The Freedom of InformationAct should also be a legal framework to protect and promote the role of all sorts of Media (journalists, reports etc.). However there is no specific provision that states any privilege for journalists in terms of access to information but in terms of fee whenever it is requires. The Freedom of InformationAct in the United States of America gives special treatment to scholars, researchers and representatives of the news media, Freedom of InformationAct: (II)”fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research; or a representative of the news media.” Moreover the Swedish law Freedom of the Press protects the role of journalists in its very first Chapter Art. 1. “The freedom of the press is understood to mean the right of every Swedish citizen to publish written matter, without prior hindrance by a public authority or other public body, and not to be prosecuted thereafter on grounds of its content other than before a lawful court, or punished therefore other than because the content contravenes an express provision of law, enacted to preserve public order without suppressing information to the public.”
This analysis is limited by the fact that the actual number of studies utilising the UK incarnation of the FOI Act for healthcare research are relatively few and there was inclusion of only English language papers. The lack of studies located limit the analysis of the FOI Act ’ s value as a research tool. The impact of language discrimination is likely to be minimal, given the research pertained to the UK FOI Act. Inclusion of articles utilis- ing the Scottish Freedom of InformationAct — as opposed to the UK FOI Act — may have yielded further examples of FOI use. 41 It is also possible that research that had no ﬁ ndings or found it very dif ﬁ cult to obtain information would not be submitted or accepted for publication and as such there may be a certain level of publication bias. Authors may also not describe their work as utilising the FOI Act for data collection, there- fore meaning that research using the Act may not be characterised as doing so. 28
Moreover, comprehensive information regimes can take an enormous amount of energy and resources. There is duplicity of ministries and agencies which makes information storage and retrieval complicated. On daily basis, government in Nigeria claim to be faced with a myriad of priorities and the reality that there are not enough resources in the national reserves to meet all demands. In a recent study in Great Britain, it is noted that resources are the single most important issue in FOI compliance (House of Commons, 2004). The report went on to explain, “By far the largest issue for local authorities is the lack of resources. They do not have the time, money, or personnel to easily organize information on a corporate basis in order to allow ready retrieval for FOI purposes.” In the United States, recent efforts to improve the functioning of the Freedom of InformationAct have not been accompanied with additional resources, leading many advocates to question the intention and increasing the potential for their failure. Therefore, the gulf between policy and practice of FOI Act, like we put it earlier, is a global experience. It is not unique to Nigeria; only that they gulf is so wide in Nigeria.
Access to information is vital to the journalism profession. Nigerian journalists have over the years been practicing in an environment that is bedeviled with the dearth of information that should have been a public right, but the enactment of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in 2011 has paved the way for everyone hopefully, to get access to information on request. This study set out to find out the level of awareness of the provisions of FOI by journalists in AkwaIbomState and to find out the impression journalists in AkwaIbomState have about FOI Act. The study also investigated the experience of practicing journalists in AkwaIbomState since the FOI came into force as well as the perception of journalists in AkwaIbomState with regards to the enforcement/compliance with the provisions of the FOI. The Anchoring this study on the Libertarian or free press and the social responsibility theories, the survey method was adopted to investigate the reaction of Akwa Ibom State Journalists as regards the Freedom of InformationAct. A total of 166 copies of the questionnaire were distributed in Nine Chapels of the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) in the state. Data collected showed that many journalists have not read the FOI Act, but are aware of its enactment. Among those who have read the Act, inaccessibility to information still prevails as journalists are still faced with the challenge of accessing information both in private and government institutions. It also shows that the benefits of the FOI Act is that of freedom of expression, press freedom and right to access information which is the hallmark of the FOI Act as there is a euphoric response by Akwa Ibom state journalists to the enactment of the Act as they wait to utilize its provisions. The study therefore recommends that journalists should read the FOI Act, sensitization about the FOI Act should be conducted, public officers should update all information in their custody so as to facilitate easy and rapid release of information when requested, the right of access to information should be enjoyed by everyone and the FOI Act should be enforced.
Freedom of Information Act and Its Internal Memoranda Exemption Time for a Practical Approach, The SMU Law Review Volume 27 | Issue 5 Article 4 1973 Freedom of Information Act and Its Internal Memoran[.]
This year marks the tenth anniversary since both home nation freedom of information regimes came into force. The Freedom of InformationAct 2000 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 are certainly of the same pedigree and broadly similar with, for example, parallel conditions attached to the general entitlement; however, any broad-brush evaluation of Scottish FOI would conclude that there are advantages afforded to the applicant in contrast, at least, to those rights otherwise afforded to applicants employing the United Kingdom’s counterpart regime. Both regimes provide a refusal mechanism to those scheduled public authorities subject to either Act where the estimated cost of complying with a request for information would exceed a prescribed amount. So what of the consequences to applicants: Does the freedom of information regime in Scotland, on the grounds of the prescribed cost limitations, afford a more generous disclosure entitlement? Are applicants, in turn, employing comparatively weaker rights under the UK regime when requesting information from analogous UK- wide, English, Welsh and Northern Irish public authorities? And, if so, might the Scottish regime, therefore, be said to be comparatively more disclosure prone?
Access to Grantee Records under the Freedom of Information Act An Analysis of Forsham v Harris SMU Law Review Volume 34 | Issue 4 Article 4 1980 Access to Grantee Records under the Freedom of Informat[.]
