Free book: Lexicon of Official Secrecy and Transparency
Update by Daniel 7/7/2009 - Dr. Maret is as good as her word. She is now up to the fourth edition, which has 431 pages: Maret, Susan L. On Their Own Terms: A Lexicon with an Emphasis on Information-Related Terms Produced by the U.S. Federal Government. 4th edition, June 2009, http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/maret.pdf Thanks to Dr. Maret herself for notice of the update.
Original Posting On Their Own Terms: A Lexicon With an Emphasis on Information-Related Terms Produced by the US Federal Government by Dr. Susan Maret, November 2005. (pdf, 304pp, 1.3 meg). Steven Aftergood says this 'excellent new publication helps "the outsider," i.e. the ordinary citizen of the United States, to comprehend the vocabulary of government information policy, and to discover its genealogical roots in official documents. From "access" and "accountability" to "Yankee White" and "Xn," author Susan Maret, an adjunct professor of library science at the University of Denver, provides a concise definition of terms as well as links to official sources.' Maret says the lexicon will be updated and revised "on a regular basis." It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License. Continue reading
Job Tracker added to Remix page
New on the FGI Remixes page is the innovative re-use of information from several government agencies and others to create a site to help non-unionized workers. The online database has information on more than 60,000 companies, listing information about their executive compensation, overseas job outsourcing, and violations of labor, safety and health standards: Job Tracker. Continue reading
New paper on “The Mosaic Theory”
The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act by David Pozen, Yale University Law School, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 115, No. 3, 2005.
The “mosaic theory†describes a basic precept of intelligence gathering: Disparate items of information, though individually of limited or no utility to their possessor, can take on added significance when combined with other items of information. Combining the items illuminates their interrelationships and breeds analytic synergies, so that the resulting mosaic of information is worth more than the sum of its parts. The first work to explore the "mosaic theory" in detail, this Note documents the theory's evolution in FOIA national security law and highlights its centrality in the post-9/11 landscape of information control. After years of doctrinal stasis and practical anonymity, federal agencies began asserting the theory more aggressively after 9/11, thereby testing the limits of executive secrecy and of judicial deference. Though essentially valid, the mosaic theory has been applied in ways that are unfalsifiable, in tension with the purpose and text of FOIA, and susceptible to abuse and overbreadth. This Note therefore argues, against precedent, for greater judicial scrutiny of mosaic claims. Continue reading
Your library may have the only paper copy of a government publication
On page 24 of issue 136 of the U*N*A*B*A*S*H*E*D Librarian, there is an article by Bernadine Abbott Hoduski that you should read today even though you have to go offline for it. The title of the article, like my blog entry, is Your library may have the only paper copy of a government publication. The thrust of the article is that often you cannot be sure you are not tossing the last copy of a given government publication. Ms. Hoduski cites a number of reasons why this may be so:
Collections in depositories are not complete because 1) libraries came into the [Federal Depository Library] program at varying dates and they did not receive retrospective publications, 2) after the 1962 Act was passed it took at least 20 years before the law was strongly enforced, 3) most depository libraries did not and do not collect everything, 4) GPO often received insufficient copies of a publication and therefore many libraries, including regionals did not receive the publication, 5) some of the microfiche received is of such poor quality that it is unusable, and 6) there are gaps in the microfiche runs because contractors failed to deliver all the fiche in a series or never received the publication to fiche.Ms. Hoduski goes on to explain why we cannot expect a complete collection of all government publications at the National Archives, Library of Congress, or any of the other national libraries. Ms. Hoduski concludes her article by noting the Government Printing Office's proposal to digitize what they call the legacy collection. Ms. Hoduski appears to support this concept if the project does not inadvertently destroy the last paper copy of a publication. I share her concern and mostly agree with her plan to avoid the destruction of last copies:
Before this project goes any further we need a complete inventory of what is out there at in NARA (National Archives), the Library of Congress, National Library of Medicine, National Agricultural Library, other federal libraries, the Senate and House libraries, the regionals, selectives, and former depository libraries. We need the pre-1976 cataloging records digitized, edited and made a part of the new integrated library system at GPO. Where there are no cataloging records we need them.I believe that such an inventory would have uses far beyond insuring that we did not destroy a last paper copy. Such an inventory could:
- Help us determine the optimal number of preservation copies, by comparing the number of surviving copies of a given item to the number of copies originally distributed.
- Radically raise the number of government publications accessible through OCLC Open WorldCat, which would increase their use.
- Open up new print-on-demand markets for the Government Printing Office as more people became aware of materials.
- Improve collection development plans of depository libraries because they would know neighboring collections better.
Accuracy of transcript questioned
Editor and Publisher has a story (White House Stands by 'Not Accurate' Quote in Dispute By Joe Strupp, November 09, 2005) about different transcripts of a White House press briefing. The official White House transcript (Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, October 31, 2005) and the transcripts by two commercial transcript companies (Congressional Quarterly and Federal News Service) differ dramatically.
The dispute is over what McClellan said in response to this comment from a reporter:
"Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations."
White House transcript: "I don't think that's accurate."
Continue reading