(Freedom Of Information Act) A U.S. government rule that states that public information shall be delivered within 10 days of request.
Download Computer Desktop Encyclopedia to your iPhone/iTouch
(Freedom Of Information Act) A U.S. government rule that states that public information shall be delivered within 10 days of request.
Download Computer Desktop Encyclopedia to your iPhone/iTouch
| 5min Related Video: Freedom of Information Act |
| Investment Dictionary: Sunshine Laws |
U.S. federal and state laws requiring regulatory authorities' meetings, decisions and records to be made available to the public.
Investopedia Says:
Sunshine laws were first created in the mid-70s in a bid to increase public disclosure of governmental agencies. Sunshine laws do not allow all citizens to attend meetings, but they do ensure that media and representatives of the public can attend.
Related Links:
Few organizations can move the market like the Federal Reserve. As an investor, it's important to understand exactly what the Fed does and how it influences the economy. The Federal Reserve
Learn how governments adjust taxes and government spending to moderate the economy. What Is Fiscal Policy?
| Financial & Investment Dictionary: Sunshine Laws |
State or federal laws (also called government in the sunshine laws) that require most meetings of regulatory bodies to be held in public and most of their decisions and records to be disclosed. Many of these statutes were enacted in the 1970s because of concern about government abuses during the Watergate period. Most prominent is the federal Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which makes it possible to obtain documents relating to most federal enforcement and rule-making agencies.
| Business Dictionary: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) |
Federal law requiring that, with specified exemptions, documents and materials generated or held by federal agencies be made available to the public and establishing guidelines for their disclosure. Exemptions include issues relating to national security.
| US History Encyclopedia: Freedom of Information Act |
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed by Congress in 1966 and became effective on 4 July 1967. Amended in 1974 in light of the Watergate scandal and again by the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986, FOIA provides citizen access to documents held by agencies in the federal government's executive branch, including government and government-controlled corporations. The law does not apply to elected officials or the federal judiciary. FOIA requests may be denied only if they pertain to any of the following types of information: classified national security materials; matters relating to internal personnel rules and practices; information exempt under other laws; confidential business information obtained from private sector sources; internal communications regarding the formation of policy; personnel and medical files of individuals; law enforcement investigatory records; information about government-regulated financial institutions; or geological and geophysical data on oil and natural-gas wells. A requester may file an administrative appeal for access to withheld documents and if denied, may file a judicial appeal in U.S. District Court, where the burden of justifying withholding of information lies with the government.
With the rise in the 1930s of the modern administrative state and its proliferating agencies and bureaucracies, executive responsibility expanded in an often bewildering manner. The security interests of the Cold War compounded matters. A minor freedom of information movement in Congress culminated in the 1966 legislation, but the law lacked force until the events of Vietnam and Watergate discredited claims of executive privilege based on national security or separation of powers. During the 1980s, the administration of President Ronald Reagan sought to reduce the use of FOIA. The result was a reduction of personnel responsible for reviewing documents. In 1982, Executive Order 12356 required reviewers to consider security needs more important than the public's right to know. Congressional amendments in 1986 further narrowed the scope of releasable information. In 1994, President Bill Clinton reversed the policy of nine previous presidents and declared that because the National Security Council, which advises the president on security matters, is not an agency of the federal government, its records must be considered strictly as presidential papers not subject to the FOIA and other record laws. Although FOIA has its flaws, such as its use by felons to obtain appeals, it has led to greater public access to government information. When used by journalists covering current events and scholars probing the origins and workings of laws and administrations, it has brought the nation closer to its founders' ideals. "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it," wrote James Madison in 1822, "is but a Prologue to a farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both."
Bibliography
Franklin, Justin D., and Robert F. Bouchard, eds. Guidebook to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. New York: C. Boardman, 1986.
Hernon, Peter, and Charles R. McClure. Federal Information Policies in the 1980s: Conflicts and Issues. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing, 1987.
—Shira Diner Kenneth O'Reilly
| Columbia Encyclopedia: Freedom of Information Act |
| Intelligence Encyclopedia: FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) |
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) limits the ability of United States federal government agencies to withhold information from the public by classifying that information as secret. Passed by Congress in 1967, it applies to the agencies of the executive branch, and not to the legislative or judicial branches, or to state or local governments, although every state has its own privacy and public access laws. FOIA did not become a significant aspect of American public life until the early to mid-1970s, when several events, including the Watergate scandal, the passage of the Privacy Act in 1974, and amendments in 1975, helped give it much greater importance.
