3 ms·
The original post this refers to is at http://www.mattmacdonald.com/2011/08/20/api-access-questions-for-tyler-technologies-creator-of-munis/ http://www.mattmacd
by blahedo 15y ago
The original post this refers to is at http://www.mattmacdonald.com/2011/08/20/api-access-questions-for-tyler-technologies-creator-of-munis/ http://www.mattmacdonald.com/2011/08/20/api-access-questions... where Matt, the Watertown resident, wrote to TylerTech. Apparently they responded with a letter I'll paraphrase as "no."
- thomaslangston 15y agoThe answer was not "no", it was "We won't discuss the private details of a client's (the municipal government) system, please contact the client directly." Original Text "We value our relationship with our clients and are committed to protecting their privacy and security protocols. I have shared your request with the town and would direct you to the Town of Watertown for information regarding your request."
- delinka 15y agoAnd this is a proper response from the vendor. The vendor should not attempt to get involved with political decisions about what should be available and what should not be available. They honor their contract, they stay out of trouble. If the town officially holds the position that the information is "non-public" or "secret," then you go to the courts, not to the vendor. Now, if the town agrees and goes to the vendor and the vendor says "no" or "that'll be a 10x increase in fees," it becomes the town's responsibility to find a compliant vendor.