1. Right To Information Act Nepal
2. Freedom Of Information Act
3. Right To Information Act Bangladesh

Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information. It is an initiative taken by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to provide a– RTI Portal Gateway to the citizens for quick search of information on the details of first Appellate. Sep 02, 2018  Get latest Right To Information Act news updates & stories. Explore Right To Information Act photos and videos on India.com. Contents Right to Information Act 2009 Page 2 Part 1 Right to access 23 Right to be given access to particular documents.

Right to Information (RTI) is act of the Parliament of India to provide for setting out the practical regime of the right to information for citizens and replaces the erstwhile Freedom of information Act, 2002. Under the provisions of the Act, any citizen of India may request information from a 'public authority' (a body of Government or 'instrumentality of State') which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to proactively certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally.

This law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005. Every day, over 4800 RTI applications are filed. In the first ten years of the commencement of the act over 17,500,000 applications had been filed.^[1]

In India, the organisation called Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was instrumental in the passage of RTI Act. Aruna Roy is the mastermind behind the RTI Act 2005.RTI is a legal right for every citizen of India. The authorities under RTI Act 2005 are called quasi-judicial authorities. This act was enacted in order to consolidate the fundamental right in the Indian constitution 'freedom of speech'.

Information disclosure in India is restricted by the Official Secrets Act 1923 and various other special laws, which the new RTI Act relaxes. Right to Information codifies a fundamental right of the citizens of India. RTI has proven to be very useful, but is counteracted by the Whistleblowers Act.^[2]

• 1Scope
• 2Governance and process
• 3Controversies

Scope[edit]

The Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, where J&K Right to Information Act is in force. It covers all the constitutional authorities, including executive, legislature and judiciary; any institution or body established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. It is also defined in the Act that bodies or authorities established or constituted by order or notification of appropriate government including bodies 'owned, controlled or substantially financed' by government, or non-Government organizations 'substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds'.

Private bodies[edit]

Private bodies are not within the Act's ambit directly. In a decision of Sarbjit roy vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission,^[3] the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that privatised public utility companies fall within the purview of RTI.^[4] As of 2014, private institutions and NGOs receiving over 95% of their infrastructure funds from the government come under the Act.^[5]

Political parties[edit]

The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the political parties are public authorities and are answerable to citizens under the RTI Act. The CIC said that six national parties - Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI(M), CPI and BSP and BJD - has been substantially funded indirectly by the Central Government and have the character of public authorities under the RTI Act as they perform public functions.^[6][7] But in August 2013 the government introduced a Right To Information (Amendment) Bill which would remove political parties from the scope of the law. Currently no parties are under the RTI Act and there has a case been filed for bringing all political parties under it.^[8]

Governance and process[edit]

The Right to information in India is governed by two major bodies:

• Central Information Commission (CIC) – Chief Information commissioner who heads all the central departments and ministries- with their own public Information officers (PIO)s. CICs are directly under the President of India.^[9]
• State Information Commissions – State Public Information Officers or SPIOs head over all the state department and ministries. The SPIO office is directly under the corresponding State Governor.

State and Central Information Commissions are independent bodies and Central Information Commission has no jurisdiction over the State Information Commission.^[9]

Fees[edit]

A citizen who desires to seek some information from a public authority is required to send, along with the application (a Postal order or DD (Demand draft) or a bankers cheque) payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority as fee prescribed for seeking information. If the person is from a disadvantaged community, he/she need not pay.^{[citation needed]} The applicant may also be required to pay further fee towards the cost of providing the information, details of which shall be intimated to the applicant by the PIO as prescribed by the RTI ACT^[10]

Controversies[edit]

The Right to information in India has been mired with controversies ranging from their use in political battles, asking for educational degrees of political rivals, or cases of blatant refusals to provide information on high-profile projects to allegations of misuse by civil society.^[11][12][13]

Digital right to information systems[edit]

A digital portal has been set up, RTI Portal, a gateway to the citizens for quick search of information on the details of first Appellate Authorities, PIOs etc. amongst others, besides access to RTI related information / disclosures published on the web by various Public Authorities under the government of India as well as the State Governments. It is an initiative taken by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions^[14]

Though there are recent efforts on digital governance, Right to Information implementation has seen a digitalisation neglect even after 14 years of its enactment. A recent research on 'BallotBoxIndia' outlines that though central ministries are covered by a single Digital window to file Right to Information requests with integrated payment gateways and tracking mechanism none of the states have, as of yet, come forward to implement their versions or use the existing Right to Information Digital Infrastructure.^[15] The research report covering 29 states and union territories also highlights the responses from the SPIOs (State Public Information Officers). Researchers in the study focussed on the Digital implementation and asked about plans or timeline to provide such facility. 64% State Public Information failed to respond while the rest of the responses merely took cognizance without any hard timelines. The research also covers in details - the difficulty in filing manual Right to Information requests with the states with delays ranging many months of wait time and various follow ups and rejections. Every state in India has different rules and fee structures to file an application through registered post without any tracking mechanism as covered in details in the report.^[15][16]right to information is a scheme to provide the individual acts for all citizens of all across in the world.

