Author Archives: dcornwall

Thanks to Patrice McDermott of Open the Government for passing along the following DVD announcement:

OpenTheGovernment.org Americans for Less Secrecy, More Democracy Contact: Emily Feldman or Patrice McDermott Organization: OpenTheGovernment.org Phone Number: (202) 332-6736 Email address: info@openthegovernment.org DVD on Government Secrecy Conference Released "Are We Safer in the Dark?" covers national discussion on right-to-know, access to information, and openness For Immediate Release Washington, DC, 28 September 2006 -- A DVD examining the issues of government secrecy is now available for purchase on the Special Libraries Association (SLA) website for the cost of $25 (USD). Titled, "Are We Safer in the Dark, A Sunshine Week National Dialogue On Open Government & Secrecy," the DVD is a recording of a national teleconference held during Sunshine Week and produced through a collaboration of national organizations dedicated to open government. The organizations sponsoring the event and DVD are OpenTheGovernment.org and American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, American Society of Newspaper Editors / Sunshine Week, Association of Research Libraries, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, League of Women Voters, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Press Club, and Special Libraries Association. "An open and accountable government is the hallmark of an informed and engaged citizenry," said Patrice McDermott, Director of OpenTheGovernment.org. "We believe that the American public is safer when we know the risks and threats we face and ensure our government is taking the steps to address them while respecting our rights and liberties. We cannot risk remaining in the dark." The DVD records the 90-minute national teleconference conducted on 13 March, during Sunshine Week 2006 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The distinguished speakers at that event addressed important issues and fielded questions that came in from audiences in sites throughout the U.S. The resulting DVD is a complete discussion on the hot-button issues surrounding open access to government information in the United States today. The DVD features speakers & video segments addressing the following issues: Do federal laws such as the Freedom of Information Act fulfill their promise to guarantee openness in government? How do laws passed and policies/regulations implemented since 9/11 encourage secrecy or openness? How does transparency affect the government's readiness and response to disasters such as Sago Mines and Hurricane Katrina? What about the public's ability to plan and respond - or to prevent disasters? What tools and resources work effectively in safeguarding the public's ability to hold government accountable? To order a copy of Are we Safer in the Dark? please visit the SLA website: http://www.sla.org/marketplace/stores/1/DVD_-_Are_We_Safer_in_the_Dark_P90.cfm. About OpenTheGovernment.org OpenTheGovernment.org is a coalition of consumer and good government groups, environmentalists, library groups, journalists, labor and others united to make the federal government a more open place in order to make us safer, strengthen public trust in government, and support our democratic principles. About Sunshine Week Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public's right to know. Sunshine Week is led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and is funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami. Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public's right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger.

Even without seeing the video, I think I can confidently say that the answer to the title question is a resounding no. But order the DVD anyway. It'd make a nice library addition or family conversation starter. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

I was recently asked to come up with a number of statistics about electronic state publications held by the Alaska State Library. I thought it was only fair to share the fruits of my labors with you. Facts about the e-documents collection: Cataloged Titles: 716 (614 books, 72 maps, 30 serials) These 716 titles live in 3,069 files using 3.9GB of storage space. Many documents are multi-part, especially maps. The average state documents file is then 1.3MB. Facts about the usage of Alaska e-docs during Jan-Jun 2006: Files downloaded - 687 files (all or part of a document) were downloaded 32,071 times between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2006. Top Five Alaska e-docs (Jan-Jun 2006): 1) Area Management Report for Recreational Fisheries of the Prince William Sound Management Area, 2005 http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2006/01/ocm63149464.pdf Downloaded 247 times 2) A History of Organized Fire Suppression and Management in the Last Frontier http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2006/05/ocm69670021.pdf Downloaded 238 times 3) Assessment of Coho Salmon from the Kenai River, Alaska, 2000 http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2006/01/ocm63175374.pdf Downloaded 218 times 4) Alaska Public Transportation Management System (APTMS) Statewide Asset Inventory and Implementation Plan 2000 – 2006 http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2005/11/ocm62257140.pdf Downloaded 209 times 5) Patterns and Trends In Subsistence Salmon Harvests, Norton Sound and Port Clarence, 1994-2003 http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2005/10/ocm62122863.pdf Downloaded 205 times Organizations that have used Alaska e-docs: The stats below are based on a total of 835 visitor sessions initiated between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2006. On average we had four visits a day, but that is still more than I notice people using state docs in the library. 1) Alaska based organizations - 153 visits or 18.3% of total. Alaska based organizations were: Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. Alaska Library Network First City Libraries (Ketchikan) GCI Communications Juneau Public Libraries State of Alaska Offices University of Alaska 2) Alaska State Library - 153 visits or 18.3% of total. When I get more time, it might be helpful to try and filter out our IP addresses so the report reflects outside activity only. 3) Non-Alaska government agencies - 23 visits or 2.75% of total. Non-Alaska government agencies were: State of Missouri Office of Administration State of Tennessee U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - NAL U.S. Dept. of Commerce - NOAA - NMFS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IRM/BFO, HQ U.S. Geological Survey 4) Non-Alaska Universities - 283 or 33.9% of total. Non-Alaska universities were: Arizona State University Arizona Western College Auburn University Brigham Young University Columbia University Cornell University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Indiana University Michigan State University North Carolina State University Northeastern University Rice University Stanford University Network University of British Columbia University of California at Berkeley University of Connecticut University of Illinois University of Maryland University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Notre Dame University of Pittsburgh University of Utah University of Wisconsin-Madison Vanderbilt University Wellesley College Wesleyan University Western Michigan University Yale University Some of these universities (at least Stanford) are LOCKSS caches. But some usage might be from actual human beings at these institutions. All of the above usage statistics were generated using a six month Web Trends report. If you are familiar with WebTrends, would you look through the report and let me know if you have suggestions for other statistics I could use or correcting my interpretation of the statistics I did use. I feel that I've been intellectually honest, but I welcome other interpretations. Also, if you know of other states with similar data, I'd be very interested in hearing about them! Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Thanks to a recent ALA e-mail, I learned about Alliance for Taxpayer Access. According to their web site, they are:

