by allowing Aptitude to have access to its proprietary computer programs.

The county and Mr Diaz denied doing anything improper, and under advice from county counsel, the Board of Supervisors authorized legal fees for a strong defense as both sides began pre-trial preparations to gather evidence and take depositions from involved parties.  A complication surfaced almost immediately when attorney Barry Pruett decided to oppose the incumbent Mr Diaz in the November 2008 election.  While not involved in the lawsuit, Mr Pruett had worked for the law firm representing ATPac in the lawsuit, he was familiar with the case, and made its already apparent irregularities an issue in the campaign.  Conservative bloggers Russ Steele of NC Media Watch and my Rebane’s Ruminations supported Mr Pruett, and liberal bloggers along with the county establishment supported Mr Diaz.


Mr Diaz handily defeated Mr Pruett, and became the elected Clerk-Recorder.  Meanwhile, the pre-trial activities kept turning up more and more questionable aspects about the conduct of the county’s IT staff and Mr Diaz during the transfer of county data and installation of Aptitude’s software system.  Finally, on 26 February 2010 The Union published a comprehensive look at the lawsuit, and then promptly went silent again.  Meanwhile local bloggers kept up coverage of the case as more and more material was made public.

The main issues alleged in the suit include the county and Mr Diaz giving Aptitude unfettered access to ATPac’s software, the county’s destruction of evidence in the ‘scrubbing’ of its records server, and the mysterious loss of the archive of emails that covered the communications between the county and Aptitude during the critical interval of system conversion.

As a computer professional, it is hard for me to understand how a government server containing evidentiary material to an ongoing lawsuit came to be completely erased, without so much as an archival copy of its contents being made.  And it all happened under an accountability chain that is still shrouded in mystery.  The bottom line here is that the county failed to provide federal court ordered evidence needed by ATPac.  After months of county stonewalling, the court sanctioned the county to the tune of $20,000, and will now instruct the jury that the county has destroyed evidence relevant to the case.  In spite of the internally ordered scrubbing of the server, the county continues to deny any and all culpability.

The assessed $20K fine is chump change compared to the legal bills the county has coughed up and continues to authorize as this tale unwinds.  To date the county has paid over $350,000, and estimates put the total legal costs well north of half a million that could even approach a million dollars.  And the big question that goes begging here is – for what?  Why does the county not settle with the plaintiff ATPac and be done with it?  There is even a rumor that Aptitude is quietly seeking such an out of court settlement.  For timely coverage of these developments, please visit NC Media Watch.

So now the county is telling the court that it withheld no evidence.  But after months of stonewalling and with a ‘scrubbed’ server on their hands that was not backed up, it strains credulity to accept the county’s denial.  Moreover, throughout the time in question the county has employed very astute and capable IT management and staff; therefore it is hard to lay these mysterious mistakes and omissions on their doorstep. 

To many of us it is clear that the longer this case festers and racks up lawyer bills during a cash strapped recession, the more it begins to smell that somewhere here there is a political connection that must not see the light of day.

Maybe some answers will be forthcoming when the Supervisors again meet next Tuesday at the Rood Center.  Somebody might even go there and ask them why we continue to spend all this money.

My name is Rebane and I also expand on these and other themes in my Union columns, on NCTV, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

[Addendum]  Since recording this commentary on 21 April, I had a conversation with a very professional and competent sounding county staffer involved with the case who was referred to me by CEO Rick Haffey.   I asked a number of questions about the county’s risk management policy and resources in cases like this, especially as they involved errors and omissions insurance.

It turns out that the county does have an E&O policy that covers such lawsuits, and the county has begun the process to tender a claim.  However, the overall procedure to recover any costs is a complex one, and its details are privileged information at this point.  My interest in the aspect of E&O insurance arose from a separate discussion in which I asked ‘Under what conditions, if any, would the insurance company refuse to honor claims that the county would file pursuant to this lawsuit?’

