The document discusses the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and how it balances public access to information with privacy rights. It provides an overview of FOIA, including that it applies to the executive branch but not Congress or the president. There are 7 exemptions including those for national security, personal privacy, and law enforcement purposes. Two Supreme Court cases, Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee and Houchins v. KQED, explored how computers have changed views on privacy and access to public records. The Reporters Committee case found a distinction between scattered records and compiled computerized records that could constitute an unwarranted privacy invasion.
Play hard learn harder: The Serious Business of Play
Freedom of Information
1. Freedom of Information Act
Balancing the right to know and
privacy rights in the computer age
2. FOIA passed in 1966
Rumsfeld (right, with Cheney) was a big supporter
of FOIA as a young congressman
3. Provisions of FOIA
• Applies to entire executive branch of the
federal government
4. Provisions of FOIA
• Applies to entire executive branch of the
federal government
• Does not apply to the president or his
immediate staff
5. Provisions of FOIA
• Applies to entire executive branch of the
federal government
• Does not apply to the president or his
immediate staff
• Does not apply to Congress or the judiciary
11. Exemptions
7. Information compiled for law-
enforcement purposes
7(c) “… only to the extent that the production of such
[materials] … could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.”
12. Using FOIA
• First, try the informal route
• FOIA letter-generator is at:
– ifoia.org
13. Department of Justice v.
Reporters Committee (1989)
• Shows how computers have changed
attitudes regarding public records
14. Department of Justice v.
Reporters Committee (1989)
• Shows how computers have changed
attitudes regarding public records
• In 1978 Robert Schakne of CBS News
sought rap sheets of Medico family, tied to
a corrupt Pennsylvania congressman,
Daniel Flood
15. Department of Justice v.
Reporters Committee (1989)
• Shows how computers have changed
attitudes regarding public records
• In 1978 Robert Schakne of CBS News
sought rap sheets of Medico family, tied to
a corrupt Pennsylvania congressman,
Daniel Flood
• Department of Justice said “no”
17. Judge Laurence Silberman
• Public records should
be available to the
public
• Must assume it’s for
the public good
18. Judge Laurence Silberman
• Public records should
be available to the
public
• Must assume it’s for
the public good
• FOIA is for everyone,
not just the press
19. Justice John Paul Stevens
• Reverses Silberman,
finds that not all
public records must
be disclosed
20. Justice John Paul Stevens
• Reverses Silberman,
finds that not all
public records must
be disclosed
• Vote is 9-0
21. Justice John Paul Stevens
• Reverses Silberman,
finds that not all
public records must
be disclosed
• Vote is 9-0
• Makes two key
findings
22. Invasion of privacy
• Just because rap sheets are public records
doesn’t mean they’re easily available
23. Invasion of privacy
• Just because rap sheets are public records
doesn’t mean they’re easily available
• Reporters Committee takes “a cramped
notion of personal privacy”
24. Invasion of privacy
• Just because rap sheets are public records
doesn’t mean they’re easily available
• Reporters Committee takes “a cramped
notion of personal privacy”
• “Vast difference” between scattered
records and a computerized compilation
26. An unwarranted
invasion of privacy
• What is the purpose of the FOIA?
• An invasion of privacy may be warranted if
it sheds light on the actions of the
government
27. An unwarranted
invasion of privacy
• What is the purpose of the FOIA?
• An invasion of privacy may be warranted if
it sheds light on the actions of the
government
• An invasion of privacy is unwarranted if it
merely sheds light on the actions of an
individual
28. Jane Kirtley of RCFP
• “It says that today
something may be a
public document but
tomorrow it’s not
because it’s on a
computer tape”
• ACLU on the other
side
29. Miller v. NBC (1986)
• An access case and a privacy case
30. Miller v. NBC (1986)
• An access case and a privacy case
• Television crew accompanied rescue
workers and shot footage of Dave Miller as
he lay dying on the floor
31. Miller v. NBC (1986)
• An access case and a privacy case
• Television crew accompanied rescue
workers and shot footage of Dave Miller as
he lay dying on the floor
• California Court of Appeal more offended
by trespass than broadcast
32. Miller v. NBC (1986)
• An access case and a privacy case
• Television crew accompanied rescue
workers and shot footage of Dave Miller as
he lay dying on the floor
• California Court of Appeal more offended
by trespass than broadcast
• Strong protection for publication; weak
protection for newsgathering. Why?
33. Houchins v. KQED (1978)
• Television station sues for access to jail
following an inmate suicide
34. Houchins v. KQED (1978)
• Television station sues for access to jail
following an inmate suicide
• KQED cites Branzburg’s suggestion that
newsgathering has some protection
35. Houchins v. KQED (1978)
• Television station sues for access to jail
following an inmate suicide
• KQED cites Branzburg’s suggestion that
newsgathering has some protection
• U.S. Supreme Court rules against KQED
36. Houchins v. KQED (1978)
• Television station sues for access to jail
following an inmate suicide
• KQED cites Branzburg’s suggestion that
newsgathering has some protection
• U.S. Supreme Court rules against KQED
• Is this surprising in light of California First
Amendment Coalition v. Woodford?