FOIA

A Citizen’s Guide on How to Use the
U.S. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

This handbook does not contain legal advice, which can only be given by an attorney. It is intended to help persons make Freedom of Information requests and obtain access to records simply and directly as intended by Congress, and thereby help in maintaining a democratic form of government.

The Purpose of this Publication
A democratic government depends on the free flow of information.
Enlightened nations have come to realize, therefore, that the strength and vitality of any democratic society requires an informed citizenry capable of making intelligent decisions concerning its future. The freedoms that previous generations fought and died for must be cherished,  protected and advanced.

Transparency in government represents such a key element to the preservation of freedom and democracy that in its very first session, in 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 59 (I), which opens: “Freedom of Information is a fundamental human right and is the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.”

The U. S. Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) constitutes a vital tool designed to open up government actions, issues and policies to public scrutiny so that they become transparent and accessible.  The overarching purpose of the FOIA is to advance the cause of a free and open government “Of the People, By the People, For the People.”

Our Founding Fathers observed very early that citizens have a right to be kept accurately and truthfully informed. That concept became a driving force in their formation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. This Amendment served the principle that the public could only reach responsible decisions if adequately apprised.

This concept underscored the U.S. Supreme Court’s perspective when it noted:

“The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.”

From headlines exposing such matters as government criminal activity, corruption, fraud, waste, abuse, duplicity, illegal surveillance, discrimination, chemical and biological testing of unwitting subjects, injustice and mismanagement, use of the FOIA is an important tool designed to hold the government responsible for its actions. 

The FOIA has helped us learn about such matters as: COINTELPRO ; Watergate ; the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; the toxins poisoning our land, water, air and bodies; the FBI CISPES  (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) investigation and Library Awareness Program ; the Iran-Contra affair ; the level of toxicity at Ground Zero; U.S. interrogation techniques after September 11, 2001; U. S. Army, Navy and Marine Corps secret burials of toxic chemicals revealing mass deaths of sea life; the possible exposure to poisonous chemicals of workers at U.S. Marine Corps bases; and many other cases of government abuse.

Yet, many do not know what the FOIA is or how to go about filing a FOIA request. This publication is designed to serve as a simple Guide to help one:

• Understand the purpose and importance of the FOIA as a vital tool to expose wrongdoing and keep the government accountable, regardless of which party is in power;

• Understand the key concepts and elements that make up the FOIA;

• Understand how to successfully file a FOIA request to obtain records regarding matters in the public interest or one’s own records.

This Guide is meant to familiarize you with the process for making a FOIA request for information in the possession of an agency of the United States Government. The FOIA does not apply to the judiciary, Congress, the President, parts of the Executive Office of the President that exist solely to advise the President, and state and local governments. This Guide concerns the federal Freedom of Information Act only. All states have their own FOIA laws, or public records access laws, that regulate how to obtain information from state and local governments. If you seek records from your state government, you should review the agency website that possesses the information you seek to determine how to go about obtaining such records.

Following the guidelines in the subsequent sections should empower you with the knowledge you need to successfully navigate the FOIA and obtain the records you seek as effortlessly as possible.


INTRODUCTION

"Democracy depends exclusively on the informedness of the individual citizen."  L. Ron Hubbard

The Church of Scientology and FOIA 
Legislation Touching at the Heart of Democracy

The Church of Scientology has been a continuous and relentless advocate of Freedom of Information Act  laws for five decades, playing a key role in promoting and strengthening the FOIA in the United States through legislative reform efforts, while also working tirelessly to enact public records access legislation in countries throughout the world.
The Church’s dedication to the FOIA stems from Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard's unwavering support for transparency, the hallmark of a democratic government.

Scientologists consider it the responsibility of every citizen to reiterate and reaffirm the essential truth that government exists to serve the people. As L. Ron Hubbard pointed out:

"The West came to greatness under the banner of liberty. But all liberties are gradually withered away where a public is not alert. Revolt is not the answer. Firm and united counseling of the government by groups which defend our culture and our liberty alone can serve us all."