Posted in , ,

113 responses to “The Diaz Case Continues”

  1. John Galt Avatar

    Excellent report George. The County used to be self-insured, so the E&O insurance is interesting to learn of. However most insurance policies require that the insurance company be notified at the first hint of a legal claim so that they can mitigate their loss for coverage. It seems the county did not do that from your report, so it’s doubtful the E&O (Errors and Omissions) coverage would fully apply. Furthermore, I’m puzzled at how E&O insurance would even apply…the county wasn’t the one providing the service. In otherwords, E&O insurance would typically be the wrong type of insurance for this type of claim.
    Since The Coupon Courier has time to file a freedom of information act request on the CHP for the recent tow truck accident, perhaps it can also make time to get a copy of all the County’s insurance policies (or at least the E&O policy.)
    One thing holds true with all such insurance policies: Criminal or fraudulent activity is not covered.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    JohnG, the county’s insurance policies are indeed open for public inspection. However, specific communications between insurer and insured relevant to an ongoing case, such as Reservation of Rights Memos, are privileged.
    I did not learn about the timing of the county’s communications with its insurance company, and did not mean to imply any information in that regard.
    The E&O insurance would, for example, apply if/when the plaintiff prevailed in the arguments that the county authorized Diaz to reveal ATPacs intellectual property to Aptitude, and that it inadvertantly destroyed evidence material in the case (as with the server scrubbing).
    Your last statement was the motivation for my concluding question.

    Like

  3. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2011/04/county-we-did-not-do-it-judge-you-destroyed-the-evidence.html
    “Really, no wrong doing? How does the County make their case when they destroyed the evidence? Yes, at both ends! Aptitude Solutions had huge computer crash that resulted in the loss of all e-mails between the County and Aptitude Solutions. How convenient! Hey, County were is the evidence that you did not do it, the Judge is not buying your explanation.”
    “Yes, at both ends! Aptitude Solutions had huge computer crash…”
    Hey Russ,
    I wonder if San Diego was on the same Aptitude server and lost all their e-mails. 😉
    http://www.aptitudesolutions.com/Clients-OurClients.html

    Like

  4. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Sorry, wondering if Aptitude lost their e-mails to / from San Diego also.

    Like

  5. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    I agree with both of you – E&O will be a hard pressed collection based only on what we already know. Deleting probably doesn’t fall under an error or an omission, I have a sneaky suspion that their answer is a two word answer – one starts with an F and the other with an O. They may have been under the impression that they could collect and its why they don’t seem worried – yet.

    Like

  6. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Actually this was very good topic for this since there hasn’t been alot of coverage locally.

    Like

  7. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Rebane is secretly laughing at all the people who don’t understand how trivial a programming exercise this is.
    Ask him to go on record as to how long it would take him to come up with an equivalent routine. His professional pride might just require him to give an honest answer, because he would look like a pointed headed boss to every programmer in the county if he answered otherwise.
    Better yet, ask him under oath, and blow this silly suit out of the water.
    Cross posted:
    Rebane and Pelline

    Like

  8. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    AtPAC scrambled the county’s data, and the only way to get it out was to use AtPAC’s algorithym, so that the county’s data could be transferred to the new software.
    Essentially the “secret code” to unscramble the data, was one of an infinite number of such codes that can be develeped, and are REGULARLY developed, in BEGINNING HIGH SCHOOL computer classes, as a programming exercise.
    The notion that AtPAC could possibly sell their particular version is absolutely comical.
    Such a program looks like this:
    To a computer, the letter “A” is represented by 65, “B” by 66, and so on.
    The computer might have the following instruction set:
    If you read “A” (or 65), add 10 to it and store it in our new proprietary file, as a “K,” the eleventh letter of the alphabet.
    If you read “B” (or 66), add 10 to it and store it in our new proprietary file, as an “L,” the eleventh letter of the alphabet.
    and so on.
    It is very easy to make millions of variations to make the codes harder to crack.
    “Odd numbered letters add 10, even numbered letters, add 11,” would be one example. Then add after each stored letter any of the 256 ASCII codes, 128 for even, 128 for odd, chosen by a randomizer.
    Any 2nd year high school programming student can do this in their sleep.
    AtPAC’s code is so simple a caveman, a Teeper Creature, could make the equivalent, in written outline form, even if they were a lawyer, in less than two hours.