Activism around an efficient right to information[edit]

Researchers and activists have been proposing changes to make the process easier, efficient and meaningful. One of it demands state and central information systems under one Digital System to streamline information flow and provide proactive information backed by streamlined mandatory reporting.

The Right to information(RTI Act 2005) was touted as one law which would bring in transparency and eradicate corruption by civil society direct involvement. Failure to implement it in a thoroughly and efficiently has led to rough loss estimate of $245 million yearly as per one estimate.^[15] The first RTI application was filed at a police station in Pune by Shahid Raza Burney.^[17]

India being a federal state has many items in concurrent list and projects have multiple departments working on them, and sometimes projects are moved from one department to another. With Central and State information commissions working in such a disconnect, and manual transfers of the request for information between departments lead to big delays, confusion, and loss of traceability. It not only denies timely information, creates high barriers to information only a few with very strong motivations and means can cross, but puts a common citizen at the risk by exposing them directly to the departments and agencies which they are trying to find information on.

Digital RTI Mission was initiated by a policy think tank based in Kochi (CPPR) to make Kerala the first RTI digital state in India.^[18][19]

Attacks on RTI activists and protection suggestions[edit]

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) data points to over 310 cases^[20] across India where people were either attacked, murdered, physically or mentally harassed or had their property damaged because of the information they sought under RTI. The data throws up over 50 alleged murders and two suicides that were directly linked with RTI applications filed.^[21]

There is a consensus felt that there is a need to amend the RTI Act to provide for the protection of those seeking information under the Act.^[22] The Asian Centre for Human Rights recommends that a separate chapter, 'Protection of those seeking information under the(RTI) Act', be inserted into the Act.

Protection measures suggested include:

• Mandatory, immediate registration of complaints of threats or attacks against RTI activists on the First Information Report and placing such FIRs before the magistrate or judge of the area within 24 hours for issuance of directions for protection of those under threats and their family members, and periodic review of such protection measures
• Conducting inquiry into threats or attacks by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police to be concluded within 90 days and we also use RTI and get its benefit.

Intellectual property rights[edit]

Many civil society members have recently alleged the subversion of the right to information Act by the invocation of Intellectual Property rights argument by the government agencies from time to time.

Most notable are:

• The Right to Information denied by RBI on Demonetization citing Intellectual Property Laws.^[23]
• The Right to Information Denied by Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department after more than 8 months of a wait on under construction Gomti Riverfront Development Project. A group of researchers requested for environment Impact and Project Report on the project which is flagged for negative impacts, tax money wastage by environmental scientists and research reports.^[11]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^SHARMA, NIDHI (6 October 2016). '1.75 crore RTI applications filed since 2005: Study'. The Economic Times. Retrieved 7 April 2018.
2. ^'PRS Bill Track The Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011'. www.prsindia.org. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
3. ^http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_30112006_12.pdf
4. ^http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-10-03/news/30238465_1_rti-act-public-information-officer-pio.Missing or empty title= (help)
5. ^Nayak, N. Dinesh. 'Private institutions, NGOs now come under RTI Act: Information Commissioner'. thehindu.com.
6. ^PTI. 'Khurshid sounds warning note on R.T.I ruling'. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 10 June 2013. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
7. ^PTI. 'Political parties under RTI: Congress rejects CIC order'. The Hindu Newspaper. Archived from the original on 27 October 2013. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
8. ^Subrahmaniam, Vidya (12 August 2013). 'First-ever amendment to historic RTI Act tabled in Lok Sabha'. The Hindu. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
9. ^ ^ab'FAQ Central Information Commission'. cic.gov.in. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
10. ^http://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guide_2013-issue.pdf
11. ^ ^ab'Gomti River front Development - Irrigation Department Denied Information'. Gomti River front Development - Irrigation Department Denied Information. 9 December 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
12. ^'PM Modi degree issue: HC stays CIC order on 1978 DU records'. The Indian Express. 24 January 2017. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
13. ^Gandhi, Shailesh. 'Right to information is misused, but those who do so make up less than 5% of total applicants'. Scroll.in. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
14. ^'About RTI Portal'. rti.gov.in. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
15. ^ ^abc'Right to information (RTI Act 2005) India - One Nation #OneRTI'. BallotBoxIndia. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
16. ^'Gomti Riverfront Development - Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) officially transferred the application of request on Gomti River Front Development DPR and EIA to the Irrigation Department'. Gomti Riverfront Development - Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) officially transferred the application of request on Gomti River Front Development DPR and EIA to the Irrigation Department. 15 September 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
17. ^'Law and behold'. theweek.in. Retrieved 7 April 2018.
18. ^'Interest in RTI dying out in state, says research body'. The Times of India. 24 August 2011.
19. ^digitalrtimission.com. 'RTI DIGITAL MISSION'. www.digitalrtimission.com. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
20. ^'Maharashtra, Gujarat Top in Attacks, Killing of RTI Users - The Wire'. The Wire. Retrieved 7 April 2018.
21. ^'Maharashtra tops country in attacks, murder of RTI activists - Times of India'. The Times of India. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
22. ^Central Information Commission - The Commission strongly recommends the Government of India to provide statutory protection to seekers of information that embarrasses the corrupt public servants.http://164.100.161.46/cicapp/cause-list-report-web/download?filename=MTc4MTM4LnBkZg%3D%3D
23. ^'RBI's refusal to share details under RTI is sheer arrogance, says activist Shailesh Gandhi'. Firstpost. 31 December 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

