If you fill out the "Forgot Password" form but don't get an email to reset your password within 5-10 minutes, please email logistics@ire.org for assistance.
MuckRock, a public records service that files and tracks requests on behalf of journalists, researchers, activists and historians, recently analyzed 907 requests completed by its users.
The analysis found about 42 percent of federal Freedom of Information Act requests were completed on time, and 27 percent of those 907 requests are still without a response after their first three months. MuckRock reports that many state and local agencies didn't fair much better by its measure.
Read the full report on the MuckRock blog ...
Freedom of Information Act advocates have consistently claimed that institutionalizing the right to information will benefit countries, particularly in addressing corruption.
They are not lying.
By comparing indices on corruption, human development, and years of having an FOI law across 168 countries, I found support to the assumption that having an FOI law leads to lower levels of perceived corruption.
Also, countries with older FOI laws tend to have higher levels of human development than countries with younger FOI laws or countries without them.
An intriguing link, however, is between ratings of FOI law effectiveness and the perceived level of corruption in a country.
The Center for Law and Democracy rates the implementation of right to information laws across countries based on seven categories: right of access, scope, requesting procedures, exceptions and refusals, appeals, sanctions and protections, and promotional measures. I compared their ratings with corruption ratings from Transparency International.
I did not expect what I found: Countries with effective implementation of right to information laws, according to the ratings, were also perceived as corrupt.
This relationship initially baffled me, considering the positive relationship between how long a country has had an FOI law and being corruption-free.
However, this intriguing link started to make sense as I reflected about how right to information is supposed to function in a democratic society.
By guaranteeing the right to information to citizens, governments ensure transparency and allow themselves to be accountable to the people whom they serve.
A fully functioning democracy rests on the ability of citizens to regularly check on their representatives in government.
However, for the longest time, many politicians have considered FOI laws as window dressing—a last-resort for a worsening corruption problem, if not a half-hearted response to clamors for transparency.
Many citizens might also look at FOI laws the same way: a mechanism only invoked to solve a problem already at its worst.
This explains why countries with good FOI law ratings were also perceived to be corrupt: The law is being used to try to solve the problem, and therefore there are opportunities to observe the law at work.
This is supported by the negative relationship I found between years of having an FOI and implementation ratings: Countries with younger FOI laws tend to have more favorable ratings in terms of implementation than countries with older FOI laws.
It is possible that in countries with older FOI laws, corruption is no longer a terrible problem, and therefore the instances to observe the law at work are few.
These findings lead me to how we are supposed to appreciate the value of FOI laws.
Freedom of information should be considered as a mechanism to prevent corruption.
When citizens can freely access information from the government they deputized, they can regularly check on officials to make sure things are in order.
But again, the question of implementation also rests on the hands of citizens—are they exercising their right to information to regularly check on the government, or are they reserving it as a last resort?
This is where journalists come in. While we cannot expect citizens to constantly monitor the government, busy as they are with their daily lives, journalists serve the watchdog role on behalf of the general public.
Journalists have—and should have—the capabilities, knowhow, awareness, and resources to exercise their rights to information not only to uncover corruption, a staple in investigative journalism, but also to make sure that the government is working the way it is supposed to.
But on top of that, I think journalists should also remind the public they serve everyone’s right to information.
In this evolving ecosystem called journalism, where the people we used to call the audience are now contributing directly to information gathering and dissemination, the roles of journalists should also evolve from merely supplying information to being a conduit for the exchange of important information.
Journalists should not stop at exercising our right to information as members of the public. We should also help in ensuring that everyone is aware of this right, journalist or not, and that everyone is equipped with the information they need to exercise this right if they want to.
This way, we just not inform the citizens we serve. We also engage and empower them.
Edson C. Tandoc Jr. is a doctoral student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. This article is based on a longer study conducted under the supervision of Dr. Charles Davis, now the dean of University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication. A version of the study will be presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) Conference in Washington DC on August 10. The study also won first place in the Moeller Student Paper Competition of the association’s Mass Communication and Society Division.
inewsource out of San Diego reports that in the midst of an investigation into a local transportation agency, the North County Tranist District, the agency voted to adopt a policy change that would direct its employees to delete certain emails after 60 days, a drop from the previous email retention policy of two years.
Despite efforts from local media and a petition from inewsource that received 85 signatures in less than 24 hours, the agency voted unanimously yesterday to shorten its retention schedule.
Before the vote, Peter Scheer, the Executive Director of California’s nonprofit First Amendment Coalition, told inewsource the policy changes indicated "either they've failling to show this to their lawyers, or their lawyers haven't read the Public Records Act."
The California legislature has added wording to the state budget bill that open government advocates say would devastate the state's public records laws.
The added language would allow government officials to turn down records requests without written record of the basis for denial. Officials would no longer need to cite legal reasons for withholding information. The 10-day deadline for officials to respond to public records requests would be removed. Officials would no longer be required to provide electronic records in the desired format of the requester, nor would government workers be obligated to help members of the public understand what records exist.
Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publisher's Association, told the San Jose Mercury News that the proposal was the worst assault on the public's right to know he'd seen in his 18 years of experience.
The wording included in the bill, authored by the state's Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, ostensibly was intended to reduce expenses for small municipal governments. Opponents of the change have pointed out that no estimates have been produced as to savings from the change.
The California-based First Amendment Coalition has drafted a form letter addressed to California Gov. Jerry Brown, urging him to veto the portions of the bill that it claims will weaken the public records law.
California had a reputation for lacking transparency even before those portions of the the bill were first reported on Friday. The State Integrity Project, a joint investigation by The Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity, gave California's access to information laws and culture a "D-" rating. However, more than a dozen states scored worse than California with an "F" rating.
The Department of Justice has expedited IRE's request for records pertaining to the surveillance of news organizations and has assigned an officer to handle the request. Last week, IRE reported that it had filed the request and that the DOJ had sent a letter of acknowledgement but had not assigned the request a reference number nor had it assigned a FOIA officer to the case.
The Department of Justice has not yet made a decision on IRE's request for a fee waiver. The agency also noted the request falls under "unusual circumstances" because it involves consultation with other agencies.
//
Department of Justice second response (PDF)
Department of Justice second response (Text)
Investigative Reporters and Editors has released the list of finalists for its inaugural Golden Padlock Award honoring a U.S. government agency for its unrelenting commitment to undermining the public's right to know.
“Information suppression is a practiced art,” said David Cay Johnston, IRE president. “Our list of finalists represents the kind of creativity found in government offices across the country when it comes to undermining public knowledge.”
The winner will be announced at IRE’s national conference in San Antonio June 21. A representative from the winning agency will be invited to receive the honor.
Download a pdf version of this announcement here.
The revelation last month that the Department of Justice seized phone records from the Associated Press turned out to be just the begining of major disclosures about government surveillance, which according to recent reports includes mass collection of phone and internet server data by the National Security Agency.
But the Department of Justice surveillance targeting news organizations carries dangerous consequences for journalists, according to the president of IRE.
“This is what police states do, not governments of the people,” IRE Board President David Cay Johnston said at the time of the Associated Press reports. “Journalists have a duty to watchdog the government and hold it accountable without surveillance or other interference.”
The scope and reasons behind the targeted surveillance remain unknown. To uncover them, IRE filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ and will be tracking its progress here on the blog. Below is the request in full:
//
IRE DOJ FOIA 1 (PDF)
IRE DOJ FOIA 1 (Text)
The Department of Justice sent an official response, but did not assign the FOIA request a reference number, as is common practice, nor has the agency assigned a FOIA officer to the request. Below is the department's initial response in full:
//
Department of Justice response (PDF)
Department of Justice response (Text)
News of the National Security Agency’s surveillance of phone records and internet server data is breaking fast. Yesterday The Washington Post and The Guardian released records that show the U.S. Government has been collecting a vast cache of data spanning audio and video chats, emails, and stored files under a surveillance program known as PRISM. The news comes just days after The Guardian released a copy it obtained of a secret court order for telecommunication company Verizon to provide the NSA with telephone records of millions of U.S. customers.
The revelations have dominated the news cycle. Dozens of different angles are already developing in those reports as facts swirl among speculation.
At IRE 2013
Learn about secrecy, surveillance and the government's war on leak's at IRE's annual conference:
Showcase panel
During a time of great tension between journalists and the government over protecting sources and access to information, IRE's showcase panel tackles the issues head on. Join moderator Len Downie Jr., the Associated Press, author James Bamford -- a veteran of these battles from his work investigating the National Security Administration -- and more.
Surveillance, privacy and hackers: How to cover it
Practicing safer Internet: Learning to think about digital security
So to take the story forward, what do the public and journalists need to know? Here’s one guide to what’s happening, what's been reported and what angles journalists are pursuing.
When it started
The court order for Verizon phone records is dated April 25 and good till July 19, 2013, but U.S. Senators claim the order was a renewal of an ongoing program spanning the past seven years. The newly disclosed PRISM program reportedly began on Sept. 11, 2007 under the Bush Administration and was expanded under the Obama Administration. Both appear to stem from laws following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Here are some angles being explored about when the surveillance began:
The NSA began data mining in late 2001 after the enactment of the Patriot Act. The New York Times produced a timeline of government surveillance efforts since then. Mother Jones also has a timeline of such events.
The Washington Post Wonkblog reports that Congress “unknowingly” authorized the program in 2007 by passing the Protect America Act. The PAA was billed as a technical fix for surveillance capabilities but in fact authorized sweeping changes to surveillance law and allowed the executive branch greater reach with lesser judicial oversight.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created in 1978 to address abuses uncovered by congressional investigations, NPR reports. By nature, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), it operated in complete secrecy.
The FISA Amendments Act was reauthorized for five years in 2012. It will come up for a vote again in 2017.
If you need to find out what laws govern surveillance and what tools the government has for obtaining data, check out this ProPublica guide to how the government can get your digital data.
The scope of surveillance
Determining the scope of surveillance is among top priorities for journalists, made all the more difficult by the fact that the NSA, the surveiller in question, is nicknamed “No Such Agency” for its ultra-secrecy.
President Obama acknowledged and defended the program on Friday. He stated that “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” and that the collection of data from internet companies -- such as from Google or Apple’s servers -- does not apply to American citizens or people living in the United States.
Several outlets have reported that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed the existence of the program but also claimed the reports contained numerous inaccuracies.
The court order released Wednesday by The Guardian details surveillance of the Verizon Business Network Services, which includes millions of customers. In addition to Verizon, The Wall Street Journal reports “people familiar with the NSA's operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc.and Sprint Nextel Corp.” Various reports indicate the phone records turned over to the NSA do not include the content of conversations but rather metadata such as call time, duration, dialing number and receiving number.
The Wall Street Journal also reports that the NSA has formed similar relationships with credit card companies: “It couldn't be determined if any of the Internet or credit-card arrangements are ongoing, as are the phone company efforts, or one-shot collection efforts.”
Regarding server data surveillance, Time has a by-the-numbers breakdown that’s quick to digest. In 2007, Microsoft became the first company involved in Prism. Yahoo! followed in 2008, then came Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, Skype and AOL in 2011 and most recently Apple in 2012.
Several news outlets are going after the story of what the companies mentioned in the PRISM slides knew and what they allowed. The companies involved have denied allowing direct access to their servers. Microsoft told Forbes that it only allowed specific accounts to be accessed. Facebook denied allowing any government agency direct access its servers, as did Yahoo!. Apple and PalTalk each stated the companies had not heard of PRISM. Google told the Guardian it does not have a “back door” for the government to access private user data.
The Corporate Intelligence blog explored why a small company like PalTalk is on a list with giant companies in the PRISM program.
The Guardian also reports that United Kingdom spies gained access to the PRISM program. The New York Times reports that Europe has been wrestling with online privacy rules.
Who knew what and when
The news of massive-scale surveillance by the NSA was old news to some, including U.S. Senators who warned of the issue. In the investigation into the NSA surveillance, of critical importance is understanding who knew about the surveillance, when they knew and what they did about it.
We'll be updating this as news develops. Check back later for updated information.
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, which operates the WisconsinWatch.org website, faces a threat from the state legislature that could kick the nonprofit organization out of its home at the University of Wisconsin.
The center, a pioneering effort in regional nonprofit investigative reporting, is run by longtime IRE member Andy Hall, and has conducted more than 100 investigations since its founding. A committee of lawmakers voted early Wednesday to add "a provision to the state budget expelling the Center for Investigative Journalism from University of Wisconsin offices," according to a report on the Center's website.
The center is asking that those who are concerned about this action contact legislative leaders: Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau: 608-266-5660, Sen.Fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov; Assembly speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, 608-266-9171, Rep.Vos@legis.wisconsin.gov
For more, go to the center's site.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers itself to be one of the nation’s foremost scientific institutions, dedicated to transparency and evidence-driven policies. It is fair, therefore, to ask this question: What happens when the CDC brazenly ignores the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), taking more than five years to fulfill a journalist’s information request, which by law should take “approximately a month”?
Speaking from experience — absolutely nothing.
In July 2007, I submitted a simple request for emails and resumes from three CDC employees. This information was needed for background research associated with the Lyme disease documentary, Under Our Skin.
For five years the agency strung me along with frivolous denials, mysterious delays, shifting explanations and false promises. In essence, the delays became an improper, off-the-books FOIA denial.
Related investigation
The CDC documents, which took five years to obtain via FOIA, were part of an investigation published this weekend in The Poughkeepsie Journal:
Yet no one in the CDC FOIA office went to jail. And no one was fired or reprimanded.
The delays were variously attributed to understaffing, year-end deadlines, and people taking vacation. At one point, unanswered calls were blamed on a phone “dead zone” in the CDC’s new FOIA office. For years I was told that my request was at the top of the FOIA queue, and that it was on the verge of being processed.
In 2009, I realized that the CDC was tracking the progress of the film. I also obtained an email that showed that a CDC Press Officer, Christine Pearson, made an intimidating call to our public television distributor, Gayle Loeber at the National Educational Telecommunications Association, telling her that the CDC was concerned about the film’s content.
I redoubled my efforts to dislodge the FOIA request. My congressperson sent several letters to the CDC. The film’s director wrote a letter to President Obama. The FOIA ombudsman, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), repeatedly pressured the agency to fulfill my request. I published blogs about my plight and enlisted the support of a number of government transparency organizations.
Yet my FOIA request was in “final review” for over a year, and among the agency’s top ten oldest unfulfilled requests from 2010 to October 2012. Eventually the documentary was completed without answering an important question — were the three key CDC employees responsible for managing Lyme disease health policy being inappropriately influenced by outside commercial interests?
Finally, after receipt of the 3,000 FOIA pages — long after they were needed — I understood why the CDC wanted to keep us in the dark.
The emails reveal a disturbing picture of a shadow group that has been setting Lyme disease policy and a national research agenda without public oversight or transparency. Investigative journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer of the Poughkeepsie Journal was given access to these hidden emails, and on May 19 she published an article about this group’s abuse of power.
This group regularly convened online and during government-funded, closed-door meetings, with agendas being driven by academic researchers with significant commercial interests in Lyme disease tests and vaccines. Subsequently, a large percentage of government grants were awarded to group members.
Part of the group’s stated mission was to run a covert “disinformation war” and a “socio-political offensive” to discredit Lyme patients, physicians, and journalists who questioned the group’s research and motives. They exerted pressure on a state health department to launch an investigation into a competitor’s lab. They covertly co-wrote a medical journal article with a psychologist to create the appearance of scientific consensus supporting the group’s premise that Lyme patients with lingering symptoms may be suffering from psychological problems, rather than a persistent infection. Within the FOIA emails, Lyme patients and their treating physicians were called “loonies” and “quacks.”
Bottom line: What this FOIA request reveals is a top-to-bottom culture of disdain for the FOIA law, for open scientific debate and for the public that these government employees are supposed to be serving.
The Freedom of Information Act was designed to “ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.” But this law is worthless if government employees suffer no consequences for it. The CDC’s FOIA delay tactics were extremely effective in avoiding this negative publicity, as Under Our Skin made its way to film festivals, theaters, the Academy Award shortlist, and finally, public television.
When a government agency such as the CDC fails to provide this transparency, they dismantle the checks against corruption. Agency employees might be influenced by any number of temptations, from the prestige of publication in top-notch medical journals, to lucrative outside consulting jobs. My FOIA request represents a monumental failure of this act as administered by the CDC, and Americans will suffer if we don’t demand better from the government in the future.
Kris Newby can be reached at krisnewby@comcast.net. Lorraine Johnson can be reached at lbj1@pacbell.net.
CDC Lyme Disease Cases: 1982 to 2012
Looks like you haven't made a choice yet.
