Course:ARST573/Archives and Freedom of Information

From UBC Wiki

Freedom of Information (FOI) refers to legislation which establishes the right of, and procedures for the public to request and receive government-held information through records.[1] Access remains an essential part of the Archivist's responsibility, and the right to Freedom of Information presents Archivists with challenges and opportunities regarding access to and distribution of archival materials. FOI legislation affects both archives and records management practices, for when a creator's record-keeping environment is altered, the effects include possible decisions which discourage the creation of records or actions that negatively affect the content, structure, and ultimate context of records creation, significantly changing and at times limiting the ability of archives to provide reliable evidence of the creator's transactions.

This wiki describes how the Right to Information, or Access to Information (ATI) provisions intersect with government bodies and citizens' needs. It also outlines the debate about the effectiveness and impact of FOI Legislation. Focusing primarily on the Canadian context, this wiki will provide information on how FOI has the ability to shape the democratic relationship between the government and its citizens.

Background

Definition

Freedom of Information (FOI) laws allow access by the general public to data held by national bodies.[2] They establish a "right-to-know" legal procedure by which requests may be made for government-held information, to be received freely or at minimal cost, barring standard exceptions.[2] FOI is an extension of freedom of speech, a fundamental human right recognized in international law.[2] Freedom of Information is found in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), where international bodies recognize that:

  1. Freedom of information is a fundamental human right
  2. Effective laws are needed to secure this right of freedom of information[3]

Enacting FOI legislation usually follows a procedure which is overlooked by a Freedom of Information Commissioner or an oversight body. FOI legislation often works with the idea of being in service of government accountability and transparency[4] when information gathered at public expense is made available to the public.[4] The disclosure of this public information in turn is hoped to aid in the participation of the public in policy formulation, and promoting fairness and transparency in the government decision-making process.[4] Freedom of Information is also known as Right to Information (RTI), Open Data, and Access to Information (ATI).

Brief History

The first Right to Information law is considered to be Sweden's 1766 Freedom of the Press Act, which was motivated by the parliament's interest in freedom of the press and access to information under the reigning monarchy. [5] The act abolished censorship of printed publications and guaranteed public access to documents drawn up by government bodies.[6] Finland adopted its information access law, Act on the Openness of Public Documents in 1951, followed by the United States, which enacted its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966.

Scope of Bodies Covered

Access to Information (ATI) laws adopted by countries in the past decade are generally applied at a minimum to government and administration at the national, regional or local level.[7] Bodies covered by ATI legislation can include: executive and administrative bodies (except for those explicitly exempted); all legislative and judicial bodies; state-owned (or controlled) companies; and private bodies that perform public functions or receive substantial government funding.[8] The scope of bodies covered by legislation pertaining to Freedom of Information has been steadily growing, with recent laws applying to more agencies.[8]

For example, "Public Authorities" under the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents is outlined in Section 1, Article 1a(i) of General provisions, means:

  1. Government and administration at national, regional and local level;
  2. Legislative bodies and judicial authorities in so far as they perform administrative functions according to national law;
  3. Natural or legal persons in so far as they exercise administrative authority[7]

“Public Authorities" could also include, but are not limited to:

  1. Legislative bodies as regards their other activities;
  2. Judicial authorities as regards their other activities;
  3. Natural or legal persons in so far as they perform public functions or operate with public funds, according to national law[7]

Scope of Information Covered

The Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents was adopted by the Committee of Ministers from the Council of Europe on November 17, 2008. The convention presents a broad definition of information subject to disclosure, and are "similar to definitions in many ATI laws, especially those adopted in the past decade".[8] Section 1(1) and 2(b) defines official documents as "all information recorded in any form, drawn up or received and held by public authorities".[7]

Sec 4(1) of the Access to Information Act grants citizens and permanent residents of Canada the "right to...be given access to any record under the control of a government institution", where "record" means any documentary material, regardless of medium or form.[9]