External links[edit]

• Government of India links
  • CIC - The Central Information Commission is empowered to decide complaints and appeals arising from use of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
  • CIC Online - New website of the Central Information Commission for filing complaints and appeals arising from use of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
  • DoPT - The Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, is charged with being the nodal agency for the Right to Information Act, 2005. It has the powers to make rules regarding appeals, fees, etc.

Right To Information Act Nepal

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.§ 552, is a federal freedom of information law that requires the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government upon request. The Act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures, and defines nine exemptions to the statute.^[1][2] President Lyndon B. Johnson, despite his misgivings,^[3][4] signed the Freedom of Information Act into law on July 4, 1966, and it went into effect the following year.^[5] The Act was intended to make U.S. government agencies' functions more transparent so that the American public could more easily identify problems in government functioning and put pressure on Congress, agency officials, and the President to address them.^[6]

As indicated by its long title, FOIA was actually extracted from its original home in Section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Section 3 of the APA, as enacted in 1946, gave agencies broad discretion concerning the publication of governmental records. Following concerns that the provision had become more of a withholding than a disclosure mechanism, Congress amended the section in 1966 as a standalone act to implement 'a general philosophy of full agency disclosure.' The amendment required agencies to publish their rules of procedure in the Federal Register, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)(C), and to make available for public inspection and copying their opinions, statements of policy, interpretations, and staff manuals and instructions that are not already published in the Federal Register, § 552(a)(2). In addition, § 522(a)(3) requires every agency, 'upon any request for records which .. reasonably describes such records' to make such records 'promptly available to any person.' If an agency improperly withholds any documents, the district court has jurisdiction to order their production. Unlike the review of other agency action that must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, FOIA expressly places the burden 'on the agency to sustain its action,' and directs the district courts to 'determine the matter de novo.'

The federal government's Freedom of Information Act should not be confused with the different and varying freedom of information law enacted by the individual states.

• 3History
• 4Notable cases

Background[edit]

With the ongoing stress on both constitutional and inherent rights of American citizens and the added assertion of government subservience to the individual, some, particularly representative Juan Salazar, thought that it was necessary for government information to be available to the public. This push built on existing principles and protocols of government administration already in place.

Others, though—most notably President Lyndon B. Johnson—believed that certain types of unclassified government information should nonetheless remain secret. Notwithstanding the White House's opposition, Congress expanded Section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act as a standalone measure in 1966 to further standardize the publication of government records, consistent with the belief that the people have the 'right to know' about them. The Privacy Act of 1974 was passed as a countervailing measure to ensure the security of government documents increasingly kept on private citizens.

Scope[edit]

The act explicitly applies only to executive branch government agencies. These agencies are under several mandates to comply with public solicitation of information. Along with making public and accessible all bureaucratic and technical procedures for applying for documents from that agency, agencies are also subject to penalties for hindering the process of a petition for information. If 'agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to the withholding, [c] Special Counsel shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible for the withholding.'^[7] In this way, there is recourse for one seeking information to go to a federal court if suspicion of illegal tampering or delayed sending of records exists. However, there are nine exemptions, ranging from a withholding 'specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy' and 'trade secrets' to 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'^[7] The nine current exemptions to the FOIA address issues of sensitivity and personal rights. They are (as listed in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552):^[8]

1. (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;^[9]
2. related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;^[9]
3. specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;^[9]FOIA Exemption 3 Statutes
4. trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;^[9]
5. inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;^[9]
6. personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;^[9]
7. records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;^[9]
   • Virginia's FOIA council refers to this as the criminal investigative files exemption^[10][11][12]
8. contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;^[9] or
9. geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.^[9]

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (at 39 U.S.C.§ 410(c)(2)) exempts the United States Postal Service (USPS) from disclosure of 'information of a commercial nature, including trade secrets, whether or not obtained from a person outside the Postal Service, which under good business practice would not be publicly disclosed'.^[13]

Kami tidak mendukung atau mempromosikan pembajakan dengan cara apa pun.jika Anda menemukan konten ilegal silakan kami akan menghapus sesegera mungkin. Situs Pencarian memungkinkan pengguna untuk mengunduh lagu-lagu MP3 Dan Download Lagu Mp3 Yang Gratis Dan Lengkap, Unduh Lagu Gratis, Free Mp3 Downloads, Download Mp3, Download Music, Bursa Lagu,unduh download music mp3 android, download music mp3 android, download music mp3 android unduh gratis.Konten ini (lagu atau video) hanya untuk tujuan referensi dan Kami tidak mengklaim kepemilikan atas konten ini.