Historical Background
When Congress first passed FOIA, the law did not apply to investigatory files compiled for the purposes of law enforcement. This exempted files collected by the Justice Department and its agencies, most notably the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), from the FOIA. Within a few years of the law's passage, however, the fabric of American public life would change dramatically, bringing with it changes in many of the nation's laws, including FOIA.
Whereas ordinary citizens had long been accustomed to trusting their government and to respecting organizations such as the FBI and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), revelations of spying and other "dirty tricks" committed by the Nixon administration before and during the Watergate years helped influence a sense of distrust of Washington. Prior to the early 1970s, suspicion of the federal government was limited primarily to those on the political fringes of right and left, but thereafter, the belief that the government was spying on its citizens became an increasingly prevalent attitude.
The Privacy Act and changes to the FOIA. By the mid-1970s, this change in attitude would be reflected in Washington by efforts to increase the openness of the federal government to its citizens. Nixon himself issued an executive order limiting the number of agencies that could classify information as top secret, and thus exempt it from FOIA provisions. He also required officials in such situations to explain why information had been classified as top secret in the first place.
The scandal surrounding Watergate, and the looming possibility of an impeachment, forced Nixon's resignation in 1974, the same year Congress passed the Privacy Act. The latter greatly restricted the authority of agencies to collect information on individuals, and to disclose that information to persons other than the individual. At the same time, it required the agencies to furnish the individual with any information on him or her that the agency had in its files. The Privacy Act, along with 1975 amendments to FOIA, greatly broadened access to federal files—including those of law-enforcement, intelligence, and security agencies—that had formerly been under severe restriction.
FOIA procedure today. In addition to restricting the purview of federal agencies with regard to documents, what came to be known as the Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) placed an enormous onus on those agencies to respond to all requests for information. For example, in the quarter-century after 1975, the FBI handled some 300,000 requests involving the release of more than 6 million pages of documents. Not every part of every request is granted, however: FOIPA does allow exemptions for sensitive material.
In some situations, the requester has to pay for fulfillment of the request. Answers to questions regarding payment and any number of other specifics may be found with the Department of Justice, which in 2003 maintained an FOIA section at its Web site. There it listed FOIA contacts at various government agencies, as well as other information relating to FOIPA.
By the early twenty-first century, every federal department, agency, office, and bureau had its own FOIA contact. For most entities of any size, there was at least one individual tasked full-time with processing, responding to, and fulfilling these requests. In some cases, there were multiple individuals or even an entire office devoted to this purpose.
At the FBI, for instance, requests are received, logged into computers, and assigned a tracking number. The agency then formally acknowledges the request, and conducts an indices search to determine whether it even has the records requested. Once an apparent match is located, it is reviewed to determine whether it is the exact file requested.
Assuming the file exactly matches the request, it is photocopied, and an analyst reviews the work copy to determine if there is any material that meets any one of nine exemptions and three exclusions covered in FOIPA. If any such material exists in the file, the analyst uses a colored marker to delete it, and in the margins cites the appropriate exemption. The pages are then re-copied using a photocopier with a special filter so that there is no chance anyone can detect the deleted material. At that point, the copies are mailed to the requester.
During the early twenty-first century, the FBI and other agencies were developing automated document processing systems that would replace many of these steps. These systems would also remove the need for a marker pen, and would allow for documents to be released in electronic format.
Further Reading
Books
Henderson, Harry. Privacy in the Information Age. New York: Facts on File, 1999.
Sherick, L. G. How to Use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). New York: Arco, 1978.
Theoharis, Athan G. A Culture of Secrecy: The Government Versus the People's Right to Know. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1998.
Ullmann, John, and Steve Honeyman. The Reporter's Handbook: An Investigator's Guide to Documents and Techniques. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983.
Electronic
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). U.S. Department of Justice. <http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/> (March 16, 2003).
| Law Encyclopedia: Freedom of Information Act |
A federal law (5 U.S.C.A. § 552 et seq.) providing for the disclosure of information held by administrative agencies to the public, unless the documents requested fall into one of the specific exemptions set forth in the statute.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was implemented to prevent federal agencies from abusing their discretionary powers by forcing them to make certain information about their work available to the public. The law was regarded as a great milestone because it guarantees the right of people to learn about the internal workings of their government. Almost all agencies of the executive branch of the federal government have issued regulations implementing the FOIA. These regulations inform the public where certain types of information are kept, how the information may be obtained on request, and what appeals are available if a member of the public is denied requested information.