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    Mr Keachie, you seem to have had some difficulty in understanding my post. What caused you to go off on the tangent of presenting a tutorial on data encryption?

    Like

  10. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Just to point out a basic fact – plagerism – copyright infringment ( a fav of the FUE ) and intellectual property all have basic protections Mr keatchie
    According to her deposition the Project Manager with 25 yrs experince couldn’t do it? Either its kinda hard or you pay ninny’s to be high level IT people. Because they stated they were going to do it – to AtPac, then when they couldn’t they let AT try it – that was a lie any way you cut it. Actually AtPac had offered to do it for less than the county spent on the attorney to sit through the deposition of the Project Manager.
    As far as your other statement not posted here – how do you figure AtPac held the county data illegally for ransom? I would think there should be some security measures so your HS class couldn’t just come in and browse – cause their smarter than the county IT guys.
    E&O insurance is just that – unless its just being stupid they aren’t paying – they aren’t that stupid either. Its not a blanket to do anything you please and your ass is covered – its not. After reading every page of the Bareale depo ( Project Manager) you can kiss that E & O coverage goodbye, no errors according to her, they all knew what they were doing and by her admission knew it was wrong – you take that to the bank – when you pick up the giant check for the plaintiff.

    Like

  11. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Curious. DKing pointed out that San Diego is a client of Aptitude Solutions. If Aptitude Solutions and San Diego County entered into a contract almost one year ago (May 2010), why is San Diego County still not using the OnCore system which Nevada County is using?
    http://www.aptitudesolutions.com/News-Over.html
    Why is that? Someone should do a public records request to San Diego to find out.

    Like

  12. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Keachie: Are you admitting that you too have been given access to AtPac’s source code?

    Like

  13. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Hey Keachie,
    What are the odds that both ends of an e-mail trail blow up?
    68 85 77 66 65 83 83 33 <-random numbers.
    Does anyone know why Diaz switched to Aptitude?

    Like

  14. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Barry,
    I started looking into Aptitude in FL.
    The trail goes all over the place.

    Like

  15. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Have no access to AtPAC source code, haven’t been teaching programming for 12 years or so, it is just obvious from a reading of the news.
    Switch to new system requires data from the old system. Old system was given the data when it was started, quite possibly from someone else’s encrypted version (revealing their coding “secrets,” too, possibly?).
    Data in AtPAC system needs to be cleanly and accurately transposed from AtPAC’s encryption to new Diaz system.
    Data always has, and always will, belong to the county.
    Diaz had been given a backdoor key to see encryption system. He was never specifically told he could not share that key to get the County’s data into another system. Not having access to county data for new system would amount to an “emergency use” of that key, IMHO.
    He used it, because At PAC wanted to charge the county to get to their own data. Your car is running, the key is locked inside, you are at a dealer locksmiths, what would be a fair price to get it open, WHEN THE DEALERSHIP LOCKED IT UP?
    Free, or you would counter sue too.
    Tell me, Mr. Rebane, does this suit have absolutely nothing to do with AtPAC having encrypted the county’s data? Yes or No? You seem to indicate that you find my questioning “off on a tangent.” I find my questioning to be to the core of the case.
    Or, do you think Diaz or the new company is trying to sell this priceless encryption scheme? Now that would be illegal, but as I pointed out, there would be no buyers, and any programmer or judge who knows anything about the industry, would be aware of this.
    Cross posted to Pelline’s blog, where the topic of hardwaired brains showed up two days back, I believe.

    Like

  16. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Keachie,
    I’m sorry for that post; it was harsh and uncalled for…Sorry!
    Dave

    Like

  17. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “Actually AtPac had offered to do it for less than the county spent on the attorney to sit through the deposition of the Project Manager.”
    What proof of this is there, and what is the number in dollars?
    Or are you trying to be cute and say for less than what the case cost up to the point where an attorney took the deposition.
    I’ve never heard of a deposition taking more than a day or two, or at most $5,000. What is the number you are talking about? Did Diaz ever amit to receiving such an offer, and when was it made? Before or after Diaz already gave access? After doesn’t count.

