New Scientist has an interesting series of articles about social networking, including articles by Bruce Sterling (I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by Google) and Sherry Turkle (I'll have to ask my friends).

My own favorite, though, is:

• The internet could be so much better (interview with Ted Nelson) New Scientist, September 16, 2006, page 54-55 issue 2569.

Nelson's influence on the way we communicate goes back more that forty years to when he coined the term hypertext and envisioned his Xanadu project. I believe some of his comments on social networking sites can give us insights into how we think about digital government information.

For example, he says that how hypertext is used determines which linkages among sites and people and documents are easy, which are hard, and which are impossible. Anyone who has tried to link directly to documents buried in GPO Access knows that linking to government information can be very, very difficult. (If you haven't looked lately, check out the page Help: Linking to Documents on GPO Access which begins with the disclaimer "Documents that exist within databases on GPO Access cannot be bookmarked." Try creating "a unique URL string" and see if it works. If you've created links in the past, check to see if they still work. I did and about half worked and half didn't. Ask yourself how many people will actually use this kind of linking? Will we someday see a better system when FDSys is online? At this point, we can only hope.)

Nelson also says that many social networking sites are "all about real estate. You set out your stall, stake out a territory....The whole World Wide Web is about a sense of ownership." Nelson envisions something very different: "sharing media and acknowledging sources, without walls or boundaries." Compare that to the GPO Vision of documents for sale. Look in vain for a vision of open-linking, DRM-free access, guarantees of free and fully functional information in the GPO vision and ask yourself whether it is more about "ownership" and control of information or sharing information without boundaries.

Finally, Nelson, touches on but does not explore an issue critical to democracy when he is asked about dynamic documents that are never out of date. The interviewer asks, "Does that mean documents are never finished?" and Nelson replies, "Finishing is a political act." In the government information community we know this lesson well. Everyday we see how "finishing" a document and publishing it is often more of a political statement of how the government interprets information than it is a statement of objective fact. It is also, however, a tangible record that citizens can use to hold elected representatives and civil servants accountable. But how does "finishing" relate to information that is "never out of date" in the government information world? Will we, in the future, have a record of what we knew and when we knew it, of what the government said and when it said it? Or will we only have an ever-changing "never out of date" view of what the government says at the moment we ask for information? And, will GPO and OMB and government information policy facilitate government control of information or will information be free to use and re-use and redistribute?

FDLP Libraries can play an essential role in ensuring free, open access to government information, but government information specialists will have to insist on a vision very different from GPO's if we are to make that vision happen.

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 →

The PBS show NOW has a show this week about ballot initiatives for 2006 and the shady financial support for initiatives with titles like "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" and "SOS - Stop Over Spending." The streaming video will appear on the site in a few days after the show has aired, but for now check out the handy state-by-state map of ballot initiatives included on the site. The map was created by Angus King, former Independent Governor of Maine (1995 - 2003). Continue reading →

Continue Reading →