Showing posts with label OPEN government act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OPEN government act. Show all posts

May 27, 2008

On the FOIA:


Corporate America And Uncle Sam Need To Wake Up To E-Discovery and E-FOIA Obligations, Part Two

FindLaw

By Eric Sinrod,

In this article, FindLaw columnist Eric Sinrod examines the responsibilities of the government and private enterprise pertaining to electronic information under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for electronic discovery and the Freedom of Information Act. This installment addresses the Freedom of Information Act; Part One covered electronic discovery issues.

The Freedom Of Information Act

Statutory Background

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted in 1966 so that the American public could gain access to government information to monitor the service of elected and appointed federal officials.

The FOIA was amended in the 1970s with sharper teeth in the wake of the Watergate scandal. And much later in the mid-1990s, the statute was further revised to allow for the discovery of government information in electronic form.

The Freedom of Information Act enables the public to obtain information from the federal government to ascertain, as stated by the Supreme Court, "what the government is up to." After all, a government shrouded in secrecy is not a government by the people and for the people.

E-FOIA

With the coming of the electronic age, Congress enacted electronic-related amendments (E-FOIA) in 1996.

These amendments required federal agencies to make available important records online, provide specific guidance to citizens on submitting information requests, and implement the technology necessary to post information proactively.

The intent of E-FOIA was to increase public access to government information while at the same time reducing the burden created by FOIA requests.

An agency record is specifically defined under E-FOIA as including materials in an "electronic format."

Moreover, an agency is required to provide such a record in the "format requested . . . if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format."

In addition, agencies are required to make "reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of the [FOIA]."

All well and good, right? Wrong.

A late-2007 audit by the National Security Archive--an independent, nongovernmental research effort at George Washington University--paints a bleak picture of governmental noncompliance with E-FOIA a decade after its enactment.

Significant findings include the following:

-- Only 21 percent of federal agencies post on their Web sites all four categories of records specifically required by the law (agency opinions/orders, statements of agency policy, frequently requested records and guidance to agency staff);

-- A mere 6 percent of agencies post all 10 elements of essential FOIA guidance (where to send FOIA requests, fee status, fee waivers, expediting process, reply time, exemptions, administrative appeal rights, where to send appeals, judicial review rights, and an index of records/major information systems);

-- Just 26 percent of agencies provide online forms for submitting FOIA requests; and

-- Many agency Internet links are incorrect or missing.

This situation is unacceptable. Not only is it against the law as written 10 years ago, it also completely goes against the goal of freedom of access to government information.

Yes, it is true that certain government information deserves protection, such as when true national security is at stake, but that is why FOIA includes certain exemptions.

Without a proper basis to invoke an exemption, government information should not be shielded from coming to light simply because the government has not seen fit to obey the law and enter the information age.

Even potential arguments of cost and burden fall by the wayside when this situation is analyzed properly.

It is far less burdensome and costly for federal agencies to post basic and most frequently requested information online than to respond separately to many individual requests for the same information when that information cannot be accessed on agency Web sites.

While the National Security Archive audit highlights some chief offenders of E-FOIA, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (a Department of Homeland Security component) and the Air Force, the audit also compliments certain federal branches, such as NASA for proactively posting records of great interest to the public (like the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster) and the Department of Education for providing guidance and tools like online forms for FOIA requesters.

If NASA and the Department of Education can get it right, so should other federal agencies. It's not as if E-FOIA was just enacted yesterday. Ten years is plenty of time to come into compliance.

Open Government Act

There has been a perception that the current administration in practice has diluted the timing and quality of provision of information under the statute.

Those days appear to be coming to an end, as the House of Representatives passed a bill referred to as the Open Government Act of 2007 that passed the Senate just days earlier. Perhaps seeing the ultimate writing on the wall, President Bush signed the act into law on December 31.

As noted in the findings supporting the act, the FOIA originally was signed into law because "our constitutional democracy, our system of self-government, and our commitment to popular sovereignty depends on the consent of the governed," and that such consent "is not meaningful unless it is informed consent."

According to the concurring opinion of Supreme Court Justice Black from the case Barr v. Matteo, "the effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion."

As Justice Black found, this calls for "the widest possible understanding of the quality of government service rendered by all elective or appointed officials or employees."

And not to be forgotten, in United States Department of State v. Ray, a case that I briefed as counsel for the FOIA requesters in the early 1990s, the Supreme Court found that the FOIA establishes "a strong presumption in favor of disclosure."

Yet in recent times, many FOIA requests go unanswered by government agencies well past statutorily mandated response times. Whereas the usual request deserves a response within 20 days, some requests go answered for months and even years, while a few requests never lead to a response.

In addition, the FOIA sets forth certain exemptions that agencies can invoke to refuse to provide information to requesters. Such exemptions have to do with national security, law enforcement, privacy, and other important matters.

Of course, how an agency interprets exemptions has an impact on the flow of information provided.

The current administration has been viewed in some quarters as having broadly interpreted FOIA exemptions precisely to limit the amount of information disclosed under the statute.

Congress evidently became fed up--hence the passage of the Open Government Act. The act, by its own terms, would be effective one year after enactment.

The Open Government Act does contain helpful and important features.

There are provisions to speed up the timing of responses to FOIA requests, making clear that the 20-day response time generally applies and is not to be tolled, assigning tracking numbers to FOIA requests that take longer than 10 days to process, and invalidating the ability of agencies to charge requesters for research and copying costs, if the response deadlines in the statute are not met.

The act also broadens the scope of information potentially available, pursuant to FOIA requests, by including government information maintained for agencies by government contractors.

In addition, the act extends the circumstances under which FOIA requesters may obtain attorneys's fees under the statute.