    Like

  18. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Keachie:
    First and in connection with AtPac’s software, thank you for admitting that you have no idea about which you are speaking and that your assumptions are pure speculation. Data is county’s but data schema is AtPac’s. Diaz gave the competitor the schema…bad news.
    Second, AtPac offered to complete such data migration for $135 per hour with a maximum contract of $15,000 (industry standards). AtPac actually started on the migration work and the County actually had the contract drafted and ready for signature until Diaz pulled the plug on January 7, 2009. The agreement happened after Diaz had already given access…which occurred on November 5, 2008.
    See timeline
    http://barrypruett.blogspot.com/2011/04/timeline-of-county-actions-in.html

    Like

  19. Russ Steele Avatar

    Douglas,
    Here is the timeline. AS had access to AtPac intellectual property before the BOS approved the contract and before the selection process was complete.
    October 31, 2008 – Gregory Diaz authorized the creation of a login “isphydoux” to AtPac’s software for Aptitude Solutions. Such login gave Aptitude Solutions full and unfettered access to AtPac’s software. The login was authorized by Nevada County Security Protocol 102 (“NCSP-102”) which was signed by Gregory Diaz. (NCSP-102)
    November 4, 2008 – Nevada County creates a login “isphydoux” for Aptitude Solutions. (Dan Evers Notes)
    November 5, 2008 – After traveling from Florida, Tom McGrath, VP of Development for Aptitude Solutions and Patty Sandever, account manager in California, are allowed full-access to AtPac’s software. They are placed in a locked room in the IT Department with no windows with (1) AtPac’s software, (2) an Aptitude Solutions server (“AS-Nevada”), and (3) a copying program provided by Nevada County. They are in the room for over eight hours. Steve Monaghan is informed of this occurrence. (Dan Evers Deposition)
    November 6, 2008 – Nevada County’s Information and General Services Department published the scoring results of the companies that responded to Nevada County’s RFP.
    November 18, 2008 – The Nevada County BOS voted 5-0 to approve a resolution authorizing execution of a Software License Agreement with Aptitude Solutions, Inc. for a new Recorder System in the County-Clerk Recorder’s office for a total amount of $229,428.
    December 5, 2008 – AtPac offers to extract the data for Nevada County at a rate of $135 per hour with a maximum contract amount of $15,000. Such work is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2009. (Contract)
    January 7, 2009 – Nevada County abruptly cancels negotiations of the AtPac migration of the data. Gregory Diaz assures AtPac that Nevada County will be extracting the County’s official records and Clerk records data from AtPac’s CRiis system data file, without asking for AtPac’s definition or schema information. (Diaz Letter)

    Oops, AP realizes that they maybe in legal jeopardy as they had already extracted the data starting way back in November 2008, and they wanted some Oh S**T protection with the County.
    January 13, 2009 – Nevada County BOS ratifies the Indemnification Agreement with Aptitude Solutions, Inc. covering extraction and migration of County data for a data system conversion in the County
    So, as you can see no need to pay 15K for data extraction that already had been completed. I think that terminating negotiation and the Indemnification Agreement was what tipped AtPac that something funny was going on. Sure enough, and there is more yet to come.

    Like

  20. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    Mr Keachie, you are confusing your expansion of the discussion (to the particulars of data handling during the systems changeover) with the points that I made in my post. The expansion is up to you, but your desire to misinterpret my points to include the particulars of data handling are not. That is why I charitably believe you understood neither the gist nor particulars of my commentary, else you are here just trying to muddy the waters to promote another agenda.
    Re the encryption/decryption factors of this case, I believe that Barry Pruett’s and Russ Steele’s comments cover the particulars. Their validity can be addressed as a specific detail of the case.
    It is, of course, obvious why ATPac would not want its data security algo or code to be compromised to third parties since that is what it uses to assure other customers the safety of their datasets. I am not aware of the details of how the county’s data was returned to them, or how it was contractually supposed to be returned to them.