Exceptions to Access

The underlying principle in applying most exemption criteria for Access to Information laws is "the weighing or balancing of the right of access to government information against the injury that could ensue from disclosure".[10]

Sections 13 through 24 of Canada's Access to Information Act sets out a series of exemptions which limit the right of full access. It is clear in the purpose of the legislation in Section 2(1) that "in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government".[9] These "limited and specific" exemptions are intended to protect information about a particular public or private interest; for Canada, there are twelve exemptions, as well as the categories of excluded records outlined in Section 68 and Section 69 of the Act, which concern confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, materials that have been published and deposited with federal archives. These form the only statutory basis for refusing access to government records.

Canadian Legislation

Freedom of Information in Canada concerns the capacity for the Canadian Government to provide timely and accurate access to internal data concerning government services. The rights of Canadian citizens are protected chiefly through two interrelated pieces of legislation, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Access to Information Act (ATIA) R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1

The Access to Information Act grants Canadian Citizens or permanent residents the right to demand records under the control of a government institution.[9] First established in 1983, it allows for the retrieval of information from government files, establishing what information can be accessed and mandating timelines for responses. It seeks to prevent government and federal agencies to refuse to disclose records or series of records.[9] The official purpose of the Act is "to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government".[9]

The Act summarizes the types of information that can be exempted from disclosure, including information that affects federal-provincial relations; information provided to the federal government in confidence by other governments; information affecting the safety or security of individuals; information that belongs to third-party private sector companies; solicitor-client privilege and lastly information that, if disclosed, could undermine the operations of the government.[9] These exceptions of records that are privileged from production or disclosure for another party are limited and specific. The Act is enforced by the Information Commissioner of Canada, who is the investigative body for possible violations.

2015: Recommendations to Modernize ATIA

In March 2015, Suzanne Legault, the current Information Commissioner of Canada, presented 85 recommendations to modernize the Access to Information Act. Her recommendations address the current realities and expectations of Canadians, and will attempt to simplify the administration and the application of the Act by focusing only on the interests the legitimately require protection; to increase timeliness in the processing of access requests; to permanently resolve recurring issues; to align the Act with the most progressive and strongest laws in Canada and abroad; and to maximize disclosure in line with a culture of openness “by default.”

Highlighted recommendations include the following:

  • Including in the Act specific criteria for determining which institutions would be subject to the Act
  • Extending coverage to all branches of government-including the Prime Minister’s Office, offices of ministers and ministers of State, and parliamentary secretaries, and other bodies that support Parliament
  • Creating a provision in the Act to protect against an infringement of parliamentary privilege
  • Establishing a comprehensive legal duty to document, and duty to report to LAC the unauthorized destruction or loss of information
  • Eliminating all fees related to access requests
  • Maximizing disclosure bu requiring institutions to proactively publish information that is clearly of public interest
  • Strengthening oversight of the right of access by adopting an order-making model
  • That the Ace provide for the power to audit institutions' compliance with the act; and adding appropriate sanctions for non-compliance
  • Ensuring a mandatory parliamentary review of the Act every five years[11]

See Suzanne Legault's full report to Parliament and all her recommendations: Striking the Right Balance for Transparency

Access to Information Regulations, SOR/83-507

A subsection of the Access to Information Act, the Access to Information Regulations outlines regulations concerning access to information, including the process of requesting information under the control of federal body.[12] It incorporates the procedures that follow the request, including transfer of request fees and the charges for specific reproductions of different materials, as well as general information on time limits concerning the processing of the request. The section recommends alternative access options —such as for the examination of material—if reproduction or copying is not feasible or if there are limitations in respect of format.[12] It outlines obligatory standard procedures for an information request that are set out by the Canadian government.[12]

See Also:
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.C. 2000, c. 5)