History[edit]

The law came about because of the determination of United States House of Representatives member John E. Moss of California. Moss was chairman of the House Government Information Subcommittee. It took Moss 12 years to get the Freedom of Information Act through Congress.^[14] Much of the desire for government transparency stemmed from the Department of Defense and Congressional committees evaluation of the nation's classification system in the late 1950s. They determined that the misuse of government classification of documents was causing insiders to leak documents that were marked 'confidential.' The committee also determined that the lowest rung of the confidentiality ladder 'confidential' should be removed. They deemed that 'secret' and 'top secret' covered National security adequately.^[14] The Moss Committee took it upon itself to reform confidentiality policy and implement punishments for the overuse of classification by officials and departments.

The FOIA has been changed repeatedly by both the legislative and executive branches.

Initial enactment[edit]

The Freedom of Information Act was initially introduced as the bill S. 1160 in the 89th Congress. When the two-page bill was signed into law it became Pub.L.89–487, 80 Stat.250, enacted July 4, 1966, but had an effective date of one year after the date of enactment, or July 4, 1967. The law set up the structure of FOIA as we know it today.

That law was initially repealed. During the period between the enactment of the act and its effective date, Title 5 of the United States Code was enacted into positive law.^[15] For reasons now unclear but which may have had to do with the way the enactment of Title 5 changed how the law being amended was supposed to be cited, the original Freedom of Information Act was replaced. A new act in Pub.L.90–23, 81 Stat.54, enacted June 5, 1967 (originally H.R. 5357 in the 90th Congress), repealed the original and put in its place a substantively identical law. This statute was signed on June 5, 1967, and had the same effective date as the original statute: July 4, 1967.

Privacy Act Amendments of 1974[edit]

Following the Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign FOIA-strengthening amendments in the Privacy Act of 1974, but White House Chief of StaffDonald Rumsfeld and deputy Dick Cheney were concerned about leaks.^[16] Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal CounselAntonin Scalia advised the bill was unconstitutional and even telephoned the CIA asking them to lobby a particular White House staffer.^[16] President Ford was persuaded to veto the bill on October 17, 1974, according to documents declassified in 2004.^[16] However, on November 21, the lame-duck Congress overrode President Ford's veto, giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today, with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.^[16][17]

Scalia remained highly critical of the 1974 amendments, writing years later that 'It is the Taj Mahal of the Doctrine of Unanticipated Consequences, the Sistine Chapel of Cost-Benefit Analysis Ignored.'^[18] Scalia particularly disliked the availability of judicial review, decrying that if 'an agency denies a freedom of information request, shazam!—the full force of the Third Branch of the government is summoned to the wronged party's assistance.'^[18]

These amendments that these FOIA regulate government control of documents which concern a citizen. It gives one '(1) the right to see records about [one]self, subject to the Privacy Act's exemptions, (2) the right to amend that record if it is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete, and (3) the right to sue the government for violations of the statute including permitting others to see [one] records unless specifically permitted by the Act.'^[19] In conjunction with the FOIA, the PAN is used to further the rights of an individual gaining access to information held by the government. The Justice Department's Office of Information and Privacy and federal district courts are the two channels of appeal available to seekers of information.^[20]

1976 Government in the Sunshine Act amendments[edit]

In 1976, as part of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Exemption 3 of the FOIA was amended so that several exemptions were specified:

1. Information relating to national defense,
2. Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices,
3. Related to accusing a person of a crime,
4. Related to information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy,
5. Related to investigatory records where the information would harm the proceedings,
6. Related to information which would lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution, and
7. Related to the agency's participation in legal proceedings.

1982 Executive Order limiting the FOIA[edit]

Between 1982 and 1995, President Reagan's Executive Order 12356 allowed federal agencies to withhold enormous amounts of information under Exemption 1 (relating to national security information), claiming it would better protect the country and strengthen national security.^[21]

The outcry from the effect that the Reagan Order had on FOIA requests was a factor in leading President Clinton to dramatically alter the criteria in 1995.^[22]

1986 Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act amendments to the FOIA[edit]

The FOIA amendments were a small part of the bipartisan Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Congress amended FOIA to address the fees charged by different categories of requesters and the scope of access to law enforcement and national security records. The amendments are not referenced in the congressional reports on the Act, so the floor statements provide an indication of Congressional intent.^[23]

1995–99 expansion[edit]

