Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I spent a good deal writing this, based on research I've done in the past on FOIA. I would love for someone to aid in documenting how FOIA requests actually work and what someone needs to do to actually, as a citizen, call into action these rights. Perhaps illustration with the recent debacle and the boxes stolen from a journalist's house would be great. I don't know how many people are even going to make it to this discussion page, let alone want to contribute to this, but it would be nice to bring up some healthy discussion, as I know my views are a little bit 'annoyed' in regards to the FOIA's true efficacy. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:16, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
-
- I made a FOIA request which was remarkably simple. It was based on a simple letter found at a the Dreamland Resort (Area 51) website. The letter was succesful and I recieved a map in the mail a few days later. The map included a letter from the person in the military who processed my request stating that obtaining such a map usually requires a fee but it was waived (inexplicably) in this case. The map requested was a pilot's map of Nevada Test Range. As it is supposed to safely guide pilots, it is should be very detailed, however, this map completely ignored the runway, hangers and smokestacks known to be on the Groom Lake site. Only a set of power lines leading into the middle of the dry lake bed were shown. The location of the base is a known fact, proven by public satelite photos including this and it's funny how even a FOIA request can still be useless.Nrbelex 06:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- It can’t be a great surprise that details concerning a sensitive military base are redacted from area maps. I’m sure that you received exactly what area civilian pilots receive, as they are most likely restricted from flying over the area. FOIA doesn’t require that an agency create documents in response to a request for information and I’m sure that a request for a more detailed map would fall within one of nine exemptions enumerated in 5 U.S.C § 552(b) (probably either 552(b)(1), exempting material “specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and [] are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order” or 552(b)(3), exempting material “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . .”). Also, with the very minor work I’ve done with FOIA litigation, I’ve found that large government departments/agencies typically waive fees for small requests. I know that the DOD states that it affords FOIA requests two hours of search time and one hundred pages of records at no charge. Thereafter, you’re looking at $44.00 per hour of search and $0.15 per page reproduced, unless you can get a waiver. Kirkpatrick 13:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
Bill Moyers is adamant: "LBJ had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. He hated the very idea of FOIA, hated the thought of journalists rummaging in government closets, hated them challenging the official review of reality. He dug in his heels and even threatened to pocket-veto the bill after it reached the White House. Only the tenacity of a congressman named John Moss got the bill passed at all, and that was after a 12-year battle against his elders in Congress, who blinked every time the sun shined in the dark corridors of power. They managed to cripple the bill Moss had drafted, and even then, only some last-minute calls to LBJ from a handful of newspaper editors overcame the president's reluctance."[1][2] And he is not happy about Dubya's unravellings of FOIA. 142.177.23.90 17:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Americocentrism
Why is the American FOI privileged with its own page? Should this page not redirect to disambiguation? --Khendon 16:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- Because this is the american version of wikipedia (en)Hackajar 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Some of the other laws that address the same subject have different names. Of the ones with this specific name, the one in the U.S. is by far the oldest and, simply because of the head start, the one that's played the most significant cumulative role. A glance at "What links here" suggests to me that most of the links intend the U.S. law. Not every term with more than one meaning needs to be a dab page. The British Kingsbridge is privileged with its own page, but I don't see that as UK-centrism. JamesMLane 00:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That point is complete nonsense - Kingsbridge is a place, this is a piece of legislation that exists in some form in many countries - including the US. The fact it is older is irrelevant.
[edit] Removal of NPOV tag
It appears that the NPOV tag was added by an anonymous IP user back in September. The user gave no reason why this article should be regarded as POV. I'm therefore removing the tag. --Sheldon Rampton 06:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
HI, I have just read this article and am not suprised to see the NPOV flag raised before. It seems much more essay-like to me, with the objective of proving. I was unable to find info on how the FOIA works.
" Many citizens, over the course of the years, have felt cheated by these exemptions, due to persistent government action on many levels geared towards exploiting these exception-clauses of the acts to withhold information which, in reality, did not uphold a national or constitutional right, but personal/political biases. The forms of cases against the government were many, and still continue."
.. ". How much information is the government obligated to reveal? Is there a point at which boundaries of public availability should not be crossed? And most importantly, who determines and enforces those boundaries to the benefit or detriment of those seeking and withholding information? The FOIA is perennially thwarted by government misuse of its exemption laws."
etc. It seems to take the stance of asking questions.
NO offense to the author of course.
The article seems to be awkwardly worded at some point. I'll change what I can but if the author could clarify it would be an improvement. Thanks. 149.68.172.195 16:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I felt the article was still blatantly POV, so I've edited it. Feel free to raise any objections here. —Simetrical (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] General coverage
Hi all.
In addition to the "federal" FOIA and its additional legislation, all fifty states, plus DC, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and possibly the Northern Mariana Islands have individual FOI legislation of some form or another. Does anyone with better knowledge than me feel like writing an overview of the situation in the US generally (as opposed to "on the national level"), at, say, Freedom of information in the United States? I'll be trying to extend our FOI coverage quite a bit in the future, but all I can usefully provide for the US is a list of state laws and some links... Shimgray | talk | 15:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1986
The Wategate article correctly points out the amendments from 1986, but they are nowhere to be found here ...
[edit] organisation
surely this page could be better organised i was trying to research the Freedom of information act, and found this slightly confusing . The page really needs to be split up in to what the freedom of information act is, when and why it was implemented and how it works in practice as well as all of the other highly interesting stuff that is already here
I agree. It reads like a "classroom discussion plan." We need to know the WHAT, HOW, WHY. The article also has nothing on how to USE the FOIA.--User:Zaorish
- I will tag article and try to re-org it in next few days.Hackajar 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV - Major Cases
It would seem that, while cases have proved themselfs in court, that this section leans too much towards a NPOV view point. U.S. Government courts, executive branch and legislators are all there to make everything balanced. The courts obviously judged cited cases in favor of FOIA abuse, but this shows that the system works and thus corrects actions taken inappropriately. The cases should probably be stated as a matter of fact, not in tone to belittle or punch holes in FOIA. This law itself has not failed tests of constitutionality but rather the government departments actions in relation to the laws execuation (E.g. return requested data in timely manner without sharpie abuse). Hackajar 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] J Edgar Hoover
This may actually be a problem with the NPOV of the article, but the section about Hoover opens with the line "This trend of unwillingness to release records was especially evident." It is speaking of a problem with compliance with provisions of the act, not the act itself. I cannot really find a previous sentence discussing any unwillingness to release information. NemoX 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Information RE the FoI and the ACLU's use of it to obtain further photos/videos of Abu Ghraib
Should that be included in this article?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