A person requesting information under the FOIA must generally send a letter to the head of the agency maintaining the documents that are sought, identifying the records as clearly as possible. If the request for information is denied, a letter of appeal may be filed, citing, if possible, court rulings explaining why the agency's decision to withhold the information is inappropriate. If the agency denies the appeal, the individual may seek judicial review of the agency's action.
Exemptions to the FOIA are designed to allow an agency to withhold records in situations where disclosure would cause harm to an important government function or private interest. The FOIA explicitly exempts from disclosure a variety of different types of information, including materials that have been classified as secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; trade secrets and commercial or financial information; and personnel and medical files and similar files for which disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)). Although the exemptions appear to run counter to the public interest in gaining access to information, they serve certain important national policy interests, including those of national defense, foreign policy, civilian cooperation with law enforcement, and the efficient operation of government agencies. Courts have held that, consistent with the purpose of the FOIA, these exemptions must be narrowly construed.
Most litigation under the FOIA has occurred when an agency refuses to release government information, citing one or more of the exemptions set forth in the statute. In United States Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 113 S. Ct. 2014, 124 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1993), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not have a blanket exemption under the FOIA from disclosing the identity of FBI informants. Instead, the Court ruled, the bureau must justify, on a case-by-case basis, why informants' identities must not be disclosed. Thus, the Court performed the difficult task of reconciling two important but opposing interests: the FOIA policy of favoring the fullest disclosure possible, versus the interest of law enforcement agencies in protecting their cooperative sources. Writing for the Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, "Although we recognize that confidentiality often will be important to the FBI's investigative efforts, we cannot say that the government's sweeping presumption comports with common sense and probability." Instead, she maintained, the agency must be able to demonstrate that it was reasonable to infer under the circumstances that the information had been provided with an expectation of confidentiality.
Since the FOIA was enacted in 1966, over a half million requests for information have been filed with government agencies. Although initially envisioned as a means to make the federal government more accessible to citizens, the FOIA has been used extensively by reporters and news-gathering agencies, corporations, and even foreign governments.
When the act was first passed, most government data were stored primarily on paper, microfilm, and microfiche. With the advent of the computer age, more information is available to more people than ever before, creating the need for new guidelines in disseminating government information. In particular, computer technology raises questions about what constitutes a reasonable request for information under the act and about how information should be disclosed. The act does not mention computerized records, but the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Act of Jan. 8, 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-235, 101 Stat. 1724 [1988]) prohibits agencies from withholding computerized records from the public if the records would be available under the FOIA as paper documents. Nevertheless, some groups seeking government information have been concerned that government agencies may release large volumes of paper records when more manageable and convenient computer records may be available.
| Wikipedia: Freedom of information legislation |
Freedom of information legislation represents the foundational right-to-know legal process by which requesters may ask for government held information and receive it freely or at minimal cost, barring standardized exceptions. Also variously referred to as open records or (especially in the United States) sunshine laws, governments are also typically bound by a duty to publish and promote openness. In many countries there are constitutional guarantees for the right of access to information, but usually these are unused if specific legislation to support them does not exist.
Over 85 countries around the world have implemented some form of such legislation. Sweden's Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 is thought to be the oldest.
Other countries are working towards introducing such laws, and many regions of countries with national legislation have local laws. For example, all states of the United States have laws governing access to public documents of state and local taxing entities, in addition to that country's Freedom of Information Act which governs records management of documents in the possession of the federal government.
A related concept is open meetings legislation, which allows 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.
In Albania, the constitution of 1998 guarantees the right of access to information; the legislation supporting this is the Ligji nr. 8503, date 30.6.1999, Per të drejten e informimit per dokumentat zyrtare (Law no. 8503, dated June 30 1999, On the right to information over the official documents). This requires public authorities to grant any request for an official document.[1][2]
The Law on Freedom of Information[3] was unanimously approved by the Parliament on 23 September 2003 and went into force in November 2003.
In Australia, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 was passed at the federal level in 1982, applying to all "ministers, departments and public authorities" of the Commonwealth.
There is similar legislation in all states and territories:
In Azerbaijan, a freedom of information law was approved in 2005. It has gone into effect.
On October 21, 2008, the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh issued in the Bangladesh Gazette the Right to Information Ordinance (No. 50 of 2008), based loosely on the Indian Right to Information Act, 2005.[7] The Ordinance is in effect until approved or withdrawn by the next elected Parliament.