A diverse and growing alliance of organizations representing taxpayers, patients, physicians, researchers, and institutions that support open public access to taxpayer-funded research.

They also have a statement of principles that while focusing on scientific data, I think apply to all government data:

1. American taxpayers are entitled to open access on the Internet to the peer-reviewed scientific articles on research funded by the U.S. Government. 2. Widespread access to the information contained in these articles is an essential, inseparable component of our nation’s investment in science. 3. This and other scientific information should be shared in cost-effective ways that take advantage of the Internet, stimulate further discovery and innovation, and advance the translation of this knowledge into public benefits. 4. Enhanced access to and expanded sharing of information will lead to usage by millions of scientists, professionals, and individuals, and will deliver an accelerated return on the taxpayers' investment.

Their latest press release noted that under the voluntary medical deposit to the National Institutes of Health, less than five percent of federally funded research is being deposited. America can and should do better. Alliance for Taxpayer Access is just one of the groups we at FGI feel are fighting the good fight for information access. Check out our organizations page for more. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Reposted from a March 2006 blog entry: Today, the Government Printing office announced the availability of H.R. 3199 (USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005) through GPO Access. Also available through GPO Access was President Bush's "Statement on Signing" this piece of legislation, as reported by the March 13, 2006 issue of Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. Taken together, the new law and the President's signing statement paint a disturbing yet familar picture -- The President clearly intends to ignore language in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization intended to keep Congress informed of the Administration's use of the Act. Here is the President's signing statement in full (bolding mine):

Statement on Signing the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 March 9, 2006 Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' and then S. 2271, the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.'' The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives. The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties. The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient. George W. Bush The White House, March 9, 2006.

Observers across the political spectrum generally agree that the phrase "manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch" means that the President believes that Congress did not have authority to legislate in this area and intends to ignore the Congressional directive contained in statute. So, what do sections 106A, 119, and 756(e)(2) do? They simply ask for information to be provided Congressional committees for oversight purposes. While reading over the sections below, please note the minimal disclosure required by the law - not to the public, not even to the full Congress, but simply to Congressional committees charged with the oversight of the department charged with carrying this law. But the President apparrently feels his executive should simply have authority without accountability. Here is the information the President doesn't want two Congressional committees to see:

Sec. 106A. Audit on access to certain business records for foreign intelligence purposes. (a) Audit.--The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall perform a comprehensive audit of the effectiveness and use, including any improper or illegal use, of the investigative authority provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation under title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.). (b) Requirements.--The audit required under subsection (a) shall include-- (1) an examination of each instance in which the Attorney General, any other officer, employee, or agent of the Department of Justice, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a designee of the Director, submitted an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (as such term is defined in section 301(3) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1821(3))) for an order under section 501 of such Act during the calendar years of 2002 through 2006, including-- (A) whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation requested that the Department of Justice submit an application and the request was not submitted to the court (including an examination of the basis for not submitting the application); (B) whether the court granted, modified, or denied the application (including an examination of the basis for any modification or denial); (2) the justification for the failure of the Attorney General to issue implementing procedures governing requests for the production of tangible things under such section in a timely fashion, including whether such delay harmed national security; (3) whether bureaucratic or procedural impediments to the use of such requests for production prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from taking full advantage of the authorities provided under section 501 of such Act; (4) any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating to orders under such section, including any improper or illegal use of the authority provided under such section; and (5) an examination of the effectiveness of such section as an investigative tool, including-- (A) the categories of records obtained and the importance of the information acquired to the intelligence activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other Department or agency of the Federal Government; (B) the manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including any direct access to such information (such as access to ``raw data'') provided to any other Department, agency, or instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or tribal governments or any private sector entity; (C) with respect to calendar year 2006, an examination of the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General under section 501(g) of such Act and whether such minimization procedures protect the constitutional rights of United States persons; (D) whether, and how often, the Federal Bureau of Investigation utilized information acquired pursuant to an order under section 501 of such Act to produce an analytical intelligence product for distribution within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the intelligence community (as such term is defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4))), or to other Federal, State, local, or tribal government Departments, agencies, or instrumentalities; and(E) whether, and how often, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided such information to law enforcement authorities for use in criminal proceedings. (c) Submission Dates.-- (1) Prior years.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, or upon completion of the audit under this section for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004, whichever is earlier, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report containing the results of the audit conducted under this section for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. (2) Calendar years 2005 and 2006.--Not later than December 31, 2007, or upon completion of the audit under this section for calendar years 2005 and 2006, whichever is earlier, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report containing the results of the audit conducted under this section for calendar years 2005 and 2006. (d) Prior Notice to Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence; Comments.-- (1) Notice.--Not less than 30 days before the submission of a report under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2), the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall provide such report to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. (2) Comments.--The Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may provide comments to be included in the reports submitted under subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) as the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may consider necessary. (e) Unclassified Form.--The reports submitted under subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) and any comments included under subsection (d)(2) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. -------------------- Sec. 109. Enhanced congressional oversight. a) Emergency Physical Searches.--Section 306 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1826) is amended-- (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate,'' after ``the Senate''; (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``and the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate'' and inserting ``and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives''; (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end; (4) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (5) by adding at the end the following: ``(4) the total number of emergency physical searches authorized by the Attorney General under section 304(e) and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying such physical searches.''. (b) Emergency Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices.--Section 406(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1846(b)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(3) the total number of pen registers and trap and trace devices whose installation and use was authorized by the Attorney General on an emergency basis under section 403, and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying the installation and use of such pen registers and trap and trace devices.''. (c) Additional Report.--At the beginning and midpoint of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate, a written report providing a description of internal affairs operations at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the general state of such operations and a detailed description of investigations that are being conducted (or that were conducted during the previous six months) and the resources devoted to such investigations. The first such report shall be submitted not later than April 1, 2006. (d) Rules and Procedures for FISA Courts.--Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(f)(1) The courts established pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) may establish such rules and procedures, and take such actions, as are reasonably necessary to administer their responsibilities under this Act. ``(2) The rules and procedures established under paragraph (1), and any modifications of such rules and procedures, shall be recorded, and shall be transmitted to the following: ``(A) All of the judges on the court established pursuant to subsection (a). ``(B) All of the judges on the court of review established pursuant to subsection (b). ``(C) The Chief Justice of the United States. ``(D) The Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate. ``(E) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. ``(F) The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. ``(G) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. ``(3) The transmissions required by paragraph (2) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.''. ---------------------- Sec. 756. Authority to award competitive grants to address methamphetamine use by pregnant and parenting women offenders. (e) Performance Accountability; Reports and Evaluations.-- (1) Reports.--Successful applicants shall submit to the Attorney General a report on the activities carried out under the grant at the end of each fiscal year. (2) Evaluations.--Not later than 12 months at the end of the 3 year funding cycle under this section, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction that summarizes the results of the evaluations conducted by recipients and recommendations for further legislative action.

To me, this signing statement represents just what James Madison had in mind when he said:

A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.

Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Reposted from a July 2006 blog entry: Free Government Information writers have reported on Presidential Signing Statements before. In the past two months, two new statements have been issued and are available through the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents:

• Statement on Signing the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 from the May 29, 2006 compiliation.
• Statement on Signing the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 from the June 19, 2006 compiliation.

Both of these measures contain language that the President intends to ignore certain passed statutes as unconstitutional. The Supplemental Bill signing statement contains provisions rejecting reporting requirements:

Sections 1209 and 2202 of the Act prohibit use of certain funds appropriated in the Act to initiate new start programs unless the congressional defense committees receive advance written notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 1209 and 2202 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

Section 1209 is:

SEC. 1209. None of the funds provided in this chapter may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 appropriations to the department of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, development, test and evaluation new start program without prior written notification to the congressional defense committees.

Section 2202 is:

None of the funds provided in this chapter may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 appropriations to the Department of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, development, test and evaluation new start program without prior written notification to the congressional defense committees.

The signing statement also says:

The provision under the heading, ``Joint Explosive Device Defeat Fund,'' Department of Defense-Military, that calls for the reporting to congressional committees of information that may include highly sensitive and classified national security information, will be construed consistently with the President's constitutional responsibility to control the dissemination of such information.

That provision states:

For the ‘‘Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund’’, $1,958,089,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to investigate, develop and provide equipment,supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds to assist United States forces in the defeat of improvised explosive devices: Provided further, That within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, a plan for the intended management and use of the Fund is provided to the congressional defense committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees providing assessments of the evolving threats, individual service requirements to counter the threats, the current strategy for predeployment training of members of the Armed Forces on improvised explosive devices, and details on the execution of this Fund:

The full text of the supplemental bill is available on Thomas. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →