- Email: [email protected]
Recent literature on government information
Journal of Government Information 30 (2004) 490 – 493
Recent literature on government information Bill Sleeman* Thurgood Marshall Law Library, The University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA Available online 11 November 2004
Abstract The purpose of this column is to provide government information scholars and students with a broad overview of recent publications about government information from the literature of librarianship, archives, information technology management, public policy and law. Given the volume of literature produced in this field, a columnist cannot claim comprehensive coverage. This column seeks to provide a broad, representative survey of literature that illustrates significant trends in the field. Entries were identified through searches of bibliographic databases such as Library Literature, PAIS International, Ebsco Academic Elite, The Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, Science Direct, Westlaw’s JLR database, WorldCat, and from manual scans of journals, newsletters, and Internet sites. Citations are to monographs and serials, journal and periodical articles, books, newsletters, and Internet sites. Coverage for this edition of the column includes items from 2002 and 2003, with a smattering of 2001 items that have come to my attention since the last installment of this column. Each citation is listed once under its primary topic and annotated if its content cannot be adequately determined from the title. Book reviews and Internet site reviews are generally excluded. Contributions and suggestions for the next column may be addressed to the column editor at the address below.
* Thurgood Marshall Law Library, The University of Maryland School of Law, 500 West Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1352-0237/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jgi.2004.09.008
B. Sleeman / Journal of Government Information 30 (2004) 490–493
491
Material for this column is grouped into the following categories: Freedom of Information/Secrecy, E-Gov/Technology, Archives/Libraries/History, Government Printing Office, Federal, State/Local, and International. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Government Information; Terrorism; Intelligence; E-Government
bThe proposal for a Federal Data Center stirs many problems. The kind of data going into the computer is a considerable and critical issue. . . . our loyalty and security boards have developed many dbadgesT that mark a dsubversiveT employee, or one who is a poor dsecurity risk.T Q . . . A man’s belief is his own; he is the keeper of his conscience. . . yet personnel files are filled with data of this kind; and it seems destined for the computer system.Q Justice William O. Douglas (American Bar Foundation, 1968).
The year 2003 saw a continuation of a trend of decreased access to government information, primarily, but certainly not exclusively, based on the argument that national security was at risk should the information remain available. Conversely, while many governments were proclaiming the need to limit access to information, officials of the United States launched an initiative, now disbanded, to gather together as much information as possible on private citizens to be housed in a single, giant database. The Terrorism Information Awareness Program, proposed by Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was blasted by politicians and private citizens alike, and funding for the project (along with an equally perverse threat projection initiative that involved investors predicting potential terroristsT events and profiting from the accuracy of their predictions) was withdrawn (Guggenheim, 2003). This dichotomy between access to information in order to meet security needs, which is a legitimate concern, while private citizens suffer the loss of information was a frequent topic in the past twelve months. And, as many of these articles demonstrate, what was intended to meet one goal is suddenly, in the face of alleged security concerns, an avenue for information gathering by representatives of the state. One example of this is the use of the new HIPAA legislation by intelligence agencies to approach health care providers for patient information without a court order (McGee, 2003). Another example of misguided good intentions, and one that may be familiar to many readers, is the Critical Infrastructure Information Act (CIIA) component of the Homeland Security Act, which was hurriedly passed by Congress at the close of the 107th Congress. The CIIA could provide corporations with an opportunity to avoid responsibility for negligent acts simply by sharing information with the Department of Homeland Security and claiming protection as bcriticalQ information. The problems with The Critical Infrastructure Information Act, and potential avenues to remedy it, are discussed in the spring issue of the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy (Steinzor, 2003). A comprehensive analysis of the status of restrictions of access to government information – at both the state and federal levels – can be found in the American Library Association (ALA) sponsored report, bRestrictions on Access to Government InformationQ (RAGI, 2003). The approach of President George Bush’s administration to issues of secrecy and the use of executive privilege were reviewed in many articles in the bibliography. In an excellent
492
B. Sleeman / Journal of Government Information 30 (2004) 490–493
article by Charles Tiefer, President Bush’s actions in the FBI/Boston investigation is presented both as an abuse of the executive privilege prerogative and presented as a precursor to post 9/11 actions by President Bush (Tiefer, 2003). The same question of how executive privilege was employed prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by the President is addressed in Mark Rozell’s article in the Duke Law Journal (Rozell, 2002). What type of secrecy is acceptable in an environment of increased security risk, and the role that the President has in shaping such a policy, was considered in an article by Steven Aftergood (Aftergood, 2003). Control of information access was also a concern on the international scene as well as governments struggled to control information and its dissemination. In Israel, websites were threatened with censure if they did not seek approval from the Israeli government before posting information about missile attacks, cabinet decisions, or meetings of Israeli officials with representatives of other nations (McCullagh, 2003). But, not all the news about access to information was bad. Two articles discuss the increased availability of government information and legal information on the Internet. In Lopresti and Gorin’s analysis of federal websites, they determined, that using documents shipped by GPO, balmost two-thirds of US depository material is on the Internet within two years of shipmentQ (Lopresti, 2002). A similar trend for legal material, including state and federal resources, was identified in an article by Simon Canick which appeared in Legal Reference Services Quarterly (Canick, 2002). Another baccessQ success story can be found in the decision by the Office of Management and Budget to work with the Government Printing Office to resolve some of the long festering issues regarding the printing and dissemination of government information (Lee, 2003). While presented as a victory for President Bush, the decision to negotiate, led by Public Printer Bruce James, is really a victory for the Federal Depository Library Program and the many users of federal information (Anderson, 2003). Public Printer James, working with the depository library community, continues to lead the effort to re-think how GPO is structured and how it meets its mission (James, 2003).