Between 1995 and 1999, President Clinton issued executive directives (and amendments to the directives) that allowed the release of previously classified national security documents more than 25 years old and of historical interest, as part of the FOIA.^[24] This release of information allowed many previously publicly unknown details about the Cold War and other historical events to be discussed openly.^[22]

Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996[edit]

The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (E-FOIA) stated that all agencies are required by statute to make certain types of records, created by the agency on or after November 1, 1996, available electronically. Agencies must also provide electronic reading rooms for citizens to use to have access to records. Given the large volume of records and limited resources, the amendment also extended the agencies' required response time to FOIA requests. Formerly, the response time was ten days and the amendment extended it to twenty business days.^[8]

2001 Executive Order limiting the FOIA[edit]

Freedom Of Information Act

Executive Order 13233, drafted by Alberto R. Gonzales and issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001, restricted access to the records of former presidents.

This order was revoked on January 21, 2009, as part of President Barack Obama's Executive Order13489.^[25] Public access to presidential records was restored to the original extent of five years (12 for some records) outlined in the Presidential Records Act.^[26]

Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 amending the FOIA[edit]

In 2002, Congress passed the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub.L.107–306.^[27] Within this omnibus legislation were amendments to the FOIA (pertaining mainly to intelligence agencies) entitled 'Prohibition on Compliance with Requests for Information Submitted by Foreign Governments':^[28]

Section 552(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting 'and except as provided in subparagraph (E)', after 'of this subsection'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

(E) An agency, or part of an agency, that is an element of the intelligence community (as that term is defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.§ 401a(4))) shall not make any record available under this paragraph to—

(i) any government entity, other than a State, territory, commonwealth, or district of the United States, or any subdivision thereof; or

(ii) a representative of a government entity described in clause (i).

In effect, this new language precluded any covered U.S. intelligence agency from disclosing records in response to FOIA requests made by foreign governments or international governmental organizations. By its terms, it prohibits disclosure in response to requests made by such non-U.S. governmental entities either directly or through a 'representative'.^[29] This means that for any FOIA request that by its nature appears as if it might have been made by or on behalf of a non-U.S. governmental entity, a covered agency may inquire into the particular circumstances of the requester in order to properly implement this new FOIA provision.^[27]

The agencies affected by this amendment are those that are part of, or contain 'an element of', the 'intelligence community'. As defined in the National Security Act of 1947 (as amended), they consist of the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office (and certain other reconnaissance offices within the Department of Defense), the intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps, the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Energy, and the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the Department of State, and 'such other elements of any other department or agency as may be designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community'.^[27][30]

OPEN Government Act of 2007[edit]

President Bush signed the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007, Pub.L.110–175, on December 31, 2007. This law, also known as the 'OPEN Government Act of 2007', amended the federal FOIA statute in several ways.^[31] According to a White House press release, it does so by:

1. establishing a definition of 'a representative of the news media;'
2. directing that required attorney fees be paid from an agency's own appropriation rather than from the Judgment Fund;
3. prohibiting an agency from assessing certain fees if it fails to comply with FOIA deadlines; and
4. establishing an Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)^[32] in the National Archives and Records Administration to review agency compliance with FOIA.^[33]

Right To Information Act Bangladesh

Changes include the following:

• it recognizes electronic media specifically and defines 'News Media' as 'any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.'
• it extends the 20-day deadline by allowing for up to 10 days between the FOIA office of the agency and the component of the agency holding the records and specifically allows for clarification of requests by the FOIA office (Effective 12/31/2007).
• it calls for each agency to designate a FOIA Public Liaison, 'who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes' (Effective 12/31/2008).
• it requires agencies to assign tracking numbers to FOIA requests that take longer than 10 days, and to provide systems determining the status of a request.
• it codifies and defines annual reporting requirements for each agency's FOIA program.
• it specifically addresses data sources used to generate reports; 'shall make the raw statistical data used in its reports available electronically ..'
• it redefines the definition of an agency 'record' to include information held for an agency by a government contractor.
• it establishes an Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)^[32] which will offer mediation services to resolve disputes as non-exclusive alternative to litigation.
• it requires agencies to make recommendations personnel matters related to FOIA such as whether FOIA performance should be used as a merit factor.
• it requires agencies to specify the specific exemption for each deletion or redaction in disclosed documents.

2009 Executive Order permitting retroactive classification[edit]

On December 29, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13526, which allows the government to classify certain specific types of information relevant to national security after it has been requested.^[34] That is, a request for information that meets the criteria for availability under FOIA can still be denied if the government determines that the information should have been classified, and unavailable. It also sets a timeline for automatic declassification of old information that is not specifically identified as requiring continued secrecy.

2010 repeal of FOIA amendments in Wall Street reform act[edit]

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in July 2010, included provisions in section 929I^[35][36] that shielded the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The provisions were initially motivated out of concern that the FOIA would hinder SEC investigations that involved trade secrets of financial companies, including 'watch lists' they gathered about other companies, trading records of investment managers, and 'trading algorithms' used by investment firms.^[37]

In September 2010, the 111th Congress passed an act repealing those provisions. The act was introduced in the Senate on August 5, 2010 as S.3717^[38] and given the name 'A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to provide for certain disclosures under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.'

