It's A Birthday

Happy Birthday, Freedom of Information Act (via Editor and Publisher)

President Lyndon Johnson had deep reservations when he signed the law that opened the government's filing cabinets to its citizens, worrying that it might force the disclosure of damaging national secrets, newly disclosed records show. Forty years later, the Freedom of Information Act still creates tension between the government and citizens, corporations, researchers and journalists. The law's staunchest advocates believe its principles are imperiled, threatened by what they describe as the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and concerns about revealing strategies to terrorists. "This is the worst of times for the Freedom of Information Act in many ways," said Paul K. McMasters of the First Amendment Center, which studies issues of free speech, press and religion. McMasters cited large backlogs of unresolved citizen requests for records, and new Bush administration strategies to withhold documents. When he signed the law on July 4, 1966, Johnson was so uneasy about the new legislation he refused to conduct a public signing ceremony that would draw attention to it. He also submitted a signing statement that some researchers believe was intended to undercut the bill's purpose of forcing government to disclose records except in narrow cases. snip The CIA, famously loath to open even its historical files, cited its "strong record" on disclosures. The Pentagon - where records requests can languish for over a year - said its "customer responsiveness is generally good." The Homeland Security Department and State Department did not complete the mandatory reviews ordered by Bush. Brian Martin of Denver, a private computer-security consultant, submitted two requests for records to the Homeland Security Department more than a year ago - and never heard back. Martin sought information about how much the government spends tracking software problems exploited by hackers and others. "This process is supposedly there to get me information about how my tax dollars are being spent," Martin said. "I'm curious how it's all being used. I'm left just to wonder." When he sent a similar request to the Commerce Department, it told him he could have the records he wanted - if he would pay more than $1,800 for copying and search fees

Here's more which breaks it down a bit.

Over sixty one countries around the world have implemented some form of freedom of information legislation, which sets rules on governmental secrecy. Many more countries are working towards introducing such laws, and many regions of countries with national legislation have local laws - for example, all states of the US have access laws as well as the national legislation. In general, such laws define a legal process by which government information is available to the public; in some countries, they may only apply to journalists, or to people with a legal need for the information. In many countries there are vague constitutional guarantees for the right of access to information, but usually these are unused unless specific legislation exists to support them.

These laws may also be described as open records or (especially in the United States) sunshine laws (alluding to "letting light shine" on the process). A related concept is open meetings legislation, which allows the public access to government meetings, not just to the records of them. In many countries, privacy or data protection laws may be part of the freedom of information legislation; the concepts are often closely tied together in political discourse.

A basic principle behind most freedom of information legislation is that the burden of proof falls on the body asked for information, not the person asking for it. The requester does not usually have to give an explanation for their request, but if the information is not disclosed a valid reason has to be given.

Just a few things to think about.