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa-2. Dagli obblighi di pubblicazione alla li-bertà di informazione?-3. Gli obblighi di pubblicazione dopo il d.lgs. 97/2016-4. L'importanza delle forme di dissemination nei sistemi FOIA-4.1. Il modello statunitense, tra FOIA e "dissemi-nation"-4.2. Il modello britannico, tra FOIA e schemi di pubblica-zione-4.3. La trasparenza proattiva in Spagna e Francia-5. La "forma più moderna" di trasparenza 1 1. Premessa Nel definire la trasparenza, il Memorandum per l'Open government e la trasparenza 2 del Presidente Obama fa ri-ferimento ad una attività di diffusione di informazioni al pubblico attraverso la rete («put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public»); d'altronde, secondo la legge spagnola sulla tra-sparenza questa «se articula a través de obligaciones de publicidad activa para todas las Administraciones» 3 : que-sti riferimenti bastano ad inquadrare, sia pure con prima 1 Il saggio è frutto di un lavoro comune; sono in ogni caso da at-tribuire a. Carloni E. i paragrafi 1, 2, 3 e 5, a Pettinari G. i paragrafi 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3. 2 Cfr. President B. Obama, Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies

Il presente lavoro si propone di offrire un’analisi e un commento – in chiave critica – dei limiti normativi apposti dal d.lgs. 33/2013 al fine di realizzare un opportuno bilanciamento tra la primaria finalità (ispiratrice del decreto) d’incremento della trasparenza amministrativa e la compresente (e necessaria) esigenza di adeguata protezione dei dati personali che possono essere coinvolti all’interno degli atti/documenti soggetti a pubblicazione obbligatoria ex lege sui siti istituzionali delle P.A. In particolare, l’Autore intende dimostrare come le regole di protezione ed i limiti alla trasparenza contenuti nel d.lgs. cit. siano insufficienti a tale scopo in quanto sembrano residuare una serie di rischi/pericoli per la riservatezza e la protezione dei dati personali dei cittadini. Tali criticità sono state raggruppate nelle seguenti questioni, esaminate separatamente: in primo luogo, la libera indicizzazione e rintracciabilità mediante motori di ricerca web dei dati personali pubblicati; in secondo luogo, il possibile (libero) riutilizzo di essi ed, infine, da ultimo, la durata della pubblicazione nonché la conservazione post scadenza degli stessi dati personali. Nella parte ricostruttiva si è cercato di valutare, per ognuno di questi profili critici, se vi sia margine per una loro risoluzione in via interpretativa mediante riconduzione a sistema, oppure, se tale sforzo esegetico lasci spazio, unicamente, a prospettive di riforma de jure condendo.

This paper seeks to make an analysis of and comment on – from a critical point of view – the legislative limits imposed by leg. Dec. 33/2013, which aims to strike an appropriate balance between the principle aim (and primary motive behind the legislation) of increasing administrative transparency and the simultaneous (and necessary) call for appropriate protection of personal data that may be contained within deeds/documents subject to compulsory publication, as per the law on the institutional websites of the Public Administration. In particular, the Author intends to demonstrate how the rules regarding protection and the limits of transparency contained in the cited legislation are insufficient for this purpose since they seem to leave a series of risks/dangers for confidentiality and the protection of citizens’ personal data. These problem areas have been grouped together in the following issues, examined separately: firstly, the free indexation and traceability of published personal data through internet search engines; secondly, the possible (free) reuse of such data and, finally, the duration of the publication, as well as the post expiry storage of such personal data. For each of these critical areas, an attempt is made in the reconstructive part of the paper to consider whether there is scope for their solution by interpretative means through systematic reconciliation, or whether such an exegetical effort implies that the only option is ultimately de jure condendo reform.

Il presente elaborato esamina sommariamente le caratteristiche del concetto di "trasparenza" nei pubblici apparati, ed in particolare all'interno della pubblica amministrazione italiana, individuandone una funzione "di sistema" e il carattere di principio "trasversale" che sorregge vari istituti giuridici dell'ordinamento. Nelle conclusioni sono presenti alcuni riferimenti alla imminente riforma in materia di trasparenza, ispirata al modello anglosassone del FOIA (Freedom of information act).

Nowadays algorithms can decide if one can get a loan, is allowed to cross a border, or must go to prison. Artificial intelligence techniques (natural language processing and machine learning in the first place) enable private and public decision-makers to analyse big data in order to build profiles, which are used to make decisions in an automated way.