References Aftergood, S. (2003). The Bush Administration’s suffocating secrecy. Forward Forum, Accessed Available: http:// www.forward.com, March 28, 2003. American Bar Foundation. (1968). Computerization of government files; what impact on the individual? Chicago7 ABF. Anderson, L. B. (2003, June 6). Printing office monopoly ends in a symbolic victory for Bush. The Wall Street Journal, B6. Canick, S. (2002). Availability of works cited in recent law review articles on LEXIS, Westlaw, the Internet and other databases. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 21 (2/3), 55 – 67. Guggenheim, K. (2003, July 29). Pentagon scraps terror futures plan. Baltimore Sun, Accessed Available: http:// www.sunspot.net, July 29, 2003. James, B. R. (2003). New directions for the FDLP: View from the corner office. DttP: A Quarterly Journal of Government Practice and Perspective, 31 (3/4), 17 – 20.
B. Sleeman / Journal of Government Information 30 (2004) 490–493
493
Lee, C. (2003, June 6). Pact reached on use of private printers, agencies will work through GPO. Washingtonpost.com, Accessed Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com, June 6, 2003. McCullagh, D. (2003, March 21). Israel warns web sites on war coverage. CNET News.com, Accessed Available: http://zdnet.com, June 19, 2003. McGee, J. (2003). Other computer snooping projects survive curbs on pentagon effort. CQ Homeland Security, Accessed Available: http://homeland.cq.com, February 14, 2003. Rozell, M. J. (2002, November). Executive privilege revived? Secrecy and conflict during the Bush presidency. Duke Law Journal, 52 (2), 403 – 421. Steinzor, R. (2003). Democracies die behind closed doors: The Homeland Security Act and corporate accountability. Kansas Journal of Law and Policy, 12, 641 – 672. Tiefer, C. (2003, March). President Bush’s first executive privilege claim: The FBI/Boston investigation. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33 (1), 201 – 210.
Recent literature on government information Bill Sleeman* Thurgood Marshall Law Library, The University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA Available online 11 November 2004
Abstract The purpose of this column is to provide government information scholars and students with a broad overview of recent publications about government information from the literature of librarianship, archives, information technology management, public policy and law. Given the volume of literature produced in this field, a columnist cannot claim comprehensive coverage. This column seeks to provide a broad, representative survey of literature that illustrates significant trends in the field. Entries were identified through searches of bibliographic databases such as Library Literature, PAIS International, Ebsco Academic Elite, The Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, Science Direct, Westlaw’s JLR database, WorldCat, and from manual scans of journals, newsletters, and Internet sites. Citations are to monographs and serials, journal and periodical articles, books, newsletters, and Internet sites. Coverage for this edition of the column includes items from 2002 and 2003, with a smattering of 2001 items that have come to my attention since the last installment of this column. Each citation is listed once under its primary topic and annotated if its content cannot be adequately determined from the title. Book reviews and Internet site reviews are generally excluded. Contributions and suggestions for the next column may be addressed to the column editor at the address below.
* Thurgood Marshall Law Library, The University of Maryland School of Law, 500 West Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1352-0237/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jgi.2004.09.008
B. Sleeman / Journal of Government Information 30 (2004) 490–493
491
Material for this column is grouped into the following categories: Freedom of Information/Secrecy, E-Gov/Technology, Archives/Libraries/History, Government Printing Office, Federal, State/Local, and International. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Government Information; Terrorism; Intelligence; E-Government
bThe proposal for a Federal Data Center stirs many problems. The kind of data going into the computer is a considerable and critical issue. . . . our loyalty and security boards have developed many dbadgesT that mark a dsubversiveT employee, or one who is a poor dsecurity risk.T Q . . . A man’s belief is his own; he is the keeper of his conscience. . . yet personnel files are filled with data of this kind; and it seems destined for the computer system.Q Justice William O. Douglas (American Bar Foundation, 1968).