    Like

  21. John Galt Avatar

    Obviously Aptitude could NOT complete the migration without obtaining illegal access to the AtPac system which is why they sought imumnity via the indemnification proposal carried by Diaz.
    If any reader here would help someone do something illegal FOR FREE, please let us know.
    The odds are high that somehow Diaz felt their was some benefit to helping Aptitude illegally and covertly access AtPac’s data
    Inquiring minds want to know…What was the benefit/motivation behind Diaz’s covert/deceptive actions (as reported in the depositions?)

    Like

  22. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    John your last statement is quite intrigueing – why ??, honest it really could not have been saving 15K of somebody else’s money, they never seem to worry about taxpayers $$ any other time.
    That part is is really good question – access then immunity, it really doesn’t make any sense to me either.
    My only CYA idea – he had already given access, at that point the deed was done, he then did not want AtPac going into the server and maybe finding out there had been access already ???? Thier attorney saw it in redhat logs or whatever, so AtPac would seen it too. Can’t see any benefit to him personally other than AS wanted to get the code and stuff and paid him off. That would make sense only if they were targeting other AtPac clients in CA. BTW whatever happened to buy local and support local business that your desparately trying to attract, Auburn isn’t far is it?

    Like

  23. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “The odds are high that somehow Diaz felt their was some benefit to helping Aptitude illegally and covertly access AtPac’s data ”
    Once again, the data is the County’s data, not AtPACs.
    AtPAC wanted to charge the County $135/hour, up to $15,O00, to get back the data the belonged to the county in the first place.
    AtPAC is responsible for the fact that the only way to get at the data, which is the County’s data, not AtPAc’s, was to use the emergency key.
    If using the emergency key opened up absolutely everything, instead of just the data, that is AtPAC’S DESIGN FAULT. If they feel that their encryption scheme has been compromised, it is their responsibility to correct this system in the future, at their own expense. I’m sure all the other counties using their software will no be demanding that they have free access to their own data, so that they can freely compare systems for the next round of bidding.
    AtPAC only offered another solution AFTER they knew they had already lost the contract, on a 5 to 0 vote.
    AtPAC has offered no information suggesting that the Florida firm has in any way shape or form used anything or sold anything that they might have seen.
    Finally, my basic point remains, AtPAC had a fiduciary responsibility not to hold the County’s data hostage for ransom, which is what their software did, and encryption schema are a dima a dozen.

    Like

  24. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “Data is county’s but data schema is AtPac’s. Diaz gave the competitor the schema…bad news.”
    If data schema is barb wired around County’s data, and the County owns the property, and their is no other way to reach the data other than cutting the barb wire, then the County is justified in cutting through the wire to get to their property, especially if AtPAC GAVE THEM THE WIRE CUTTERS (key).

    Like

  25. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “I am not aware of the details of how the county’s data was returned to them, or how it was contractually supposed to be returned to them.”
    Since when did the County authorize a give-a-way of the data in the first place?

    Like

  26. Barry Pruett Avatar

    If as you say the County’s data was not given to them, the proper remedy by Diaz was a court order or an injunction…NOT GIVE AWAY YOUR COMPETITORS TRADE SECRETS. There are laws that we need to follow, and Diaz and the County have broken quite a few since this thing began.
    Keachie…you are really clueless. You should leave the “rhetoric” up to Pelline.

    Like

  27. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Did AtPAC ever tell Diaz in writing that the use of the key would cause their secrets to be revealed?
    Is it not the fault of AtPAC for designing the system so that the only way to retrieve the data that belongs to the County in the first place, is to reveal their secrets?

    That’s like a thief hiding stuff near their private parts, and then screaming “foul’ when they are searched.
    Pruett, stick to the law, software is obviously not your strong point.
    BTW, yes indeed I do hope this is helping the E & O insurance company which now has a vested interest in this. If nothing else, it’s great sand in the air, but I suspect it is far more than that.