This work presents ten arguments against algorithmic decision-making. These revolve around the concepts of ubiquitous discretionary interpretation, holistic intuition, algorithmic bias, the three black boxes, psychology of conformity, power of sanctions, civilising force of hypocrisy, pluralism, empathy, and technocracy.

The lack of transparency of the algorithmic decision-making process does not stem merely from the characteristics of the relevant techniques used, which can make it impossible to access the rationale of the decision. It depends also on the abuse of and overlap between intellectual property rights (the “legal black box”). In the US, nearly half a million patented inventions concern algorithms; more than 67% of the algorithm-related patents were issued over the last ten years and the trend is increasing.

To counter the increased monopolisation of algorithms by means of intellectual property rights (with trade secrets leading the way), this paper presents three legal routes that enable citizens to ‘open’ the algorithms.

First, copyright and patent exceptions, as well as trade secrets are discussed.

Second, the GDPR is critically assessed. In principle, data controllers are not allowed to use algorithms to take decisions that have legal effects on the data subject’s life or similarly significantly affect them. However, when they are allowed to do so, the data subject still has the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view, as well as to contest the decision. Additionally, the data controller shall provide meaningful information about the logic involved in the algorithmic decision.

Third, this paper critically analyses the first known case of a court using the access right under the freedom of information regime to grant an injunction to release the source code of the computer program that implements an algorithm.

Only an integrated approach – which takes into account intellectual property, data protection, and freedom of information – may provide the citizen affected by an algorithmic decision of an effective remedy as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Recommended citation: Guido Noto La Diega, Against the Dehumanisation of Decision-Making – Algorithmic Decisions at the Crossroads of Intellectual Property, Data Protection, and Freedom of Information, 9 (2018) JIPITEC 3 para 1

The exceptions regime constitutes the most crucial part of every freedom of information act. The objective of this essay is to analyze the implementation of the exemptions in the administrative practice and in the relevant case law almost three years from the entry into force the new administrative transparency regulation in Italy. The first part examines the absolute exemptions and the problems related to their delimitation, recommending a narrow interpretation. The second part of the essay focuses on the relative exceptions as well as the balancing test, highlighting the matters relating to its application and to the obligation to stare reasons. The conclusion offers some possible answers to the issues examined, suggesting an interpretation that enhances the aims of broad disclosure of the transparency regulation by aligning the domestic system with the most advanced experiences spread at european and international level.

Il D.Lgs. 25 maggio 2016, n. 97, di modifica del D.Lgs. 14 marzo 2013, n. 33 (T.U. sulla trasparenza), racchiude una riforma importante, che riallinea l’Italia allo standard europeo e internazionale. Constatato il fallimento della via italiana alla trasparenza, cioè l’illusorietà dell’assunto che centinaia di obblighi di pubblicazione imposti per legge bastino a trasformare le amministrazioni in “case di vetro”, la nuova disciplina ade-risce al modello FOIA, proprio dell’Unione europea e di molte democrazie liberali. La semplificazione degli obblighi di pubblicazione, sia pure parziale, operata dal D.Lgs. n. 97 è una conseguenza del riconoscimen-to del “right to know” come diritto fondamentale e del ripristino del fisiologico rapporto di strumentalità tra pubblicazione e accesso. L’adozione del FOIA è, però, soltanto il primo passo per garantire l’effettività del nuovo diritto. Occorrerà riorganizzare la gestione dei flussi documentali all’interno degli uffici, formare funzionari e giudici capaci di applicare la riforma senza tradirne lo spirito e dotare l’Anac delle competenze necessarie per orientare e armonizzare le prassi.

Three years after the introduction of the Italian freedom of information act (FOIA), the scientific debate is still trapped in the opposition between supporters and enemies of the new institute, whereas it disregards the results of the implementation process, which begins to reveal the administrative sustainability of the new regime and its importance in feeding the public debate. Why? The paper aims to answer these questions and to refute a view that is dangerously spreading in jurisprudence and literature: that the Italian FOIA would not create an individual right, but rather a claim that is instrumental to the protection of public interests, and thus “de-subjectivized”. This view rejects the liberal-individualistic foundation of the right of access to administrative information, replacing it with a statist vision that may determine a deformed and impoverished understanding of the new right.