Privacy Act R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21

Complementary to the Access of Information Act, the Privacy Act concerns access to records that contain personal information, rather than the general access to records. It covers the personal information managing practices of federal government departments and agencies, granting an individual's right to access and to request the correction of personal information that the government holds about them.[13] The Act outlines the use and disclosure procedures of personal information in the course of providing services, such as for employment insurance or pension eligibility.[13] Included are the collection, retention, and disposition procedures of records containing personal information, and the regulations on the circumstances acceptable for their collection.[13] The provisions are all subject to exceptions; Canadians and permanent residents have a right of access to records that contain their own personal information under the Privacy Act—but the general public does not have a right of access to records that contain personal information about others under the Access to Information Act.[13]

Provincial and Territorial Legislation

Each province and territory in Canada has its own access to freedom of information legislation that complements these. For example, The province of British Columbia has its Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) which enables the public to request and obtain copies of records held by B.C. government ministries or the Office of the Premier, when those records are not routinely available.[14]

British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) serves a dual purpose for the province:

  1. Freedom of Information attempts "to make public bodies more open and accountable by providing the public with a legislated right of access to government records"[15]
  2. Protection of Privacy protects "your right to personal privacy by prohibiting the unauthorized collection, use or disclosure of your personal information by public bodies"[15]

Other Provincial and Territorial Legislation:

International Legislation

As of September 2014, 100 countries around the world have implemented some form of national FOI legislation which establishes the right of, and procedures for, the public to request and receive government-held information.[1] Paraguay's FOI law marked the 100th country to pass FOI Legislation on September 18, 2014,[16] yet, it is important to note that even relatively strong Right to Access laws do not ensure openness if they are not implemented properly.[17]

Countries with recent Access to Information provisions

For a map of countries with National Laws and Regulations on the Right to Information: FOI Map
For FOI Acts by Country, visit freedominfo.org. They have compiled lists by region, outlining how each country’s laws work in practice and tactics others have used for success.
For a downloaded list of countries with FOI Laws: List of Countries with ATI Provisions (from Open Society Justice Initiative)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), United States 1966

In the United States, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966 (since amended in 2009), which mandates the disclosure of most federal information to the public. Intended to "prevent agencies from insulating themselves an their operations from public scrutiny",[18] alongside of increasing the accountability of governmental activities, the terms of FOIA necessitate the disclosure of all records of federal agencies, including electronic records, but does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies.[19] There is also the U.S.'s corresponding Privacy Act of 1974 which establishes controls over what personal information is collected, maintained, used and disseminated by agencies in the executive branch of the federal government.[20] In accordance with the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, each federal agency in the United States is required to submit annual reports regarding FOIA activities and make these reports electronically available.[21]

There are nine specific exceptions that authorize federal agencies to withhold information:

  1. Classified information for national defense or foreign policy
  2. Internal personnel rules and practices
  3. Information that is exempt under other laws
  4. Trade secrets and confidential business information
  5. Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges
  6. Personnel and medical files
  7. Law enforcement records or information
  8. Information concerning bank supervision
  9. Geological and geophysical information [19]

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), United Kingdom 2000

The UK Parliament passed the Freedom of Information Act in November 2000. Regulated by one centralized office, the Information Commissioner's Office, (OIC), the enforcement of FOI is accomplished by way of criminal law and prosecution by a public authority. When the legislation was being drafted, the main objectives behind it included: increasing accountability, public trust and public participation; improving the quality of government decisions making and the public's understanding of that decision making; increasing transparency and opennness; and lastly controlling corruption and having an informed citizenry.[22] [23] Thus, FOI is rights-based, and "the role and performance of the OIC have been impressive and it has assisted citizens, the media and press, consumers, interest groups, and others". [24]