Article 32 of the Constitution was amended in 1993 to include a right of access to documents held by the government.
In Belize, the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 2000 and is currently in force, though a governmental commission noted that "not much use has been made of the Act".[8]
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Freedom of Access to Information Act was adopted by the Parliament Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 17 November 2000. Both federal entities - the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina - passed freedom of information laws in 2001, the Freedom of Access to Information Act for the Republika Srpska and Freedom of Access to Information Act for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina respectively.
In Brazil, the Article 5, XXXIII, of the Constitution sets that "everyone shall have the right to receive information of his own interest or of public interest from public entities, which shall be given within the time prescribed by law". Also, article 22 of the Federal law nº 8.159/1991 grants the right to "full access to public documents". There is not, however, any law specifying the manner and the timetable for the information to be given by the State.
In Bulgaria, the Access to Public Information Act was passed in 2000, following a 1996 recommendation from the Constitutional Court to implement such a law.
In Canada, the Access to Information Act allows citizens to demand records from federal bodies. This is enforced by the Information Commissioner of Canada. There is also a complementary Privacy Act, introduced in 1983. The purpose of the Privacy Act is to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by a federal government institution and that provide individuals with a right of access to that information. It is a Crown copyright. Complaints for possible violations of the Act may be reported to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Canadian access to information laws distinguish between access to records generally and access to records that contain personal information about the person making the request. Subject to exceptions, individuals have a right of access to records that contain their own personal information under the Privacy Act but the general public does not have a right of access to records that contain personal information about others under the Access to Information Act.
Each province and territory in Canada has its own access to information legislation. in many cases, this is also the provincial public sector privacy legislation. For example:
From 1989 to 2008, requests made to the federal government were catalogued in the Coordination of Access to Information Requests System.
A 393 page report released in September 2008, sponsored by several Canadian newspaper groups, compares Canada’s Access to Information Act to the FOI laws of the provinces and of 68 other nations: "Fallen Behind: Canada’s Access to Information Act in the World Context," at www3.telus.net/index100/foi
The Freedom of Information Law was passed in 2007 and will be brought into force in January 2009.
In Chile, article 8 of the Constitution provides for the freedom of information. A law titled Law on Access to Public Information (Ley de Acceso a la Información Pública) took effect on April 20, 2009. (See Law 20,285, in Spanish.)
In April 2007, the State Council of the People's Republic of China promulgated the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Open Government Information" (中华人民共和国政府信息公开条例), which came into effect on May 1, 2008.[9] However, the law has done very little to provide information on many of the Chinese government's practices.[citation needed]
Colombian constitution grants the right of access to public information through Law 57 of 1985 which thereby mandates the publishing of acts and official documents. This is implemented and applies to documents that belong to official facilities (offices or the like). Additionally there is the anti corruption statement of Law 190 of 1955 also known as anticorruption act which in its 51st article mandates public offices to list in visible area all the contracts and purchases made by month. The latter taking place slowly.
Access to official information is governed by the Official Information Act 2008. The law is based heavily on the New Zealand legislation.
In Croatia, the Zakon O Pravu Na Pristup Informacijama (Act on the Right of Access to Information) of 2003 extends to all public authorities.
In the Czech Republic, the Zákon č. 106/1999 Sb., o svobodném přístupu k informacím (Act No. 106/1999 Coll. on Free Access to Information) covers the "state agencies, territorial self-administration authorities and public institutions managing public funds" as well as any body authorised by the law to reach legal decisions relating to the public sector, to the extend of such authorisation.[10]
In Denmark, the Access to Public Administration Files Act of 1985 applies to most public agencies, and an unusual clause extends coverage to most private or public energy suppliers.
Hipólito Mejía approved Ley No.200-04 - Ley General de Libre Acceso a la Información Pública (Law number 200-04 - Law on Access to Information) on 28 July 2004, which allows public access to information from the government and private organizations that receive public money to conduct state business. Rough drafts and projects that are not part of an administrative procedure are not included.
In Ecuador, the Transparency and Access to Information Law of 2004 declares that the right of access to information is guaranteed by the state.
In Estonia, the Public Information Act[11] of 2000 extends to all "holders of information", which is clarified as being all government and local government bodies, legal persons in public law and legal persons in private law if they are performing public duties (providing health, education etc).
In matters concerning the local, national and transboundary environment, the Aarhus convention grants the public rights regarding access to information, public participation and access to justice in governmental decision-making processes. It focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities.
Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents[12] grants a right of access to documents of the three institutions to any Union citizen and to any natural or legal person residing, or having its registered office, in a Member State. "Document" is defined broadly and it is assumed that all documents, even if classified, may be subject to right of access unless it falls under one of the exceptions. If access is refused, the applicant is allowed a confirmatory request. A complaint against a refusal can be made with the European Ombudsman and/or an appeal can be brought before the Court of First Instance.
In addition, the Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information[13] sets out the rules and practices for accessing public sector information resources for further exploitation.
Since 2008, the European Commission operates the Register of Interest representatives, a voluntary register of lobbyists at the European union: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/
In Finland, the Laki yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta 9.2.1951/83 (Act on the Openness of Public Documents of 1951) established the openness of all records and documents in the possession of officials of the state, municipalities, and registered religious communities. Exceptions to the basic principle could only be made by law, or by an executive order for specific enumerated reasons such as national security. The openness of unsigned draft documents was not mandated, but up to the consideration of the public official. This weakness of the law was removed when the law was revised in the 1990s. The revised law, the Laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta 21.5.1999/621 (Act on the Openness of Government Activities of 1999), also extended the principle of openness to corporations that perform legally mandated public duties, such as pension funds and public utilities, and to computer documents.[14]
In France, the accountability of public servants is a constitutional right, according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
The implementing legislation is the Loi n°78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 portant diverses mesures d'amélioration des relations entre l'administration et le public et diverses dispositions d'ordre administratif, social et fiscal (Act No. 78-753 of 17 July 1978. On various measures for improved relations between the Civil Service and the public and on various arrangements of administrative, social and fiscal nature). It sets as a general rule that citizens can demand a copy of any administrative document (in paper, digitized or other form), and establishes the Commission d’Accès aux Documents Administratifs, an independent administrative authority, to oversee the process.
In Georgia, the General Administrative Code contains a Law on Freedom of Information.
In Germany, the federal government passed a freedom of information law on September 5, 2005. The law grants each person an unconditional right to access official federal information. No legal, commercial, or any other kind of justification is necessary.
Nine of the sixteen Bundesländer — Berlin, Brandenburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saarland and Thüringen — have approved individual "Informationsfreiheitsgesetze" (Freedom of Information laws).[15]
In Greece, article 16 (Right to Access Administrative Documents — Δικαίωμα γνώσης διοικητικών εγγράφων) of Law 1599/1986 (State-citizenry Relationship — Σχέσεις Κράτους-πολίτη) introduced the right of all citizens to read most administrative documents. This right is now codified as article 5 (Access to documents — Πρόσβαση σε έγγραφα) of the Administrative Procedural Code (Κώδικας Διοικητικής Διαδικασίας), Law 2690/1999. Under this article, citizens have a right to know the content of administrative documents. Administrative documents are defined as those produced by public sector entities, such as reports, studies, minutes, statistical data, circulars, instructions, responses, consultatory responses, and decisions. In addition, citizens with a legitimate interest may also access private documents stored by public services. The right cannot be exercised if the document concerns the private or family lives of others, or if the document's confidentiality is safeguarded by specific legal provisions. Furthermore, the public body can refuse access if the document refers to discussions in the Cabinet, or if accessing the document can seriously hamper criminal or administrative violation investigations carried out by judicial, police, or military authorities.
Citizens may study the documents at the place where they are archived, or they may obtain a copy at their own cost. Access to one's own medical data is provided with the help of a doctor. Access to documents should take into account whether they be covered by copyright, patent, or trade secret regulations.
In addition, Law 3448/2006, on the reuse of public sector information, harmonizes the national laws with the requirements on the European Union Directive 2003/98/EC.[16]
In Hong Kong there are no laws specifically enacted to guarantee the freedom of information.
Since March 1995, the Government of Hong Kong has promulgated a "Code on Access to Information" to serve a similar purpose. This code, like other internal regulations of the Government, was not legislated by the Legislative Council and a has minimal legal status. It requires government agencies listed in its appendix to appoint Access to Information Officers to answer citizens' requests for governmental records. A fee maybe charged prior to the release of information.[17]
In Hungary, the Act on the Protection of Personal Data and Public Access to Data of Public Interest extends a right of access to all data of public interest, defined as any information processed by a body performing a governmental function. Complaints and contested applications may be appealed to the Data Protection Commissioner or to the court.
In 2005 the Parliament adopted the Act on the Freedom of Information by Electronic Means (Act XC of 2005). The Act has three basic parts: 1. electronic disclousure of certain data by public sector bodies, 2. publicity of legislation and 3. openness of Court decisions.