A tre anni dall’introduzione dell’accesso civico generalizzato (c.d. FOIA), il dibattito scientifico resta impigliato nella contrapposizione tra sostenitori e nemici del nuovo istituto, mentre si disinteressa del processo di attuazione, dal quale pure emergono confortanti segnali di sostenibilità amministrativa e di utilità per il dibattito pubblico. Perché? Lo scritto ha il duplice obiettivo di rispondere a questo interrogativo e di confutare la tesi – che si va pericolosamente diffondendo nella giurisprudenza e nella letteratura – secondo cui all’accesso civico generalizzato non corrisponderebbe un diritto individuale, bensì una pretesa de-soggettivizzata e funzionalizzata alla tutela di interessi pubblici.  Questa prospettiva rifiuta la matrice liberal-individualista del modello FOIA e la sostituisce con una visione statalista che rischia di deformare e impoverire il nuovo diritto.

L’Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione con la Delibera n. 1309 del 28 dicembre 2016, pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale - Serie Generale n. 7 del 10 gennaio 2017, ha adottato le Linee Guida che dettano indicazioni operative ai fini della definizione delle esclusioni e dei limiti all’accesso civico previsti dall’art. 5, comma 2, del d.lgs. n. 33 del 2013.
L’analisi svolta nel presente contributo affronta gli aspetti portanti della riforma che ha rivoluzionato il regime di trasparenza della pubblica amministrazione e che ha introdotto nel nostro ordinamento un vero e proprio Freedom of Information Act, alla luce delle recenti Linee Guida ANAC che sono intervenute a definirne esclusioni e limiti e dei loro risvolti pratici.

Dal 1990, anno di introduzione nell’ordinamento giuridico italiano con la legge n. 241, il diritto di accesso agli atti è stato oggetto di numerose pronunce giurisprudenziali. Queste ultime, e con esse gli interventi correttivi introdotti a più riprese dal Legislatore, hanno affrontato le numerose questioni controverse rela- tive all’esercizio del diritto, ai limiti posti dall’ordinamento, nonché agli obblighi di trasparenza che, anche per il tramite dell’accesso, gravano sulle pubbliche amministrazioni. Il dibattito giurisprudenziale è tuttora aperto. Non a caso, la disciplina del diritto di accesso è uno dei temi che più frequentemente ricorre nel dibattito tra le corti nazionali ed europee. I temi affrontati in sede giurisprudenziale includono questioni di forma e sostanza. Tra questi, sei rivestono (o hanno avuto, in passato) particolare importanza. Il primo è quello della natura giuridica - se di interesse legittimo o di diritto soggettivo - del diritto di accesso. Il se- condo riguarda le condizioni di esercizio del diritto. Tema questo ultimo che ne include altri due: quello della legittimazione degli interessi diffusi e quello della concretezza e attualità dell’interesse in nome del quale si esercita l’accesso. Il terzo e il quarto profilo problematico riguardano rispettivamente il tempo dell’accesso (e dunque il momento in cui è possibile richiedere di accedere alle informazioni detenute dalle amministrazioni) e la legittimazione passiva. Quinto tema, di grande attualità, attiene al rapporto tra l’accesso (e dunque la trasparenza) e la riservatezza. La rassegna si conclude esaminando un sesto aspetto problematico: il coordinamento tra le fonti interne e tra quelle nazionali ed extra-nazionali.

Emerging across many disciplines are questions about algorithmic ethics – about the values embedded in artificial intelligence and big data analytics that increasingly replace human decisionmaking. Many are concerned that an algorithmic society is too opaque to be accountable for its behavior. An individual can be denied parole or denied credit, fired or not hired for reasons she will never know and cannot be articulated. In the public sector, the opacity of algorithmic decisionmaking is particularly problematic both because governmental decisions may be especially weighty, and because democratically-elected governments bear special duties of accountability. Investigative journalists have recently exposed the dangerous impenetrability of algorithmic processes used in the criminal justice field – dangerous because the predictions they make can be both erroneous and unfair, with none the wiser.