Patrick Birkinshaw examines the major trends of the legislation and the problems presented by it in his 2010 paper, "Freedom of information and its impact in the United Kingdom". He considers it the most comprehensive FOI legislation that exists, covering well over 100,000 public authorities in the UK, including both Houses of Parliament, as well as every police force, university, school, and local authorities. Notably Scotland has its own law, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, as well as its own Commissioner.[25] Significant bodies that are excluded from the legislation include the Queen and Royal Family, security and intelligence bodies, as well as the Serious Organized Crime Agency.[25] Public Authorities under the FOIA must disclose "recorded information" when requested, and notably the requester is "not confined to a British citizen or resident in the UK" [25]. Public Authorities are given 20 days to respond, but for particular bodies such as the National Archives, this time period is extended. [25]

The Public Records Act of 1958 and The Public Records Act of 1967 outline the duty to publish official documents held by the National Archives after these documents are 30 years old, though some may be exempted from this for a longer duration.[24] According to FOIA, these 30 year old records are referred to as "historical records". [24] While UK's FOI legislation means that "all public officials now have to work in a culture of openness",[26] Gilbert contends that the information explosion across the globe and the UK has created an environment where "traditional concerns of the protection of civil liberties and individual integrity"[26] are being raised within a country that has wide and far-reaching powers of surveillance as well.

Archives and Freedom of Information

Given the nature of Archives in aiding transparency and accountability through its records, Freedom of Information and Access to Information laws are particularly relevant to democratic states where "a core tenet of democracy...requires that citizens should be knowledgeable about the operations of their government".[27] Thus, Access to Information legislation has the potential to influence record-keeping practices, records creators, information management, and archival institutions, and all forms of records produced by public agencies in the course of their activities.[4]

In Canada, the FOI and Privacy Acts prompted the creation of Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) offices as well as the re-location of financial resources from already limited budgets in order to staff the offices and train ATIP officers in order to legally satisfy the requirements of the information legislation[28].

Records Destruction and Alteration

Scholar Jay Gilbert argues that Access to Information legislation has in fact promoted "adversarial behavior"[29] in Canada among federal officials which have been "thoroughly documented in the series of annual reports presented to Parliament by the Office of the Information Commissioner".[29] The effect on archives and record-keeping is significant, Gilbert contends, as Canada's documentary heritage has the potential to be considerably altered, as public documents are either not being created, wrongfully destroyed, becoming far from the tools of accountability they were intended to be.[29] For example, a direct effect legislation has had on records is when access to information requests prompt what Gilbert calls "malicious non-compliance" or "official adversarialism".[30] He argues that there have been several high-profile instances of the deliberate destruction or alteration of records, including those related to the Canadian peace-keeping mission in Somalia, the shredding of Health Canada records related to the Canadian Blood Committee, and the decision by a senior manager in Transport Canada to destroy embarrassing records related to an expensive office refurbishing project.[30] Gilbert goes as far to argue that in fact, access to information legislation may have "injected an increasing degree of self-awareness into the process of records creation" [31] which can evidently affects archival records, as the supposed unconscious by-products of human activity.

Bill C-208 was passed by Parliament in 1999 as an Act to Amend the Access to Information Act, which was intended to make an offence the intentional obstruction of the right of access by destroying falsifying or concealing a record. However, Gilbert notes that the "amendment does not provide penalties for the most common activities associated with the rebuttal response, continuing obfuscation of the act through delay...and perhaps most significantly for archivists, it does not require officials to create documents in the first place". [32]

Research at the Archives

After the ATIP legislation in Canada came into effect, research at the then National Archives changed. While "creating a system of facilitating access, legislators recognized that some types of information should not be readily released". [33] Even though records were already held at the then National Archives, certain government records deemed to be exempt from coverage of ATIP could not longer be released. Thus, examination of every file that was requested for exempted material had to be completed,[34] which resulted in many problems for the archives, including the declassification of materials that were formally regarded as available for examination.