In Iceland the Information Act (Upplysingalög) Act no. 50/1996 gives access to public information.
The Indian Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was passed by the Indian Parliament on 15 June 2005. It came into effect on 12 October 2005. Supreme Court of India had, in several Judgments prior to enactment of the RTI Act, interpreted Indian Constitution to read Right to Information as the Fundamental Right as embodied in Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and also in Right to Life. RTI Act laid down a procedure to guarantee this right. Under this law all Government Bodies or Government funded agencies have to designate a Public Information Officer (PIO). The PIO's responsibility is to ensure that information requested is disclosed to the petitioner within 30 days or within 48 hours in case of information concerning the life or liberty of a person. The law was inspired by previous legislation from select states (among them Maharastra, Goa, Karnataka, Delhi etc) that allowed the right to information (to different degrees) to citizens about activities of any State Government body.
A number of high profile disclosures revealed corruption in various government schemes such scams in Public Distribution Systems (ration stores), disaster relief, construction of highways etc. The law itself has been hailed as a landmark in India's drive towards more openness and accountability.
However the RTI India has certain weaknesses that hamper implementation. There have been questions on the lack of speedy appeal to non-compliance to requests. The lack of a central PIO makes it difficult to pin-point the correct PIO to approach for requests. There is also a criticism of the manner in which the Information Commissioners are appointed to head the information commission. It is alleged by RTI Activists that bureaucrats working in close proximity with the government are appointed in the RTI Commissions in a non-transparent manner. [18] The PIO, being an officer of the relevant Government institution, may have a vested interest in not disclosing damaging information on activities of his/her Institution, This therefore creates a conflict of interest. In the state of Maharastra it was estimated that only 30% of the requests are actually realized under the Maharashtra Right to Information act. The law does not allow disclosure of information that affects national security, defence, and other matters that are deemed of national interest.[19][20][21]
In Ireland the Freedom of Information Act 1997 [22] came into effect in April, 1998. The 1997 Act was subsequently amended by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003[4]. The Act has led to a sea-change in the relationship between the citizen, journalists, government departments and public bodies. There are very few restrictions on the information that can be made public. A notable feature is the presumption that anything not restricted by the Act is accessible. In this regard it is a much more liberal Act than the UK Act. Decisions of public bodies in relation to requests for information may be reviewed by the Information Commissioner.
One particular controversy which has caused concern to journalists and historians is that traditionally government ministers would annotate and sign any major policy or report documents which they had seen. However this practice has fallen out of favour because of the new openness. This annotation and signing of documents has often given a paper trail and unique insight as to "what the minister knew" about a controversy or how he or she formed an opinion on a matter. Also civil and public servants have become more informal, in keeping written records of potentially controversial meeting and avoiding writing memos as a result.[23] While this information would not often be released, and sometimes only under the thirty year rule, the fact that government ministers now do not annotate and sign documents creates the concerns that while government is open it is not accountable as to who did or saw what or how decision making process works.
The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 brought in fees for making requests for information and requests for review of decisions taken by Government bodies. As a result, one can incur a fee of up to €240 before even being granted access to information.
In Israel, the Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998, supported by the Freedom of Information Regulations, 5759-1999, controls freedom of information. It defines the bodies subject to the legislation by a set of listed categories - essentially, most public bodies - and provides for the government to publish a list of all affected bodies. However, this list does not seem to have been made publicly available, if indeed it was ever compiled. Many public bodies are not obliged to follow the law, which limits the potential for use by the public.
The Israeli Freedom of Information Law has actually achieved the opposite intended result. Government agencies now take the position that a citizen may only request information via FOIL, ie an official letter designated as such and including the (approx.) $22 fee. Thus an Israeli citizen in many cases cannot simply write a letter asking a question, and can be asked to file a FOIL application with a fee and wait the minimum statutory 30 days for a reply, which the agency can easily extend to 60 days. In many cases FOIL letters are simply ignored, or some laconic response is sent stating the request is either unclear, unspecific, too vague or some other legalese, anything in order to keep the information away from the public. When the 60 days are up, the anticipated result usually yield nothing significant, and the applicant must petition the District Court to compel disclosure, a procedure that requires attorneys to draft pleadings and a payment a (approx.) $420 court fee. A judgement in such FOIL appeals in Israel can take years, and again the agency can easily avoid disclosure by simply not complying. There are no real sanctions for non-compliance. While there are rare successes in Courts compelling Israeli government agencies to disclose information, they are usually in non-controversial areas such as harmless civil matters. The law provides for the expected "security" exemption and an applicant applying for such information can expect not to benefit from FOIL (and also have his or her court appeal rejected). Applicants can be greatly helped by [5]The Movement for Freedom of Information.