We set out to test the limits of transparency around governmental deployment of big data analytics, focusing our investigation on local and state government use of predictive algorithms. It is here, in local government, that algorithmically-determined decisions can be most directly impactful. And it is here that stretched agencies are most likely to hand over the analytics to private vendors, which may make design and policy choices out of the sight of the client agencies, the public, or both. To see just how impenetrable the resulting " black box " algorithms are, we filed 42 open records requests in 23 states seeking essential information about six predictive algorithm programs. We selected the most widely-used and well-reviewed programs, including those developed by for-profit companies, nonprofits, and academic/private sector partnerships.  The goal was to see if, using the open records process, we could discover what policy judgments these algorithms embody, and could evaluate their utility and fairness. 

To do this work, we identified what meaningful “algorithmic transparency” entails.  We found that in almost every case, it wasn’t provided.  Over-broad assertions of trade secrecy were a problem.  But contrary to conventional wisdom, they were not the biggest obstacle. It will not usually be necessary to release the code used to execute predictive models in order to dramatically increase transparency.  We conclude that publicly-deployed algorithms will be sufficiently transparent only if (1) governments generate appropriate records about their objectives for algorithmic processes and subsequent implementation and validation; (2) government contractors reveal to the public agency sufficient information about how they developed the algorithm; and (3) public agencies and courts treat trade secrecy claims as the limited exception to public disclosure that the law requires. Although it would require a multi-stakeholder process to develop best practices for record generation and disclosure, we present what we believe are eight principal types of information that such records should ideally contain.

Trasparenza nella Pubblica Amministrazione e accesso civico: analisi degli elementi di innovazione e di criticità della disciplina del FOIA italiano, di cui al D.Lgs. 25 maggio 2016, n. 97 A cura di SALVATORE MILAZZO SOMMARIO: 1. La trasparenza e il diritto di accesso agli atti della PA: introduzione, con riferimento alla legge 241/1990. 2.Il cammino della trasparenza nella regolamentazione dell'attività amministrativa. 2.1 Una prima evoluzione generale del rapporto tra accesso e trasparenza: brevi riferimenti al Decreto Legislativo 150/2009. 2.2. La trasparenza e le politiche pubbliche di controllo e di prevenzione della corruzione: il Decreto Legislativo n. 33/2013. 3. Il nuovo " Decreto Trasparenza " (D.lgs. 25 maggio 2016, n. 97): la trasparenza come libertà di accesso a documenti e dati. 4. (Segue) Il nuovo " Decreto Trasparenza " (D.lgs. 25 maggio 2016, n. 97): ambito soggettivo di applicazione e la ipotesi peculiare di responsabilità dirigenziale. 5. (Segue) Il nuovo " Decreto Trasparenza " (D.lgs. 25 maggio 2016, n. 97): il diritto di accesso civico e gli oneri finanziari a carico delle amministrazioni e dei privati, anche con riferimento ai contro interessati. 6. Considerazioni finali.

This study examined administrative appeals under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at two federal government agencies: the Department of the Army and the U.S. Forest Service. The study reviewed all provided case files for appeals received by the agencies in fiscal year 2012, which consisted of 105 appeals at the Army and 53 appeals at the Forest Service. The researcher coded each appeal with respect to the processing time of the initial request, whether a lawyer was involved in preparing the request or appeal, and the professional or situational identity of the requester (journalist, business, agency personnel, etc.).

From initial request through initial decision, the median wait time was 31 calendar days at the Forest Service and 40 days at the Army. At both agencies, a person with legal expertise assisted with nearly one-third of appealed FOIA requests. Requests from agency personnel and their families constituted the largest group of the appeals filed at the Army, while at the Forest Service the largest group of appeals came from the "other" category of requesters, including members of the general public and unidentified requesters.

This article revolves around a deceptively simple question: why did the FBI investigate bandleader Duke Ellington, the African American capitalist, political conservative, and vocal Christian, as a communist threat in the 1930's through the Cold War? Answering this question involves situating the FBI's "domestic security" program as product and productive of overlapping racial and sexual politics, and investigating the FBI's anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Ellington's early-career promoter Irving Mills was a Jewish communist intent on capitalizing o the racial transgressions of jazz pleasures.

