CUT ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000605700018-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2010
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: January 18, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/27: CIA-RDP90-00552R000605700018-6
ARTICLE APPEARED
ON PAGE_ i
Pro and Con
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
18 January 1982
YES-Government files shouldn't "become
the world's largest free reference service"
Interview With
Antonin Scalia
Professor of Law,
University of Chicago
Scalia, why do you feel that the Freedom of Information Act
should be cut back?
A The Freedom of Information Act-or, more specifical.
ly, the 1974 amendments to the act--came out of an era of
exuberant, single-minded pursuit of individual objectives.
We are now discovering that such tunnel-vision zeal-
whether directed toward the environment or automobile
safety or freedom of information-4s indulged at excessive
cost to other important objectives. It is time to remedy the
excesses in the 1974 amendments, while not gutting the
law or turning away from the desirable goal of freedom of
information.
Q What are some of the changes needed?
A For one thing, persons or corporations requesting in-
formation under the Freedom of Information Act should
pay a larger proportion of the taxpayers' cost of supplying
it. I know of one horrible example in which a single request
cost the government over $400,000. To say that the govern-
ment's files should not be kept secret from its citizens is not
to say that the government should become the world's
largest free library reference service.
Another change needed is in the area of law enforcement
and national security. Currently, material in investigative
files can be withheld only if one of a number of quite
narrow conditions are met. Law-enforcement officers and
national-security officials have found those conditions inad-
equate. Many requests are made by felons with the explicit
intention of finding out the names of informants.
My major objection, though, has to do with information
about private institutions. When the act was passed, it was
seen as a means of revealing what the government was
doing, for the benefit of the public at large. But in opera-
tion, it has been used largely as a means of revealing what
private companies are doing, for the benefit of their adver-
saries and competitors.
Q Is that so bad? It might promote healthy competition In
business
A So might a "sunshine act" requiring the records and
activities of all private institutions to be public. It is, again, a
question of competing values. In this country, we have a
tradition of respecting the autonomy and privacy of non-
governmental organizations-whether they're churches or
corporations or labor unions or universities. We have speci-
fied, law by law, certain institutions and certain activities
that must be public. All the 'rest have, of course, been
NO-People should have "the right to
know what government is doing"
Interview With
Representative
Glenn English
Democrat,
Of Oklahoma
Q Representative English, why do you oppose changing
the Freedom of Information Act, as favored by the Reagan
administration?
A Because I think the changes would jeopardize the
atmosphere of open government fostered by the act, which
gives the public wide access to unclassified government
documents. The law embodies the very essence of our type
of government: Openness, public involvement, the right to
know what your government is doing.
The Reagan administration wants to make wholesale
changes that would make it much more difficult, if not
impossible, for the public to discover the errors of govern-
ment. This seems to be every administration's approach,
whether it is Democratic or Republican, liberal or conser-
vative. We find that those who are out of power are the
most enthusiastic supporters of the act. It is only when they
get into power that they begin to voice their concerns
about it. And the bureaucracy itself, of course, doesn't want
to have to bother with the requirements of the law. It is an
inconvenience.
Q Has the statute really made for a more open government?
A'In numerous instances, the press and members of the
public received information solely because this law was on
the books. In fact, many departments and agencies simply
provide information without waiting for someone to invoke
the act formally.
Q Isn't the law being used In some ways that Congress never
Intended, such as by prisoners seeking clues to the Identity of
those who Informed on them?
A That is a charge made by the Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation, but the Subcommittee on Government Informa-
tion and Individual Rights, which I chair, has not seen any
evidence of this. Certainly we don't want information re-
leased that might endanger an informant's life or might, in
some way, thwart law and order.
But we have demanded evidence of abuse before serious-
ly considering changes in the act. We've gotten a lot of
generalities from the Justice Department but no specifics.
Q Law-enforcement agencies say the Intelligence flow has
dropped greatly because Informants are refusing to come for-
ward for fear of exposure under the law-
A First of all, a lot of intelligence and investigative mate-
rial is exempt from disclosure under the act. Information
that would identify informants is specifically protected un-
der the act.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/27: CIA-RDP90-00552R000605700018-6 "~"