Chapter V of Law No. 241 of 7 August 1990 provides for access to administrative documents. However, the right to access is limited. The law states that those requesting information must have a legal interest. The 1992 regulations require "a personal concrete interest to safeguard in legally relevant situations." The courts have ruled that this includes the right of environmental groups and local councilors to demand information on behalf of those they represent. It was amended in 2005. The revision appears to adopt the court rulings and relax the interest somewhat to allow access when an individual can show they represent a more general public interest.
In Jamaica, the relevant legislation is the Access to Information Act, 2002.
In Japan, the "Law Concerning Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs"(行政機関の保有する情報の公開に関する法律) was promulgated in 1999. The law was enforced in 2001.
In many local governments, it establishes the regulations about information disclosure(情報公開条例) from the latter half of 1980's.[24]
The Constitution of Latvia states: "Article 104. Everyone has the right to address submissions to State or local government institutions and to receive a materially responsive reply."
The Law on Freedom of Information was signed into law by the State President in November 1998 and has been amended a number of times recently. Any person can ask for information in "any technically feasible form" without having to show a reason. The request can be oral or written. Bodies must respond in 15 days.
Article 16 of the Constitution of Macedonia guarantees "access to information and the freedom of reception and transmission of information".
The Law on Free Access to Information of Public Character was adopted on 25 January 2006. It is scheduled to go into force in September 2006.The law allows any natural or legal person to obtain information from state and municipal bodies and natural and legal persons who are performing public functions. The requests can be oral, written or electronic. Requests must be responded to in 10 days.
The Constitution was amended in 1977 to include a right of freedom of information. Article 6 says in part, "the right of information shall be guaranteed by the state." The Supreme Court made a number of decisions further enhancing that right.
The Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information was unanimously approved by Parliament in April 2002 and signed by President Fox in June 2002. It went into effect in June 2003.
A freedom of information law was passed in Montenegro late in 2005, after a process of several years.
Article 110 of the Constitution states: "In the exercise of their duties government bodies shall observe the principle of transparency in accordance with rules to be prescribed by Act of Parliament."
Freedom of information legislation was first adopted in 1978. The Government Information (Public Access) Act (WOB) replaced the original law in 1991. Under the Act, any person can demand information related to an administrative matter if it is contained in documents held by public authorities or companies carrying out work for a public authority. The request can either be written or oral. The authority has two weeks to respond.
In New Zealand, the relevant legislation is the Official Information Act 1982. This implemented a general policy of openness regarding official documents and replaced the Official Secrets Act.
The Freedom of Information Act[25] of 19 June 1970 is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in Norway on a national level. Article 100 of the Constitution gives access to public documents.[26]
President Pervez Musharraf promulgated the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 in October 2002. The law allows any citizen access to public records held by a public body of the federal government including ministries, departments, boards, councils, courts and tribunals. It does not apply to government owned corporations or provincial governments. The bodies must respond within 21 days.
In Paraguay, a law protects habeas data, meaning that any citizen can request a copy of publicly or privately held information relating to him, and request that any inaccurate data found be destroyed . This has been primarily used by former dissidents after the fall of the lengthy dictatorship (1954-1989) of Alfredo Stroessner. In 2005, efforts have been made to add transparency to purchases made by the Government, with a system that publishes bids on the Web, as well as the resulting purchases.
Article 61 of the Constitution provides for the right to information and mandates that Parliament enact a law setting out this right.
The Law on Access to Public Information was approved in September 2001 and went into effect in January 2002.(The Act allows anyone to demand access to public information, public data and public assets held by public bodies, private bodies that exercise public tasks, trade unions and political parties. The requests can be oral or written. The bodies must respond within 14 days.
Article 34 of the Constitution provides for a right of access to information.
The Law of the Republic of Moldova on Access to Information[27] was approved by Parliament in May 2000 and went into force in August 2000. Under the law, citizens and residents of Moldova can demand information from state institutions, organizations financed by the public budget and individuals and legal entities that provide public services and hold official information.
Since 2001 there is one law on Freedom of Information and one on transparent decision making processes in public administration (a sunshine law).[28][29]
In Serbia, the Access to Public Information Act gives access to documents of public authorities.