Notable cases[edit]

A major issue in released documentation is government 'redaction' of certain passages deemed applicable to the Exemption section of the FOIA. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officers in charge of responding to FOIA requests 'so heavily redacted the released records as to preclude needed research.'^[20] This has also brought into question just how one can verify that they have been given complete records in response to a request.

J. Edgar Hoover[edit]

This trend of unwillingness to release records was especially evident in the process of making public the FBI files on J. Edgar Hoover. Of the 164 files and about eighteen thousand pages collected by the FBI, two-thirds were withheld from Athan G. Theoharis and plaintiff, most notably one entire folder entitled the 'White House Security Survey.' Despite finding out that the Truman Library had an accessible file which documented all the reports of this folder, the FBI and Office of Information and Privacy put forth 'stony resistance' to the FOIA appeal process. (I–pg. 27) Some^[who?] argue that it was not even this sixteen year series of three appeals to the Justice Department which gained a further opening of the files, but rather the case of Department of Justice v. Landano which spurred on a break in stolid FBI opposition.

Murder trial[edit]

A murder trial decided in 1993, Department of Justice v. Landano, 508U.S. 165 (1993), involved what was alleged to be a felony murder committed during a group burglary by defendant Landano. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the unanimous opinion. 'In an effort to support his claim in subsequent state court proceedings that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding material exculpatory evidence, he filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the FBI for information it had compiled in connection with the murder investigation.'^[39]

In defense, the FBI put forth a claim that the redacted sections of the documents requested were withheld in accordance with FOIA regulations protecting the identity of informants who gave information regarding case details. However, O'Connor ruled that those who supplied information had no need to remain anonymous in the court setting. 'To the extent that the Government's proof may compromise legitimate interests, the Government still can attempt to meet its burden with in camera affidavits.' The court thus remanded the case to the Circuit Courts and rejected the FBI's claim of confidentiality as being a valid reason to withhold information.

'While most individual sources may expect confidentiality, the Government offers no explanation, other than administrative ease, why that expectation always should be presumed.'^[39] Thus, when Theoharis and company were in the middle of fighting in court to obtain J. Edgar Hoover files, they may well have benefited from Landano and also Janet Reno's assertions of the government's need for 'greater openness' and 'discretionary releases' in 1993.

E-mail[edit]

In the case of Scott Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, et al., the White House used the PROFS^[20] computer communications software. With encryption designed for secure messaging, PROFS notes concerning the Iran–Contra affair (arms-for-hostages) under the Reagan Administration were insulated. However, they were also backed up and transferred to paper memos. The National Security Council, on the eve of President George H.W. Bush's inauguration, planned to destroy these records. The National Security Archive, Armstrong's association for the preservation of government historical documents, obtained an injunction in Federal District Court against the head, John Fawcett, of the National Archives and Records Administration and the National Security Council's purging of PROFS records. A Temporary Restraining Order was approved by Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barrington D. Parker. Suit was filed at District Court under Judge Richey, who upheld the injunction of PROFS records.^[40]

Richey gave a further injunction to prevent a purging of the George H.W. Bush's administration's records as well. On counts of leaving the White House clean for the new Clinton Administration, the Bush group appealed but was denied its request. Finally, the Clinton Administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, stating that the National Security Council was not truly an agency but a group of aides to the President and thus not subject to FOIA regulations. Under the Presidential Records Act, 'FOIA requests for NSC [could] not be filed until five years after the president ha[d] left office .. or twelve years if the records [were] classified.'^[41] The Clinton administration won, and the National Security Archive was not granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court on these grounds. According to Scott Armstrong, taking into account labor and material costs, the three presidential administrations spent almost $9.3 million on contesting the National Security Archive FOIA requests for PROFS e-mail records.^[42]

Secret e-mail accounts and abusive fees[edit]

The AP uncovered several federal agencies where staff regularly use fictitious identities and secret or unlisted email accounts to conduct government business. Their use stymied FOIA requests.^{[43][44][45][46]} In some cases, the government demanded enormous (>$1 million) fees for records that appeals show should be available for minimal cost.^{[43][45][47][48]}

Processing time[edit]

The Act contains a provision legally requiring agencies to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days. However, for two main reasons, many agencies rarely meet this requirement. First, the task of screening requests for sensitive or classified information is often arduous and lengthy at agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Second, Congressional funding for agency staff to handle FOIA requests is usually far less than the necessary amount to hire sufficient employees. ^[6] As a result, parties who request information under FOIA often end up filing lawsuits in federal court seeking judicial orders forcing the agencies to comply with their FOIA requests.