Administrative Decisions and Sensitive Public Interests: The New
Rules on Open Government (p. 1021)
Stefano Vaccari
The article deals with new open government regulation in Italy, focusing on the public administration’s decision-making processes. After drawing a distinction between two types of the so-called “civic” right of access included in Legislative Decree no. 33/2013, the main legal issues characterising the new regulation are addressed: namely, the vagueness of the constraints imposed on the new “civic” right of access; the issue of “massive” requests for documents and information; and, finally, the constitutional
concerns raised by the power of the Italian National Anti Corruption Authority (ANAC) to enact guidelines limiting and excluding the civic right of access. The final section of the article proposes some procedural and organisational
solutions to overcome the issues mentioned above.

Please support the book and journal of original publication, see URLs:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/684770
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-social-work-of-narrative/9783838209586

This is the last draft of the essay submitted for publication.

In the context of our contemporary memoir culture of injury and survival, it has become something of an inspirational mantra to maintain that every life has a story. In fact, we have become so used to thinking in terms of “life stories” that the humanistic equation between life and narrative (that sees life as the source of narrative and narrative as the sustenance of life) can seem like a simple truism, rather than, say, a political commitment or a moral imperative. It becomes easy to overlook how contingent and recent a generic phenomenon the “life-story” itself is. Because the equation between narrative and life may not be at all inevitable, it is striking how close narrative is to life—not in a mimetic sense, or even in a humanistic metaphysical or moral sense, but in an even more mundane spatial and temporal sense: the mere proximity of the words “life” and “narrative” in so much writing and speaking on law and violence. The juxtaposition of life and narrative appears commonly in law review articles, human rights reports, humanitarian appeals, journalistic news stories, medical and psychological treatment guidelines, and military field operations manuals.

Exclusive leak! The full text of the administrative order (Verwaltungsordnung) of the Hamburg Data Protection Authority (Hamburgische Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit) regarding the update to WhatsApp's privacy policy whereby Facebook will be able to use WhatsApp users' data for targeted advertising purposes.

The narrative turn in the social sciences and the ethical turn in the humanities that occurred in the 1990s converged in the study of human rights and social justice. Human rights, it was argued, were about and dependent upon modes of storytelling; torture was often cited as a paradigmatic example of the ways in which narrative and human rights were co-implicated. The centralization of torture in the prosecution of the “War on Terror” and the recent declassification of documents authorizing the use of torture by U.S. personnel offers an important occasion to reconsider some of the tenets of the arguments about human rights and narrative. This essay considers the problem of declassification as a process of un-narration and examines some of the ways that art and literature have attempted to deal with the stories of torture that are actively untold.

Open Data (OD) pinned agencies on the horns of a transparency dilemma: Surrender valuable datasets to comply with new OD policy, or resist freeing valuable data and face criticism from the public, the media, and politicians. Agencies have developed creative data release strategies to confront this dilemma. Public administration scholars cannot afford to miss this rare opportunity to empirically examine when, why, and how agencies agree to release the most valuable resource of the 21st century—information. The study proposes that agencies carefully manipulate the type and timing of dataset release. The paper suggests that agencies sometimes adopt “data branding”, as seen on OD portals, or “data hugging”, as on for-sale sites such as the American National Technical Information Service (NTIS) site. Most agencies employ mixed strategies: “hugging” certain datasets and “branding” others. Given the value of data to agencies, incentives may offer a solution to free valuable data. A new “Agencies and Open Data” research program is proposed and the paper describes how a research team is currently constructing a large corpus of data to support this research program.

Democracy depends exclusively on the informedness of the individual citizens
-- L. Ron Hubbard

Introduction:

We live in an age when the fear of terrorism and crime mandates the restriction on personal freedom to such an extent that it threatens to strangle the very life of the democracy it seeks to protect. It is a balancing act of public and private interests, involving great risk for the body politic and its citizenry.

For democracy to function legitimately, the governed must have the ability to gather accurate and timely information about the internal workings of their nation, and the reasons behind governmental action. History is scarred with the abuses which have transpired behind the veil of secrecy–and the first step toward totalitarianism and the oppressive police state usually includes the eradication of the means to scrutinise the conduct of officials.