The year 2003 saw a continuation of a trend of decreased access to government information, primarily, but certainly not exclusively, based on the argument that national security was at risk should the information remain available. Conversely, while many governments were proclaiming the need to limit access to information, officials of the United States launched an initiative, now disbanded, to gather together as much information as possible on private citizens to be housed in a single, giant database. The Terrorism Information Awareness Program, proposed by Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was blasted by politicians and private citizens alike, and funding for the project (along with an equally perverse threat projection initiative that involved investors predicting potential terroristsT events and profiting from the accuracy of their predictions) was withdrawn (Guggenheim, 2003). This dichotomy between access to information in order to meet security needs, which is a legitimate concern, while private citizens suffer the loss of information was a frequent topic in the past twelve months. And, as many of these articles demonstrate, what was intended to meet one goal is suddenly, in the face of alleged security concerns, an avenue for information gathering by representatives of the state. One example of this is the use of the new HIPAA legislation by intelligence agencies to approach health care providers for patient information without a court order (McGee, 2003). Another example of misguided good intentions, and one that may be familiar to many readers, is the Critical Infrastructure Information Act (CIIA) component of the Homeland Security Act, which was hurriedly passed by Congress at the close of the 107th Congress. The CIIA could provide corporations with an opportunity to avoid responsibility for negligent acts simply by sharing information with the Department of Homeland Security and claiming protection as bcriticalQ information. The problems with The Critical Infrastructure Information Act, and potential avenues to remedy it, are discussed in the spring issue of the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy (Steinzor, 2003). A comprehensive analysis of the status of restrictions of access to government information – at both the state and federal levels – can be found in the American Library Association (ALA) sponsored report, bRestrictions on Access to Government InformationQ (RAGI, 2003). The approach of President George Bush’s administration to issues of secrecy and the use of executive privilege were reviewed in many articles in the bibliography. In an excellent
492
B. Sleeman / Journal of Government Information 30 (2004) 490–493
article by Charles Tiefer, President Bush’s actions in the FBI/Boston investigation is presented both as an abuse of the executive privilege prerogative and presented as a precursor to post 9/11 actions by President Bush (Tiefer, 2003). The same question of how executive privilege was employed prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by the President is addressed in Mark Rozell’s article in the Duke Law Journal (Rozell, 2002). What type of secrecy is acceptable in an environment of increased security risk, and the role that the President has in shaping such a policy, was considered in an article by Steven Aftergood (Aftergood, 2003). Control of information access was also a concern on the international scene as well as governments struggled to control information and its dissemination. In Israel, websites were threatened with censure if they did not seek approval from the Israeli government before posting information about missile attacks, cabinet decisions, or meetings of Israeli officials with representatives of other nations (McCullagh, 2003). But, not all the news about access to information was bad. Two articles discuss the increased availability of government information and legal information on the Internet. In Lopresti and Gorin’s analysis of federal websites, they determined, that using documents shipped by GPO, balmost two-thirds of US depository material is on the Internet within two years of shipmentQ (Lopresti, 2002). A similar trend for legal material, including state and federal resources, was identified in an article by Simon Canick which appeared in Legal Reference Services Quarterly (Canick, 2002). Another baccessQ success story can be found in the decision by the Office of Management and Budget to work with the Government Printing Office to resolve some of the long festering issues regarding the printing and dissemination of government information (Lee, 2003). While presented as a victory for President Bush, the decision to negotiate, led by Public Printer Bruce James, is really a victory for the Federal Depository Library Program and the many users of federal information (Anderson, 2003). Public Printer James, working with the depository library community, continues to lead the effort to re-think how GPO is structured and how it meets its mission (James, 2003).
References Aftergood, S. (2003). The Bush Administration’s suffocating secrecy. Forward Forum, Accessed Available: http:// www.forward.com, March 28, 2003. American Bar Foundation. (1968). Computerization of government files; what impact on the individual? Chicago7 ABF. Anderson, L. B. (2003, June 6). Printing office monopoly ends in a symbolic victory for Bush. The Wall Street Journal, B6. Canick, S. (2002). Availability of works cited in recent law review articles on LEXIS, Westlaw, the Internet and other databases. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 21 (2/3), 55 – 67. Guggenheim, K. (2003, July 29). Pentagon scraps terror futures plan. Baltimore Sun, Accessed Available: http:// www.sunspot.net, July 29, 2003. James, B. R. (2003). New directions for the FDLP: View from the corner office. DttP: A Quarterly Journal of Government Practice and Perspective, 31 (3/4), 17 – 20.
B. Sleeman / Journal of Government Information 30 (2004) 490–493
493
Lee, C. (2003, June 6). Pact reached on use of private printers, agencies will work through GPO. Washingtonpost.com, Accessed Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com, June 6, 2003. McCullagh, D. (2003, March 21). Israel warns web sites on war coverage. CNET News.com, Accessed Available: http://zdnet.com, June 19, 2003. McGee, J. (2003). Other computer snooping projects survive curbs on pentagon effort. CQ Homeland Security, Accessed Available: http://homeland.cq.com, February 14, 2003. Rozell, M. J. (2002, November). Executive privilege revived? Secrecy and conflict during the Bush presidency. Duke Law Journal, 52 (2), 403 – 421. Steinzor, R. (2003). Democracies die behind closed doors: The Homeland Security Act and corporate accountability. Kansas Journal of Law and Policy, 12, 641 – 672. Tiefer, C. (2003, March). President Bush’s first executive privilege claim: The FBI/Boston investigation. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33 (1), 201 – 210.