The first major case of this type was the 1976 case Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force,^[49] in which Open America had filed a FOIA request with the U.S. Attorney General and the FBI requesting copies of all their documents relating to the role of former FBI Director L. Patrick Gray in the Watergate scandal. The FBI had over 5,000 pending FOIA requests at the time, and did not respond within the statutory 20-day limit. Open America sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the court issued an order commanding the FBI to either immediately comply with or deny Open America's request.^[50] The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which found that FOIA requests could be categorized into 'simple' and 'difficult' requests, and that although Open America's request was 'difficult', the FBI had been using 'due diligence' in responding to it. The court held that because there was no pressing urgency to Open America's request, its lawsuit did not move it to the head of the queue, and it would have to wait its turn.^[50] This legal reasoning and holding has been adopted by all other American circuits, though courts continue to complain that FOIA request delays are too long.^[50]

The Center for Effective Government analyzed 15 federal agencies which receive the most FOIA requests in-depth. It concluded that federal agencies are struggling to implement public disclosure rules. In the latest analysis published in 2015 (using 2012 and 2013 data, the most recent years available) ten of the 15 did not earn satisfactory overall grades, scoring less than 70 out of a possible 100 points. Eight of the ten earned Ds, including the Department of Homeland Security (69 percent), Department of Transportation (68 percent), United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (68 percent), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (67 percent), the United States Department of Labor (63 percent), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (64 percent), the United States Department of Defense (61 percent), the Securities and Exchange Commission (61 percent). The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State earned an F. The State Department's score (37 percent) was dismal due to its extremely low processing score of 23 percent, which was completely out of line with any other agency's performance. Scores of five agencies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Health and Human Services, the SEC, the DOJ, and the EPA, even decreased marginally.^[51]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^Branscomb, Anne (1994). Who Owns Information?: From Privacy To Public Access. BasicBooks.
2. ^5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(4)(F)
3. ^'FOIA Legislative History'. The National Security Archive. The National Security Archive. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
4. ^Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. 'Lyndon B. Johnson: 'Statement by the President Upon Signing the 'Freedom of Information Act.', July 4, 1966'. The American Presidency Project. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
5. ^Metcalfe, Daniel J. (23 May 2006). The Presidential Executive Order on the Freedom of Information Act(PDF). 4th International Conference of Information Commissioners. pp. 54–74. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2011-10-18. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
6. ^ ^abHickman & Pierce (2014), p. 122.
7. ^ ^abOffice of Information and Privacy (OIP) (2005-10-10). 'U.S. Department of Justice Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) General Information'. Retrieved 2010-01-03.
8. ^ ^ab'FOIA Update: The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. sect. 552, As Amended By Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048'. Office of Information and Privacy, U.S. Department of Justice.
9. ^ ^abcdefghiACLU Step-by-Step Guide to using the Freedom of Information Act; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation pamphlet written by Allan Robert Adler, pp. 3–5, ISBN0-86566-062-X
10. ^'AO-04-14'. Virginia.gov. 22 May 2014. further records were denied pursuant to the criminal investigative files exemption, subdivision A 2 a of § 2.2-3706.
11. ^Provence, Lisa (31 August 2015). 'Exempt or not exempt? Judge considers FOIA lawsuit'. c-ville.com. when he requested the records again in February 2015, it was denied, citing the 'criminal investigative files' exemption to the Freedom of Information Act
12. ^'February 14: For the love of ..'issuu.com. 13 February 2018. Alan Gernhardt at the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council says the videos could fall under FOIA's criminal investigative files exemption, especially if they were shown at a preliminary hearing.
13. ^'USPS: ZIP Codes are 'Commercially Sensitive' Trade Secrets'. The WebLaws.org Blog. November 6, 2013. Retrieved 7 November 2013.
14. ^ ^abGold, Susan Dudley. 2012. Freedom of Information Act. New York, NY: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.
15. ^The enactment of Title 5 into positive law was done by Pub.L.89–554, 80 Stat.378, enacted September 6, 1966. This means that while Title 5 existed before, it was merely a compilation of laws but not the law itself. Only about half of the U.S. Code is positive law, meaning the law itself. See uscode.house.gov for background on positive law codifiation of the U.S. Code.
16. ^ ^abcd'Veto Battle 30 Years Ago Set Freedom of Information Norms: Scalia, Rumsfeld, Cheney Opposed Open Government Bill; Congress Overrode President Ford's Veto of Court Review'. Electronic Briefing Book No. 142. National Security Archive (George Washington University, Washington, D.C.). 2004-11-23.
17. ^Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, 'H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act,' September 25, 1974 Source: Gerald R. Ford Library. Document 10.
18. ^ ^abScalia, Antonin (March 1982). 'The Freedom of Information Act Has No Clothes'(PDF). Regulation. 6 (2): 14. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
19. ^Your Right to Federal Records: Questions and Answers on the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. Electronic Privacy Information Center. 1992.
20. ^ ^abcTheoharis, Athan (1998). A Culture of Secrecy: The Government Versus the People's Right to Know. Kansas: University Press of Kansas. p. 27.
21. ^Exec. Order No. 12356, 3 C.F.R. 166 (1983)
22. ^ ^ab'Brief Amici Curiae of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists in support of Leslie R. Weatherhead, Respondent'. United States of America, United States Department of Justice, and United States Department of State, Petitioners, v. Leslie R. Weatherhead, Respondent, in the Supreme Court of the United States. 1999-11-19.
23. ^'FOIA Reform Legislation Enacted: FOIA Update Vol. VII, No. 4'. U.S. Department of Justice. 1986.
24. ^'Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)'. Illinois Institute of Technology Paul V. Galvin Library. Archived from the original on 2002-06-02. Retrieved 2002-06-04.
25. ^Executive Order no. 13489, Presidential Records, 74 FR4669 (January 21, 2009)
26. ^'Executive Order 13489 on Presidential Records'. fas.org.
27. ^ ^abc'FOIA Post: FOIA Amended by Intelligence Authorization Act'. United States Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy. 2002.
28. ^Pub.L.107–306, 116 Stat.2383, § 312 (to be codified at 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(3)(A), 5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(3)(E)).
29. ^5 U.S.C.§ 552(a)(3)(E)(ii) (as amended)
30. ^50 U.S.C.§ 401a(4) (2000)
31. ^'Public Law 110-175 OPENNESS PROMOTES EFFECTIVENESS IN OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007'. Government Printing Office. 2007-12-31. Retrieved 2010-06-13.
32. ^ ^ab'OGIS Home Page'. National Archives and Records Administration.
33. ^President Bush Signs S. 2488 into Law FAS Project on Government Secrecy
34. ^'Executive Order 13526'. Federation of American Scientists.
35. ^'House holds hearing on controversial SEC FOIA exemption'. rcfp.org.
36. ^Guidance to Staff on Application of Section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Act^{[permanent dead link]} (modified: September 15, 2010) from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
37. ^'Schapiro explains why some info should be secret'. CNN. September 16, 2010.
38. ^Bill Summary & Status- 111th Congress (2009–2010) S.3717 from THOMAS at the Library of Congress
39. ^ ^abUnited States Dep't of Justice v. Landano, 373U.S.83 (1963).
40. ^Theoharis (1998), pp. 151–152.
41. ^Theoharis (1998), p. 156.
42. ^Theoharis (1998), p. 159.
43. ^ ^abGillum, Jack (4 June 2013). 'TOP OBAMA APPOINTEES USING SECRET EMAIL ACCOUNTS'. The Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2013-10-07. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
44. ^'US officials found to be using secret government email accounts'. The Guardian. The Associated Press. 4 June 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
45. ^ ^abWoolery, Liz (14 June 2013). ''Secret' Email Accounts Raise More Questions, Concerns About Government Transparency'. Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. Archived from the original on 2013-07-20. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
46. ^'While US Attorney General, Eric Holder Used Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's Birth Name as His Official Email Address'. VICE News. Retrieved 2016-02-27.
47. ^'DEA wants $1.4 million before it will begin processing request'. MuckRock. Retrieved 2016-02-13.
48. ^'The Pentagon's $660 million FOIA fee'. MuckRock. Retrieved 2016-02-27.
49. ^Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
50. ^ ^abcHickman & Pierce (2014), p. 123.
51. ^Making the Grade: Access to Information Scorecard 2015 March 2015, 80 pages, Center for Effective Government, retrieved 21 March 2016