    Like

  28. Barry Pruett Avatar

    The proper remedy by Diaz was a court order or an injunction…NOT GIVE AWAY YOUR COMPETITORS TRADE SECRETS. You are a fool.

    Like

  29. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    I have to agree with Barry, you don’t seem to have a clue as what the issue even is, or how the issue was handled. You need to go read some of the depo transcripts – Barale is good – that will give you a good overview – otherwise you are looking very foolish here.
    An anology, in your old class – if you provided one student with the path that another student used to solve a problem is that fair to the student that figured it out? Its kinda that simple, the problem doesn’t belong to student A but the actual pathway does – thats why they call it Intellectual Property

    Like

  30. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    On another note, I wouldn’t hold alot of hope out for E & O insurance to bail you out. Read the name of it, at this point there so far has not been any indication of an omission or an error – I don’t think they cover Error’s in judgement that were well thought out by multiple players. Thats why Premeditated Murder is treated differently than Involuntary Manslaughter, same result, different paths to get there.

    Like

  31. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Barry, you are an unelectable person. Try moving down to Placer County.

    Like

  32. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Using “Intellectual Property” as barb wire around the County’s and the Citizens’ private property, in hopes of financial gain is virtual highway robbery, and claiming foul when AtPAC PROVIDED the County with the key to get at the County’s property, just because using that key also busted every strap on AtPAC’s corset, is as I described before, like a thief who hid a purloined steak in his Jockeys, and then protested as the cops removed it.
    “Don’t touch me THERE!” has no place in this courtroom. AtPAC set themselves up for wardrobe failure.

    Like

  33. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Keachie: Instead of reciting the same rhetoric…please address this comment.
    “If as you say the County’s data was not given to them, the proper remedy by Diaz was a court order or an injunction…NOT GIVE AWAY YOUR COMPETITORS TRADE SECRETS. There are laws that we need to follow, and Diaz and the County have broken quite a few since this thing began.”
    Why did the County not simply follow the law?

    Like

  34. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    By the way, you repeated a mistake, in both blogs, so it is time I call attention to it:
    “If as you say the County’s data was not given to them, the proper remedy by Diaz was a court order or an injunction…NOT GIVE AWAY YOUR COMPETITORS TRADE SECRETS.”
    the last line should have been written as:
    “and not permit a competitor to your current firm, AtPAC, to have access to AtPAC’s trade secrets.”
    You’d better get that straight, should you be advising anyone in this case.
    The County is a government entity, and does not have “competitors.”
    Now to your question about “following the law.”
    As far as I am concerned, the County did follow the law.
    They were given a key to get at their data, and access to AtPAC’s data schema. They did the logical thing, when time is of the essence.
    They used the key.
    They got access to their data. They had help making a quick and complete transfer of data within 8 hours. This is where it does get a bit murky. Did the other firm simply make a complete copy of one hard drive, and then pry the data loose from the data schema elsewhere, or were they able to make a complete on the spot extraction? That could be tested by giving their techs access to a different data set in the identical schema. Of course we’d have to trust AtPAC to give the different sample data set in that identical schema.
    Would their competitor learn very much by seeing their setup? Probably not. The county maintains records of what, several hundred types of documents? The fields (tags or key words, in common parlance) for each would be similar, with last name first name and document number and type being at the head of the list. Each document might have needs for more than one lname, fname, as in buyer, seller, lender, title company, parcel number, defendant, plaintiff, date fields by the score, offense, arresting agency, and so on.
    One damn good reason for not having AtPAC do the transfer is that they would have control over just what was transferred, and it would be impossible to prove that they had left anything out, if they chose to. Why do that? AtPAC might be trying t put the fear of data run amuck in the rest of their clients, by handing back Nevada County all of their data, all in ASCii, but in random order.
    If they had the stuff stored with a code for each document that was created by AtPAC to identify each document, they could technically leave that code out, they made it, it was theirs. They would have met the legal requirement of “returning the data,” but would have really messed up the County for months and possibly years.
    By having the other firm do it, and having it done once, into the new firm’s preferred format, time and money and headaches are avoided.
    Deep in the heart of all this Barry, are things called relational databases, which can be constructed in many, many different ways, but which are far more complex than simple encryption. They are used to make quick and compact on the fly representations of lots of data, and they are very tricky, yet very elegant. The new firm, by looking at and doing a quick test or two with the AtPAC relational database, would then be able to most efficiently effect a transfer of data into the new firm’s data schema.
    I got called out by our host here for explaining encryption. If he was a systems analyst, and I think I read he was, relational databases are his bread and butter, and he can explain them to you. I cut my baby teeth in computing using dBase II on a Victor 9000, and still have the very machine to prove it.

