Data-breach payouts top $1 million for ex-cop

  • Article by: ERIC ROPER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 3, 2012 - 12:30 AM

The city of Minneapolis will pay $392,000 to Anne Rasmusson.

  • 27
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mrdaveNov. 2, 1211:27 PM

Once again, the taxpayers are on the hook for officers who believe they're above the law.

30
2
SeaSharkNov. 3, 12 1:06 AM

ANNE RASMUSSON'S legal response to the defendants' illegal invasion of privacy misconduct is entirely justified, and she deserves every nickel of the settlement money. Government employees who have public records data base access clearance are trained and instructed to use the access for job related research purposes only, and are warned about the consequences of violating applicable law. The people who wrongfully accessed Rasmusson's personal information, and the agencies they work for, have no excuse or credible legal defense. The public benefit of these settlements is that state and local government agencies are amending their procedures to be more vigilant about monitoring employees' search histories and disciplining them when they violate procedure.

18
10
jqpublicNov. 3, 12 1:34 AM

You know that picture and information you show sometimes at the store? A few more people saw it and she's getting a mil for it. Ridiculous.

15
10
howlinjagsNov. 3, 12 4:45 AM

ridiculous amount. how is someone getting a million in tax payer dollars because someone looked at her drivers license

22
5
djs185Nov. 3, 12 5:05 AM

If the law was broken to allow this to proceed then the law should proceed against the PERPS!

28
0
drfranktNov. 3, 12 6:06 AM

The money should be taken from the cops pay and from the union funds that back them. They should each be receiving disciplinary actions as well, up to and including termination.

29
5
Jakein08Nov. 3, 12 6:23 AM

drfrankt says "The money should be taken from the cops pay and from the union funds that back them. " Why should the union have to pay? Did you read the part that explained the supervisors (who are not in the union) encouraged the officers to do this. The fact that you are anti union has nothing to do with this issue.

9
13
drfranktNov. 3, 12 6:50 AM

Jakein08:"Why should the union have to pay?"..."Did you read the part that explained the supervisors (who are not in the union) encouraged the officers to do this."...yes I did read, and comprehend the article. It stated an "officer encouraged subordinates." It did not mention the officer was a "supervisor" or management, he may have just been the senior officer in the room. The cops that did this shoud be held legally and financially responsible for the damages incurred. You can bet their union would back this behavior as appropriate in the performance of their duties and therefore should not be used to punish these fine, upstanding cop that have sworn to SERVE and PROTECT.

12
6
basia2186Nov. 3, 12 7:33 AM

Her privacy was invaded and she gets a million TAXPAYERS dollars? The officers should be fired and let them pay the fines. The peeping at her new and improved assets is NOT related to their duties as officers-so not one cent should be paid with public monies! I am sure she is laughing all the way to the bank and a very early retirement.

21
0
jdlellis1Nov. 3, 12 7:47 AM

This is a prime example for limiting the role of government (local, state and federal) as those who cry for privacy and then want the security of government running evertthing believing that governement employees are noble in thought word and deed and bash the private sector.

9
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT