Freedom of Information Act
The electronic freedom of information Act Amendments of 1996 widened the scale of FOIA to include electronic records and demand creation of electronic reading rooms to make records easily available to the public. In 2005, Executive Order 13392 Improving Agency Disclosure of Information restated that FAOI functions an important route through which the public can access the information on the activities of federal government and urged the federal agencies to transform their FOIA programs to focus on the needs of citizens and realize their goals (Marks, para. 3).
Background
Due to the pressure on both constitution and demand for rights by the American people together with the insistence of state subservience to the individual, some people saw it necessary to disclose government information to the public. This view was criticized because some government information was regarded to be so sensitive at the same time there were private interest which did not favor the suggestion (Nader, para. 4).
The congress tried to pass Freedom of information Act in 1966 so that it could provide access to records owing to the fact that the people have the right to know what is going on in the government. The Privacy Act of 1974 was enacted to cover government documents involving individuals. There are about nine exemptions to FOIA which handle the issues which are considered sensitive and touches on personal rights of individuals. These exemptions are found in Title 5 of the United States code, section 552 (Federal Communication Commission, para. 3).
The act exclusives apply to federal government agencies. The agencies are under numerous authorizations to obey public solicitation of information. Along with obeying the public demand and making available all routine and technical measures for applying for documents from the agency, agencies are also liable to penalties for deterring the process of requesting for information. If any agency personnel acted contrarily to the law, a special counsel is charged with the responsibility of initiating measures to verify whether disciplinary action is necessary for the officer or the staff who was responsible for the withholding. In this manner, there is an option for any person soliciting for information to file a suit in federal court should there be any suspicion of unlawful interference or delayed sending of records requested. Nevertheless, there are exemptions to this law varying from withholding of documents through executive order for various reasons ranging from interest of national defense to foreign policy (Henry, p. 50).
Privacy acts amendments of 1974
Subsequent to Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford saw it necessary to sign freedom of information act supporting the amendments in the privacy act of 1974, however there was worry over leaks and possible legal arguments that the bill is unconstitutional and these claims forced Ford to sanction the bill, in consistency with the documents declassified in 2004. Congress voted against President Fords sanction, resulting into freedom of information act which is used up to date, with judicial evaluation of executive privacy arguments (Federal Communication Commission, para. 7).
The amendments were made to the law so as to regulate government control over documents which apprehends the public. It enables the public to access information about oneself, but this is regulated by the privacy acts exemptions, the public also have the power to change the records which appears inaccurate, inappropriate, ill-timed, or incomplete. The public are also granted the right to take legal action against the government for breaking the law together with allowing others to see someones records unless it is specifically allowed by the law. Together with privacy act, the rights of individual soliciting for information from the government are widened. People seeking for information from the government go through either The Justice Departments Office of Information and Privacy or Federal District Courts (Mason, para. 9).
In 1976, exemption 3 of the FOIA was altered to allow specification of several other exemptions. The specified exemptions included 1) information involving national security, 2) information related exclusively to domestic rules and practices, 3) information touching on accusing a person of a crime, 4) information which is likely to interfere with someones privacy, 5) information on investigations which if disclosed would interfere with inquiry, 6) information which result into financial rumors or jeopardize the strength of any financial institution, and 7) information connected to agencys involvement in legal inquiry (Mason, para. 9).
In 1986, FOIA was amended. It touched a small part of the bipartisan Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Congress amended FOIA to handle the fees charged by various classes of requesters and the extent of admission to law enforcement and national security records. The amendments are not indicated in the congressional reports on the act, therefore the legislative statements offer an indication of congressional plan (Henry, p. 124).
During the rule of president Reagan, he gave an executive order which was referred to as executive order 12,356 of 1982 which authorized federal agencies to hold back huge amounts of information under exemption 1 which was involving national security. The public concern which came as a result of the effect of Reagans order on Freedom of information Act led President Clinton to significantly change the principle in 1995. FOIA was seriously expanded during Clintons administration. Between 1995 and 1999, he gave out executive commands that permitted disclosure of information previously held as national security information for about 25 years and the information which were of historical interest as part of the FOIA. This disclosure of information enabled the public to access information which they previously did not know about cold war and other historical events (Harader, para. 7).
The electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996
This amendment to the FOIA stated that all agencies are required by the law to develop and avail their records electronically for all the activities done on or after November 1, 1996. Agencies were also required to provide electronic reading rooms for the use of citizens in order to access electronic information. Because the records were voluminous and resources scarce, the agencies response time to FOIA requests were extended. Initially the response time was ten days, but the amendment extended it to twenty days (U.S. Department of State, para. 6).
The September 11, 2001 attacks led to the issue of directives by President George W. Bush limiting access to information relating to the past presidents. It was later cancelled in 2009 by President Barack Obama as part of his executive order promoting transparency, honesty, and accountability in government records. Public right to use presidential records was restored fully. In 2002, the congress enacted the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2003, public law 107-306. The amendments were only involving intelligence agencies. It was termed as prohibition on compliance with requests for information submitted by foreign governments.
This amendment prohibited any covered US intelligence agency from releasing records in response to FOIA requests put forward by foreign states or international governmental organizations. This means that any request made by non other than United States governmental entities should not be acted up on (Federal Communication Commission, para. 10).
The United States freedom of information act has undergone several changes since its inception. Such amendments have made it easy for the public to access information of public concern. Among the most important amendments is electronic freedom of information act amendment of 1996, privacy acts amendment of 1974, cancellation of directives barring access to presidential information, and specification of exemptions to FOIA. Since the public have access to information which they can need regarding the federal governments activities, it has led to increased transparency, accountability, and openness in government offices.
0 comments:
Post a Comment