Slovakia passed the Freedom of Information Act in May 2000 (Num. law: 211/2000 Z. z.). Under the law, everybody can demand information from state institutions, organizations, from municipalities, individuals and legal entities financed by the public budget. [30]
Slovenia passed the Access to Public Information Act in March 2003.[31] The Act governs the procedure which ensures everyone free access to public information held by state bodies, local government bodies, public agencies, public funds and other entities of public law, public powers holders and public service contractors.[32]
South Africa passed the Promotion of Access to Information Act on 2 February 2000. It is intended "To give effect to the constitutional right of access to any information held by the State and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights"; the right of access to privately held information is an interesting feature, as most freedom of information laws only cover governmental bodies. See Promotion of access to information act for more information.
The Constitutional Court ruled in 1989 that there is a constitutional right to information "as an aspect of the right of freedom of expression and specific implementing legislation to define the contours of the right was not a prerequisite to its enforcement."
The Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies was enacted in 1996 and went into effect in January 1998. It allows citizens to demand information held by public agencies.
In Sweden, the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 granted public access to government documents. It thus became an integral part of the Swedish Constitution, and the first ever piece of freedom of information legislation in the modern sense. In Swedish this is known as Offentlighetsprincipen (The Principle of Public Access),[33] and has been valid since.
The Principle of Public Access means that the general public are to be guaranteed an unimpeded view of activities pursued by the government and local authorities; all documents handled by the authorities are public unless legislation explicitly and specifically states otherwise, and even then each request for potentially sensitive information must be handled individually, and a refusal is subject to appeal. Further, the constitution grants the Right to Inform, meaning that even some (most) types of secret information may be passed on to the press or other media without risk of criminal charges. Instead, investigation of the informer's identity is a criminal offense.
However it has been mentioned in the media that non-illegal harassment of an public employee who has informed media is not forbidden. For example, one of the most debated events was when a ship[34] hit ground, the shipping authority blamed the pilot, but a map en to a light house.
The "The Freedom of Government Information Law" (政府資訊公開法), enacted by the Legislative Yuan of the Taiwanese government (Republic of China), has been in force since 28 December 2005.[35]
In Thailand, the relevant legislation is the Official Information Act of 1997.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the relevant legislation is the Freedom of Information Act, 1999.
In Turkey, the Turkish Law on the Right to Information (Bilgi Edinme Hakkı Kanunu) was signed on October 24, 2003 and it came into effect 6 months later on April 24, 2004.
The 1996 Constitution does not include a specific general right of access to information but contains a general right of freedom of collect and disseminate information and rights of access to personal and environmental information.
The 1992 Law on Information is a general information policy framework law that includes a citizen's a right to access information. The law allows citizens and legal entities to request access to official documents. The request can be oral or written. The government body must respond in 10 calendar days and provide the information within a month unless provided by law.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (2000 c. 36) is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom on a national level, with the exception of Scottish bodies, which are covered by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (2002 asp. 13).
In the United States the Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 and went into effect the following year. Ralph Nader has been credited with the impetus for creating this act, among others[6]. The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments were signed by President Bill Clinton on October 2, 1996.
The Act applies only to federal agencies. However, all of the states, as well as the District of Columbia and some territories, have enacted similar statutes to require disclosures by agencies of the state and of local governments, though some are significantly broader than others. Many combine this with Open meeting laws, which require government meetings to be announced in advance and held publicly.
In Zimbabwe, the Access to Information and Privacy Act (AIPPA) was signed by President Mugabe in February 2002.
(Unless stated otherwise, information is current as of July 2008.
International
Europe:
India:
Turkey:
United States:
Nepal
Open Meetings:
|
|||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| executive branch | |
| privacy | |
| Federal Bureau of Investigation |
| Why is the freedom of information act important? | |
| Purpose of Freedom of Information Act? | |
| Why was the freedom of information act passed? |
Copyrights:
![]() | Computer Desktop Encyclopedia. THIS COPYRIGHTED DEFINITION IS FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. All other reproduction is strictly prohibited without permission from the publisher. © 1981-2009 Computer Language Company Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Investment Dictionary. Copyright ©2000, Investopedia.com - Owned and Operated by Investopedia Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Financial & Investment Dictionary. Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. Copyright © 2006 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Business Dictionary. Dictionary of Business Terms. Copyright © 2000 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more | |
![]() | Intelligence Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. Copyright © 2004 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Freedom of information legislation". Read more |
Mentioned in