• Hickman, Kristen E.; Pierce, Richard J., Jr. (2014). Federal Administrative Law: Cases and Materials (2nd ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: Foundation Press. ISBN978-1-60930-337-2.

Further reading[edit]

• Associated Press (March 18, 2016), US Gov't Sets Record for Failures to Find Files When Asked – via New York Times

External links[edit]

• Stanford Libraries FOIA archive – Preserved collection of sites that deal with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and documents. This includes government sites that receive and distribute FOIA documents (aka 'FOIA reading rooms') as well as non-profit organizations and government watchdogs that request large numbers of FOIA documents on specific topics like national security and civil rights.
• Effect on Soviet Piracy in Cold War from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• 'Freedom of Information Act'. Amend section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, compiled 1789–2008. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. July 4, 1966.
• Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T (July 4, 1966). 'Statement by the President Upon Signing the 'Freedom of Information Act.''. The American Presidency Project. University of California – Santa Barbara.
• 'Want to Obtain FBI Records a Little Quicker? Try New eFOIA System'. FBI. November 30, 2015. Archived from the original on December 8, 2015.
• Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (January 12, 2016). Reflections on the U.S. Treasury Department in the Late 1990s (video). (Mentions inadequacy of government response to FOIA requests, e.g. around 22 min. in)
• FOIA Wiki (wiki maintained by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press with explanatory entries on various aspects of FOIA, including caselaw, agency information, and recent FOIA decisions)