    Like

  35. Barry Pruett Avatar

    I will keep this very simple. Placer County Recorder switched software providers in 2010. Instead of giving out trade secrets, violating copyright laws, and breaching a contract and as is customary in the industry, the old vendor gave Placer their data in flat files in the format requested by new vendor.
    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Like

  36. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Keachie is clueless, don’t waste your time.

    Like

  37. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Mr Keachie there was never some adversarial postion taken by AtPac. They offered to provide the county and the new vendor all the files – without their proprietarty code- for less than or a max of 15K.
    The county then told them – THEY would extract the data without them. They had access to this data for 10 yrs – no secret code needed.
    They then found or decided they couldn’t or didn’t want to do it – THEN gave AS the access – still telling AtPac they were doing it – lie. per the Depo
    Big difference between the county pulling their own data and a competitor pulling it – otherwise they would have no need to lie to AtPac about who was actually doing it – thats the crux of the suit
    There was a server session that last 5 days BTW ( Depo), not sure why this is so hard for you to see the point of the suit – honest its baffling

    Like

  38. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Why is everyone in italics all of a sudden? Curious.
    George wrote: “I am not aware of the details of how the county’s data was returned to them, or how it was contractually supposed to be returned to them.”
    And of course, this is the crux of the case. We are all on pins and needles. Still too much crucial info. yet to be revealed.
    Please stand by.

    Like

  39. John Galt Avatar

    The data content may be the County’s but NOT the manner (schema) that defined how the data was stored, what fields were indexed, what tables were linked, etc. That design info does NOT belong to the County. That information is AtPac’s proprietary intellectual property.
    So we can dispense/ignore with the “It’s the County’s Data” rhetoric, because AtPac’s suit IS NOT about the data, it’s about the intellectual property that processes and retrieves the data.
    Ultimately, the Jury will be asking themselves? If the Diaz, the IT Dept, Aptitude, and the county’s legal dept all thought they were operating legally, why were they behaving in a covert and deceitful manner ? Their answer will be bad news for Diaz and his cohorts.
    I’m betting that Diaz will take the 5th and will REFUSE to answer any questions during his deposition.
    Too bad, because I really would like to hear Diaz explain why he misled the Supervisors to approve the indemnification of Aptitude. I really want to here is explanation on why it was appropriate for him to protect Aptitude from any legal claims instead of THE CITIZENS OF NEVADA COUNTY. I want to hear him explain his motivation.

    Like

  40. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “I will keep this very simple. Placer County Recorder switched software providers in 2010. Instead of giving out trade secrets, violating copyright laws, and breaching a contract and as is customary in the industry, the old vendor gave Placer their data in flat files in the format requested by new vendor.
    You have no idea what you are talking about.”

    According to Michael Anderson, in Pelline’s blog, this is false information.
    Can you provide a link that shows otherwise, and a cost associated with the transfer, if any? If they did it for free for Placer, as your post implies, then why didn’t they do it for free, for Nevada County?
    BTW, please quit falsely accusing me of having access to AtPAC’s source code.

    Like

  41. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “The data content may be the County’s but NOT the manner (schema) that defined how the data was stored, what fields were indexed, what tables were linked, etc. That design info does NOT belong to the County. That information is AtPac’s proprietary intellectual property.”