It is no wonder that the public asserts a widespread distrust of leaders and their organisations. Mounting corruption, selfish political manoeuvring, and precarious economies engender a troubling and rebellious malaise among citizens. The public official is potentially caught on the other side. The need to protect order can require confidentiality and swift action.

Enlightened nations have come to realise, therefore, that an informed populace is necessary for the health and future of any democratic society. The freedoms previous generations have fought and died for must be cherished and protected.

Open government is the lifeblood of democracy. Transparency and honest accountability must be maintained; public institutions must be accessible.

Currently, as a collection of nations, we stand at the brink. Civilization does face a very real threat, from the cancer of distrust brought about by random terrorist attacks, and the erosion of social virtues as witnessed in increasing crime rates.

Amid such turmoil, how do we guarantee the future and integrity of our democratic society? How do we protect the fundamental rights of the citizen? And how do we assure that those same freedoms will exist for our children?

Open Government a Curative for Public Distrust

Transparency in government was recognized as such a key element to the preservation of freedom and democracy, that in its very first session in 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 59 (I), stating “Freedom of Information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.”

That profound sentiment continues to be reaffirmed decades later, as when the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression stated in his 1995 report to the UN Commission on Human Rights, “Freedom will be bereft of all effectiveness if the people have no access to information. Access to information is basic to the democratic way of life. The tendency to withhold information from the people at large is therefore to be strongly checked.”

[It]: Il presente contributo ha ad oggetto le Linee Guida ANAC n. 1309/2016 e, più in particolare, la disciplina che esse recano in punto di richieste di accesso massive. L'indagine, pertanto, procede anzitutto a collocare tale ipotesi di rifiuto nel più ampio quadro normativo concernente l'accesso civico generalizzato, e, dopo aver indagato i profili di dubbia legittimità delle previsioni contenute nelle Linee Guida n. 1309/2016, esprime qualche breve considerazione di carattere generale sulla loro natura giuridica e sui limiti alla loro capacità prescrittiva dell'azione amministrativa. Abstract [En]: The paper is about ANAC's Guide Lines n. 1309/2016 and the regulation concerning the limitation of the right of access when filing a request with regards to a very large number of documents. More specifically, the research starts by placing this cause of refusal in the wider legal framework concerning the right of access and, after investigating the aspects of possible illegitimacy of the rules contained in ANAC's Guide Lines n. 1309/2016, it expresses some general consideration with regards to their juridical nature and the limits to their prescriptive capacity of administrative activity. Sommario: 1. L'incertezza in merito alla natura giuridica delle Linee Guida ANAC. 2. Le Linee Guida ANAC n. 1309/2016 e le previsioni in punto di richieste di accesso massive. 3. Le prime pronunce della giurisprudenza amministrativa. 4. La normatività delle previsioni in punto di richieste di accesso massive alla luce dei cd. criteri sostanziali. 5. Un confronto con il diritto di accesso agli atti delle istituzioni, organi e organismi dell'Unione Europea. 6. Profili di dubbia legittimità delle previsioni contenute nelle Linee Guida ANAC n. 1309/2016. 7. Brevi riflessioni conclusive sulla natura giuridica delle Linee Guida ANAC n. 1309/2016 e sui limiti alla loro capacità prescrittiva.

Since 2009, eighty-one countries subscribed to President Obama’s Open Government program including its dominant Open Data (OD) component. Do Open Data 2.0 plans address the problems detected during the first generation of this program (2010-2012)? If not, how can these plans be improved? The paper is the first-ever review of the main lines of criticism of the original OD program based on lessons learned worldwide. OD1.0 suffered from bad design, flawed execution, and adverse consequences. Open Data 2.0 plans fail to address the critical flaws of the first Open Data program. The analysis of OD1.0 reveals two primary lessons for converting OD2.0 into a more focused and effective openness program: OD2.0 architects must consider agencies’ data release strategies, and avoid creating a transparency “policy bubble”. Numerous countries followed the path of the original American Open Data program; therefore, the future of this program will have an impact on bureaucracies worldwide.