On top of all of this, the Open Government Act requires more accurate reporting by agencies to Congress, with respect to FOIA compliance, and creates the Office of Government Information Services at the National Archives to mediate conflicts between FOIA requesters and agencies.

The act represents the first changes to FOIA since 1996, when amendments were made to address information maintained electronically.

Concluding Remarks

The electronic age is a brand new world. Whether you are part of a company or a federal agency, care must be taken to comply properly with electronic discovery and FOIA obligations.

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Web site is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod's columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.


February 06, 2008

Today's FISA News Roundup: EFF deeplinksDHS,

February 6th, 2008

FISA News Roundup

Posted by Hugh D'Andrade

As the Senate prepares to vote on amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this week -- including the crucial Dodd-Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity from the bill -- the web is lighting up with news and analysis. A few highlights:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell sent a letter to Senate leaders reminding them (in case they have forgotten) that the President will veto any FISA bill that does not include immunity for telecoms like AT&T that cooperated in the NSA's domestic spying program.

If any of these amendments [striking or altering immunity conditions in the bill] is part of the bill that is presented to the President, we, as well as the President’s other senior advisors, will recommend that he veto the bill.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stood up to Mukasey's bullying and told it like it is:

This veto threat is part of a White House strategy to jam the bill through Congress with procedural maneuvers and political gamesmanship. We call on Republicans to allow the legislative process to work so that the Senate can pass a strong bipartisan bill.

Meanwhile, in a call to right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh meant to shore up support for the telco immunity, Vice President Dick Cheney was uncharacteristically blunt in admitting the private sector's cooperation in the NSA program:

Those companies helped specifically at our request. They've done yeoman duty for the country.

Senator Feingold told Newsweek why Americans dislike the idea of immunity:

People see their own personal liberties affected. And we've seen that the telecom immunity does offend people. People may be nervous about giving a free pass [on immigration]. But what's gonna bother them even more are the types of things I'm describing here: the level to which their privacy is being subjected to a "trust me" government that impacts their daily freedom and privacy. It really is disturbing to people with any kind of common sense at all.

Senator Rockefeller had some worrisome things to say on the floor today about the Senate's FISA bill, as Wired's Threat Level notes. General warrants, anyone?

Unlike traditional [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] application orders which involve collection on one individual target, the new FISA provisions create a system of collection. The courts role in this system of collection is not to consider probable cause on individual targets but to ensure that procedures used to collect intelligence are adequate. The courts' determination of the adequacy of procedures therefore impacts all electronic communications gathered under the new mechanisms, even if it involves thousands of targets.

And the LA Times Editorial board reminded readers that the telecoms have a responsibility to uphold the law as the last line of defense against illegal government surveillance:

It's important that phone companies and Internet providers cooperate fully with legal surveillance requests, and that they not be put at risk for doing so. On warrantless wiretaps, however, those firms are the only potential check against unlawful snooping. If they're protected from any liability, they will have no reason to question the legal basis for the government's requests.

The Senate will be voting on these amendments any day now, and the question of whether to hold telecoms accountable will be resolved one way or the other. Now is the time to take action -- call or email your Senator to urge them to vote Yes on the Dodd-Feingold amendment!

[Permalink]

February 6th, 2008

President Tries to Scrap New Open Government Office

Posted by Marcia Hofmann

Just weeks after signing legislation that significantly updated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the first time in more than a decade, the President is attempting to single-handedly strike a major part of the new law.

Among other improvements to the FOIA, the OPEN Government Act created an ombudsman to settle problems between FOIA requesters and federal agencies, as well as keep tabs on how well the FOIA works in practice. Rather than put the new office in the Department of Justice, which has been in charge of the government's FOIA policy for more than 30 years and represents the government in FOIA lawsuits filed by requesters, Congress decided that it should be part of the National Archives and Records Administration to help maintain its independence.

It seemed that President Bush was behind this idea when he signed the OPEN Government Act into law on December 31. His proposed budget for 2009, however, includes a provision that would "repeal" the ombudsman's office and shift its funding to the Justice Department.

If the President's attempt to get rid the ombudsman is successful, it would be tremendously unfortunate for both the public and the government. This new office is meant to give requesters a way to resolve FOIA disputes without having to resort to litigation, which would be cheaper and less burdensome for people who have trouble getting documents from the government, and might reduce the number of FOIA lawsuits that the government has to defend against. The creation of the ombudsman's office is a good idea for improving the FOIA process, which doesn't work as well as it should. The President should see if it makes things better before deciding it's not worth the money.

EFF has joined a coalition of more than 40 organizations asking Congress to provide funds for the ombudsmen to work out of the National Archives as Congress intended. You can read our objections to the budget proposal here.

To learn more about EFF's Freedom of Information Act litigation, click here.

[Permalink]

February 6th, 2008

CNET's "Real ID vs. the States" Series Covers Looming Showdown

Posted by Richard Esguerra

This week, CNET launched its four-part series covering Real ID -- the dangerous federal plan to create a national ID card that presents a massive threat to citizens' privacy, among other critical flaws.

The REAL ID Act was signed into law in 2005 and forces states to standardize driver's licenses in a way that turns them into a national ID. In January 2008, the Department of Homeland Security announced a set of standards to fulfill the vague mandate passed by Congress, but were met with opposition from a broad stable of parties -- beyond the long roster of privacy organizations and consumer advocates, the House Committee on Homeland Security, Senator Patrick Leahy (Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee), and a number of other key members of Congress spoke out against the regulations.

So far, the CNET series has been comprehensive in its coverage of the issue, describing the complicated timeline; showing which states have assented to, wavered on, and bravely opposed the costly federal mandate; and depicting the chaos facing travelers and citizens across the country.

[Permalink]

ShareThis