    Actually, a great deal of that data was derived from the County’s original documents, and AtPAC would have had very little or no say over what fields were to be preserved or not. They would have had to consult with the County to determine what the County considered to be important about the County’s information, to generate indexes and key fields, used to link the tables in the relational database structure. It had to have been a joint project, and ownership of any data schema would have been co-mingled.
    Well George, a couple of years back you implied a severe deficiency of knowledge in this poster, how’s payback feel?

    Like

  42. John Galt Avatar

    It’s immaterial whether or not “great deal” of the AtPac data was derived from the County’s original documents. The point is that that ownership of the content within AtPac does not also mean ownership of the schema behind how the data is organized or the programming routines that manage the data.
    For example, ownership of data in Excel, does not entitle the user to the routines that Excel uses to create the interface, etc.
    Regardless, in my view, Diaz’s biggest fault is his hoodwinking the Supervisors into immunizing Aptitude from any legal responsiblity.
    Just why did our NEVADA COUNTY clerk recorder volunteer to help out some company IN FLORIDA (i.e. Aptitude). If Diaz had not done that (or if the BOS had actually been supervising,) Aptitude would be the one incurring $350,000+ in legal fees, NOT you, me, and the rest of us in Nevada County.
    Initially, Diaz just made a blunder by selecting Aptitude without ensuring they could legally migrate the data from AtPac. That could have just been a $15,000 mistake (or less.) The REAL CRIMINAL mistake is Diaz’s intentional tricking the tax payers (and the county employees who have/will lost their jobs over this) into pay for Diaz’s mistake (now at least $350,000).
    This is why I predict Diaz will take the 5th and not testify.

    Like

  43. Bo Reardon Avatar

    Some people don’t care about intellectual property… http://www.theunion.com/article/20050521/NEWS/105210133
    The Union May 21 2005 “a North San Juan man was arrested and cited by police this week on suspicion of filming “Star Wars Episode III at Grass Valley’s Del Oro Theatre.
    Douglas Keachie, who said he is a longtime fan who has taken aerial photographs of “Star Wars” creator George Lucas’ famed Skywalker Ranch, was cited during the 3:15 p.m. Thursday showing of the “Star Wars” finale. His digital camera and the memory card used to take the pictures were confiscated during Keachie’s arrest”

    Like

  44. John Galt Avatar

    Thanks Bo, I must have been on one my RV trips then…I don’t remember reading that report.
    Do you know if Mr. Kreachie was convicted?…or did the DA drop the charges?
    This helps me understand why it seems so difficult to communicate the importance of intellectual property rights with the Mr. Kreachie.

    Like

  45. Jack McClure Avatar
    Jack McClure

    The important thing to note is that the BOS’s aren’t saying a thing. Why? It’s a CYA thing. The details aren’t as important as the incredible amount of money that is being spent…our money. The claim that they can’t say anything because the are limited from doing so by the Brown Act. My suggestion is, don’t meet in secret session. Let us know what’s going on. Let’s face the facts, they work for us. Once everything comes to light, and it will, let’s recall all the Supervisors and Greg Diaz. Then let’s petition the government to get rid of the whole motley crew starting with the County CEO, County Council and all the rest who were involved in this scandalous affair. Who’s with me?

    Like

  46. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Jack: You are not the first person to make such suggestion.
    Keachie: I confess that you are apparently an “Intellectual Property” expert. LOL.

    Like

  47. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    This getting exciting, I need to go read the depo Russ posted. Hope I can find it

    Like

  48. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    This is reaching a new low. Background checks on blog posters! Talk about going after the messenger.

    Like

  49. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Huh? what did George do now
    not sure what your even referring too

    Like

  50. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George didn’t do anything. He has convinced me that he is not interested in going after the messenger so I was just alerting him of the new low achieved by contributers to this site. Does this mean we’re subject to background checks if we write in this blog?
    “Douglas Keachie, who said he is a longtime fan who has taken aerial photographs of “Star Wars” creator George Lucas’ famed Skywalker Ranch, was cited during the 3:15 p.m. Thursday showing of the “Star Wars” finale. His digital camera and the memory card used to take the pictures were confiscated during Keachie’s arrest”
    posted by Bo Reardon

    Like

Leave a comment