Open data are key-tools for open government strategy. In Italy, from the so-called Codice dell'Amministrazione Digitale (2005) to the Freedom of Information Act (2016), the regulatory framework on open data has started offering precious resources for transparency, participation, and collaboration. Yet, along with regulatory innovations, open government and open data strategies require a renewed civic culture in action, new ways to become citizens and to act as citizens. Civic hacking – through practices that stimulate public data's transparency, openness, and reuse – provides a privileged observatory on the new forms of citizenship in the heterogeneous contexts of open government. The study described in this article explored, in 2015, the practices of civic hacking developed in Italy by data-journalists and active citizens, analysing the civic culture that was in action through these practices. Drawing upon Dahlgren's analytical framework of civic cultures, the exploratory study aimed to understand what kind of civic knowledge, values, trust, and identity was embodied in the practices of the Italian civic hackers and what kind of space enabled these practices. In order to contact civic hackers, who could give sense to these actions, disclosing – through qualitative interviews – their cultural resources, the study employed the online channels of three Italian communities engaged in open data and digital innovation – as suggested by " key-informants ". The interviewees discussed practices of civic hacking orientated toward transparency and accountability, in order to " hack " the Italian Public Administration, still " closed " , despite the available norms. Few practices, among the ones reported by the interviewees, re-used open data and shared them, encouraging logics of participation and collaboration. The civic culture that drives these practices is built on a mix of knowledge and skills, values that are typical of hacker ethic, experienced in remote and physical spaces. The interviewees feel to be able to make a difference in the Italian public sector organizations, in concert with other civic hackers. This exploratory study opens research paths on the vitality and the transformation of civic hacking in the renewed Italian regulatory framework on open data.

... 9. Mnjama, Nathan M. "Freedom of Information Legislation in Esarbica States and its Implication on Records Management Practices." African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science, Vol. 10, No. ... Zapopan Martín Muela Meza es actualmente Estudiante de ...

Freedom of Information Act, na mocy którego każdy ma prawo dostępu do informacji wytworzonej przez organy federalne, zostało podpisane 4 lipca 1966 r. i weszło w życie równy rok później. Prezydent Lyndon Baines Johnson podczas podpisywania ustawy podkreślił, że Stany Zjednoczone są krajem otwartego społeczeństwa, którego prawo do wiedzy jest pielęgnowane i strzeżone. Uchwalenie FOIA było wynikiem dziesięcioletniej debaty publicznej różnych form i grup nacisku, znaczną rolę odegrał również ruch społeczny związany z ideą otwartego rządu, który w swoich postulatach zawiera również jawność, rzetelność i przejrzystość działań władzy publicznej. Ustawa zobowiązuje agencje federalne do upubliczniania wytworzonych przez siebie wiadomości w publicznych rejestrach, ale również pozwala każdemu zainteresowanemu na wystąpienie z wnioskiem o udostępnienie danej informacji. FOIA wyróżnia 9 wyjątków od ogólnej zasady preferującej jawność działania organów administracji federalnej. Wśród nich wskazuje się m. in. na wyłączenia z względu na ochronę bezpieczeństwa narodowego i polityki zagranicznej, tajemnicę handlową i inne informacje.

Kazakhstan could be regarded as a real poster child of new promising political and socioeconomic opportunities that technology-driven public sector reforms bring to the local economy in a typical transitional, developing, and post-totalitarian context, especially taking into account the recent advance of various digital government platforms that are promoted today administratively at different institutional levels in this Central Asian country. One of the most interesting trends in the area is an active propagation of the open data concept at almost all public and semi-public agencies officially as a watchword of transparency, collaboration, and participation in the e-government ecosystem. Open data is also beginning to be regarded as a necessary prerequisite in transforming a somewhat cumbersome public administration system that this nation once had to inherit from its Soviet past. However, what are the true drivers and challenges of the concept implementation in Kazakhstan and, more importantly, how does open data really promote openness and cooperation in government in a less collaborative quite conservative political context? In this respect, this chapter aims to answer these questions, analyzing typical drivers, strategies, and regulation policies that national authorities have recently adopted in the area. It also reviews open data-driven projects that various stakeholders from private, civic, and non-governmental sectors of economy try to promote in a wide range of human activities.