Search

Using the July 2016 federal appellate court decision in Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice as an analytical springboard, this article explores the expansion o f Freedom o f Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 7(C) in the Internet era. In Detroit Free Press, the Sixth Circuit recognized a privacy interest in mug shots under Exemption 7(C). The practical impact o f the decision is to uphold the general policy o f the U.S. Marshals Service not to release mug shots. This article illustrates the yawning gap between tort law, which this article argues would deny recovery for the Internet posting o f the mug shots at issue in Detroit Free Press, and Exemption 7(C) when it comes to privacy concerns. Furthermore, this article critiques three key reasons why the Sixth Circuit in 2016 reversed its ruling from twenty years ago in which it held there was no privacy interest in mug shots. Troublingly for access advocates, courts are justifying expansion o f the meaning o f "personal privacy" within Exemption 7(C) as a mechanism for counteracting the ease and permanence o f accessibility to information on the Internet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's ruling in the 2014 case Cook v. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) which deals with secrecy, the public's right to know, and the use of an American Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) privacy exemption to hide presidential records involving ex-American President George W. Bush and former U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney. The U.S. Presidential Records Act and reporter John Cook are assessed.

On June 30, 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, which made some headway towards increasing agency compliance and efficiency with Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests. The Act requires, among other things, the creation of a consolidated online FOIA request portal and the online publication of records and documents that have been requested three or more times. But the Act made only a minor incursion into the broad-sweeping and indefinite exemption from disclosure under FOIA--known as Exemption 5--that exists for federal "inter-agency" and "intra-agency" records. This Essay argues that courts have interpreted Exemption 5--in a manner contrary to its plain text-- to protect not only records that are absolutely privileged but even those that are subject to a qualified privilege. Courts have also expanded Exemption 5 to protect documents that are not actually "inter-agency" or "inter-agency" records at all, such as memoranda from outside consultants to agencies. The result has been the general failure of agencies to live up to FOIA's original promise of "open government." This Essay proposes reform in the shape of a need requirement: in order for an agency to withhold documents under Exemption 5 for more than twelve years from their creation, the agency head would have to issue a written determination that the agency's need for nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Although the 2016 Act takes a step in this direction by imposing a presumptive twenty-five-year expiration date for one of the several Exemption 5 privileges, this Essay argues that meaningful reform requires imposing a shorter (such as a twelve-year) period, and requires doing so across the board rather than only to one category of privileged records. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the history, features and significance of application of the provisions of exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which exempts disclosure of mug shots for the law enforcement process in the U.S. with reference to controversial case of businessman Joe Smith. Topics discussed include recognition of a privacy right, regulation of public records, and citizens' right to access the records of public offices in the U.S.

This article considers the use of the UK Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in order to explore the history of British intelligence. While the intelligence and security agencies are themselves exempt from the Act, releasing only such archival material into the public domain as they see fit, the article will argue that this does not mean that FOI cannot be used productively in this area. Rather, by adopting a wider definition of ‘intelligence’, as advocated by Wesley K. Wark in this journal in 1992, FOI can be used as part of a broader research strategy to secure the release of information that allows the archival study of intelligence to move beyond the material released by the agencies themselves. The article will illustrate this point by drawing on relevant examples of successful FOI requests, while also highlighting some of the related practical challenges and limitations that its use has revealed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the commonwealth court case Department of Conservation & Natural Resources v. Office of Open Records (DCNR v. Office of Open Records) wherein the court allowed state contractors' payroll information to be exempted from public knowledge. The court evaluated the liability of payroll records of third-party contractors within public works contracts to be subject for disclosure under the new Right-to-Know law.

The article discusses the General Court of the European Union case Besselink v. Council wherein law professor Leonard Besselink wanted access to a Council of the European Union (EU) draft decision. The Council refused Besselink the right of full access to the declassified document due to its effect to the protection of public interest. The General Court only annulled the decision of the Council to give access to the undisclosed version of the Negotiating Directive No. 5 regarding the EU Treaty.

The article focuses on how the public can obtain information on proprietors' names under the British Land Registration Act of 2002. Topics include why land registries are closed to public inspection, the Freedom of Information Act of 2000, and the personal data exemption for property registration information.

The article focuses on the exemption of personal data under the British Freedom of Information (FOI) Act of 2000 and how it impacts section 66 of the British Land Registration Act (LRA) of 2002. Topics include the British Data Protection Act of 1998, the disclosure of personal data, and how the FOI impacts land conveyancing in Great Britain.