Hearing On Sensitive But Not Classified Information (1987)
Proving that everything old is new again in terms of information restriction, I came across this title from my federal depository's shelves: Hearing on sensitive but not classified information : Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Thursday, May 28, 1987 by United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. I thought this part of the introduction was interesting reading:
The difference of opinion was over the means to protect this information. In general, the library and information science communities felt that sensitive material should be classified in order to relieve these communities of the burden of limiting access to information and determining which information should not be made available to foreign nationals or governments. In general, the government and the defense establishment would prefer that the library and information communities exercise a degree of judgement in releasing sensitive data to foreign nationals in order to slow up the flow of valuable technological and other information to the East Bloc. Classifying much of this information would take time and expense for all concerned, as well as limiting the flow of sensitive information to all Americans.In my view the information flowing to the Eastern Bloc couldn't have been that useful since the Warsaw Pact imploded barely two years after this hearing. In this hearing, Sandra K. Peterson of Yale University represented the ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT). Her testimony begins on page 41 of the hearing proceedings. Time constraints keep me from giving you most of Ms. Peterson's testimony, but a key point was that the government's proposed definition of "Sensitive but unclassified" was so broad that GODORT believed "Much of the information that the federal government collects compiles, produces, publishes and disseminates falls within these definitions." Towards the end of her prepared testimony, Ms. Peterson emphasized GODORT's basic position which I believe they hold today. I know we do at FGI:
In summary, GODORT believes that unclassified government information of all formats should be accessible by the American public.Hear, Hear! Now if we could just make the SBU concept go away. Seems like there is more work to do. Continue reading
Emerging geoWeb tools give agencies new ways to put their data to use
This is a really interesting article, particularly for those who have GIS or data mixed in with their government information responsibilities.
- Taking it to the streets by Patrick Marshall, GCN 07/23/07
With the geoWeb, however, the federal government has found itself with two major roles from the get-go. First, federal agencies are providing much of the data behind the geoWeb explosion. Second, government is finding the geoWeb to be an effective way to deliver information directly to citizens via its own Web applications.Don't miss the sidebars: Continue reading
No Fee Access under FDSYS: Past Performance No Guide
In the latest issue of the Federal Depository Library Program's Administrative Notes, there is this item: Library Services and Content Management Update Remarks by Richard G. Davis Acting Superintendent of Documents Director, Library Services and Content Management At the Federal Documents Task Force Meeting ALA Annual Conference Saturday, June 23, 2007 Among other issues, Mr. Davis talks about the no-fee access to government information:
GPO Access – No Fee Access I also want to emphasize that GPO’s commitment to provide the public with no-fee access to Government information through the FDLP, including GPO Access, remains the same. GPO will not allow access to content available through GPO Access to be restricted, diminished, or based on user fees for the FDLP. The public will be able to continue to print and download this information through the FDLP without restriction into the future.While we at FGI greatly respect the 150+ year tradition of no-fee access and while we believe that Mr. Davis is sincere in his commitment, he cannot bind Congress or future GPO leadership. Free access (leaving aside NTIS and other cost recovery bits) is Congressional and GPO policy today, but only future leadership can determine policy in the future. Whatever access scheme is available in 2095, Ric Davis won't have put it into place. While GPO cannot guarantee permanent no-fee public access by simple decree, it stands at a crossroads where it can either facilitate no-fee access or make it possible for future leadership to institute a pay per view model. If GPO were to work with the library community and deposit non-DRM digital publications based on selection profile, those publications would remain available for access and preservation no matter what future GPO policy was. A future Congress and GPO wouldn't be able to successfully order over 1,000 libraries to destroy their files and sign up for a pay per view system. Where GPO is currently going however, is a centralized model where users have access to a central repository of files. Today that repository is free. It isn't subject to Digital Rights Management. But that's today. Because they have custody of the electronic publication, our free access depends on the the good will of GPO and Congress' unwillingness to change USC Title 44. But given enough time that can change. Especially in the secrecy and privatization-hungry environment Americans find themselves in today. That is why what we need is a decentralized, distributed system of depositing electronic files to local libraries willing to host them. Libraries need to step up to the plate, and a Government Printing Office wishing to facilitate permanent no-fee public access needs to help with training, storage estimates and simple section mechanisms like those used to select LOCKSS journals. Continue reading
U.S. Broadband Policy: Myth vs. Reality
The OECD released its semi-annual broadband penetration rankings (Broadband Statistics to December 2006), which show that the United States has fallen further to 15th among the 30 members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. There has been some criticism of the report and attempts have been made to discredit it. (See for example today's Wall Street Journal Broadband Baloney by Robert M. McDowell. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). Jul 24, 2007. pg. A.15; [WSJ subscription required]. Another copy here [Proquest subscription required]). A report by freepress directly addresses the criticisms of the OECD report.
- 'Shooting the Messenger' Myth vs. Reality: U.S. Broadband Policy and International Broadband Rankings by S. Derek Turner, Research Director, Free Press, July 2007
Release of the latest OECD report – unlike previous studies -- was met with a fierce response by incumbent providers and the think tanks they support, as well as prominent public attacks by several members of the executive branch. Free Press found that the major critiques leveled at the OECD data simply fall apart upon closer examination. The coordinated attempt to “shoot the messenger†cannot hide critical failures in the U.S. broadband market. These failures are chiefly due to poor policy decisions that have fostered an anti-competitive marketplace. Our European and Asian counterparts are outperforming us because they have policies that foster vigorous competition in the broadband marketplace, offering consumers more choice, faster speeds and lower prices. ...In 2004, President Bush set a clear goal for high-speed Internet access in the United States... The president clearly called for not only universal access by 2007, but more importantly he wanted broadband to be affordable. The president correctly pointed out that marketplace competition and consumer choice would spawn greater consumer broadband adoption, ultimately benefiting the entire American economy. This was his policy goal. In reality, the United States has not met either the goal of universal availability or achieved the level of competition necessary to spur adoption rates and achieve the economic and social benefits the president desired. But that hasn't stopped administration officials from declaring victory anyway.Continue reading