There are 3 agencies within DHS that may hold immigration records, (1) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), (2) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or (3) Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE). Because individual employees of DHS may change job positions, it is not recommended that you address your request to a specific person. Rather, you should include the notation “Freedom of InformationAct/ Privacy Act Request” on the front of your request envelope. In this way you will be sure that the responsible individual receives your request without delay.
Instead of aiding the criminal justice system, mug shot disclosures provide entertainment fodder to the public. Mug shots have become trendy features for publications and websites. Jail, Cellmates, Busted, and Gotch-ya! are examples of publications devoted exclusively to mug shots. 280 These publications sell for one dollar and provide “little editorial content outside photographs, names, and charges.” 281 The Orlando Sentinel even attests that mug shot postings created “huge [internet] traffic” for the paper. 282 In fact, the Sentinel mug shot webpage draws about 2.5 million views a month. 283 Clearly, not all of those 2.5 million views were from crime victims hoping to identify crime suspects. John Watson, a journalism professor, explained that viewing mug shots is akin to enjoying a horror movie. 284 Specifically, “[t]hese [mug shots] are pictures of monsters who actually exist, and we can look at them from the safety of wherever we are, and they disappear when we close the book.” 285 The mug shot publications essentially provide the kind of idle gossip that Warren and Brandeis in 1890 and Solove in the twenty-first century feel is a reason for keeping truthful information private. 286 The public’s pleasure- seeking, voyeuristic interests should never trump a person’s privacy interest in withholding the release of a mug shot.
37. The Commissioner is in no doubt that the particular circumstances of this case mean that as far as the complainants are concerned, the requests have a serious value and purpose. The complainants have a strong interest in the matters about which they are pursuing information However, the Commissioner also acknowledges that there is only a
series of measurements relating to levels of religious freedom within individual countries: namely, “government regulation of religion,” “gov- ernment favoritism toward religion, ” “ social regulation of religion, ” and “religious persecution.” These represent composite measures (mean averages) based on a qualitative analysis of country reports published by the U.S. State Department (typically from 2003, 2005, and 2008). The first of these measurements, government regulation of religion, is based on a series of factors, including the extent to which a particular government interferes with an individual ’ s right to worship, levels of protection for freedom of religion, the extent to which missionaries are allowed to operate freely within a country, and the extent of any limit- ations imposed on proselytizing, public preaching, or conversion activi- ties. The second measurement, government favoritism toward religion, refers to the balance of government funding to religious organizations. This includes the degree to which government favors any particular religion, and the extent to which religion is subsidized, for example, through the provision of funds for religious education, buildings, or sal- aries. The third metric of freedom provided by ARDA, social regulation of religion, relates to societal views on other religions within a country. This includes attitudes toward conversions and proselytizing, the degree to which established religions attempt to prevent the growth of new reli- gions, and the assertiveness of religious social movements. The final variable, religious persecution, reflects the numbers of people who have been either physically abused or displaced because of their reli- gious adherence.
All biographic and biometric data collected prior to and during the enrollment process is transmitted to the PIV IDMS over a private network in an encrypted format. Facilities and equipment are secured by limiting physical access to the workspace and system, and by requiring an appropriate verification of identity. Where appropriate, this method uses the PIV card providing up to three factors of authentication. Where necessary, this method also consists of two components (e.g., user ID + password). Physical security measures are employed to protect enrollment equipment, facilities, material, and information systems, including locks, ID badges, fire protection, redundant power and climate control to protect IT equipment. The PIV IDMS sends confirmed enrollment information to the card production facility via a secure FTP connection. Cards that are not active cannot be used for access to federal facilities. Certifications are revoked when they are reported lost, stolen, damaged beyond use, or when a cardholder has failed to meet the terms and conditions of enrollment. Cards will be deactivated upon collection of damaged cards or if the employee no longer requires a PIV card.
18. The Council has stated to the Commissioner that it “holds to its position that the questions of policy which form the basis of the complainant’s request cannot be addressed through information the Council holds in recorded form, other than information she has already received.”
35. In response to the complainant’s suggestion about resubmitting the request stating that the information has to be received by email, the Commissioner advised the complainant that he may wish to do this. However, she reminded the complainant that a public authority only has to comply with a preference “so far as is reasonably practicable”.
The 1985 Act provides access to meetings of principal council and their committees or sub- committees (except where confidential or exempt information would be disclosed). The public also has a right to inspect copies of the agenda for such meetings and any associated reports and background papers at the offices of the council at least three clear days before the meeting. The report can be severed and the background papers withheld to exclude information that will be discussed in private at the meeting. After the meeting, the public has a further right to inspect the minutes (minus any items discussed in private) and to be given a written summary of the proceedings dealing with exempt information.
(1) Everyone is entitled to official information from the authorities of the Federal Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act. This Act shall apply to other Federal bodies and institutions insofar as they discharge administrative tasks under public law. For the purposes of these provisions, a natural or legal person shall be treated as equivalent to an authority where an authority avails itself of such a person in discharging its duties under public law. (2) The authority may furnish information, grant access to files or provide information in any other manner. Where an applicant requests a certain form of access to information, the information may only be provided by other means for good cause. In particular, substantially higher administrative expenditure shall constitute good cause.
Section 2.6 Documents subject to Automatic Publication: The classes of documents to be automatically published by every public authority shall include: (1) the enabling legislation of the agency or authority; (2) its existing policies, procedures and rules; (3) its budgets; (4) the financial accounts of the agency/authority; (5) Material contracts; (6) Organizational chart, including lines of reporting; (7) Procedures for appealing decisions of the authority or its officers; and (8) such other information that would enable the public to deal with the authority and or monitors its performance.