Since the current Library and Archives Canada receives a large percentage of government records, the issue of access is especially pertinent, for "the range of records being examined is much wider than that commonly dealt with by other institutions and requested records often contain information requiring severance, a practice which runs partly counter to the mandate of the National Archives to facilitate access to its holdings".[35] The current Information Commissioner of Canada's 2015 Report to Parliament notices this quandary: "the very fact of [government records] having been transferred to archives indicates that they are of historical importance, no longer of operational value to the institution, and very likely no longer require protection at their original classification level".[11] Freedom of Information laws are part of the wider information debate across the world, surrounding intersections of information technology, e-records, and government, national statistics, and consultation.[26]

Library & Archives Canada and FOI Responsibilities

Library and Archives Canada (LAC) is mandated to preserve the documentary heritage of Canada, and an additional responsibility involves the authorization of the destruction of records by government institutions. LAC has issued Multi-Institutional Disposition Authorities and specific institutional authorities that govern the disposal of records. LAC has a direct role to play in ensuring FOI compliance. The Commissioner's investigations, as outlined in Suzanne Legault's 2015 Report to Parliament reveals that records have been disposed of without authorization, which effectively denies the right of access.[11] The Commissioner has recommended that the Library and Archives of Canada Act or the ATIA include "a duty to report to LAC the unauthorized destruction of loss of information, with a mandatory notification to the Information Commissioner and appropriate sanctions for failing to report".[11]

Currently, the LAC Act addresses records retention and disposition but does not impose an obligation on government officials to document their decisions and how they are made; Suzanne Legault's recommendation is to codify in law that government officials document decisions.[11] The Report also provides the example of how in the United States, under the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 3106), institutions are required to report to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) any unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of an institution. Sanctions include a $2,000 fine, a three-year imprisonment, or both.[11]

Challenges

Promoting a "Culture of Secrecy"

Jay Gilbert argues that Canada's Access to Information Act has "not been strong enough to shape individual or group behaviour in a way that would effect a move towards the acceptance of open government as the norm". [36] The federal bureaucracy in Canada has been scrutinized for reacting negatively to the "perceived threat posed by external pressures for openness,[37] and that this has significant implications for archives and archivists. He points to the "unwillingness" of Canadian government officials in complying with the perceived "intrusion" of ATIP and its intentions for transparency.[37] Gilbert contends that access rights or open data harbours resentment among federal agencies with the result that "applicants under the act are often seen as adversaries rather than as someone entitled to a government service",[10] and consequently, a "culture of secrecy continues to flourish in the federal bureaucracy". [38]

Other scholars, such as Kerry Badgley, Margaret J. Dixon, and Paylette Dozois acknowledge that breaches of FOI policy have been discovered, but that the "culture of secrecy" is not a new phenomenon. They argue that myriad factors may be engaged simultaneously in determining if and how records are created.[39] Badgely et al (2003) note that issues such as modern technology, inevitable downsizing, limited timelines, and necessary administration changes all have an effect on the record-keeping practices in conjunction with the legislation of ATIP, and it is possible that the shortcomings of the Canadian government cannot be so easily ascribed to malicious motives.[39] The authors suggest that when it is implied that records are being neglected or not created without the consideration of aforementioned factors, it needlessly raises alarm.[39]

Privacy Legislation

Privacy, along with the virtues of liberty, freedom of expression, and freedom of association, is usually held up as a major tenet of a democratic society. --Tim Cook [40]

Archivists are positioned in a unique role in determining access to the archives for which they are responsible, and privacy is a significant feature in the management of archival materials. In a digital era, records and documentation intersecting with Privacy legislation has the potential to pit privacy advocates against archivists.[41] The present day environment of surveillance has been likened to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, Tim Cook navigates the possibility of our privacy being compromised in a world of surveillance, but he also addresses the significant challenge for archives and archivists in balancing privacy infringement regulations with the fundamental directive of safeguarding collective heritage and history for posterity. Archivists are affected by FOI legislation and the Privacy laws that complement them; the proposed stronger measures of privacy protection put forth by privacy advocates also affects "the capture and creation of records, the use and then the disclosure of them"[41]. Cook contends that "...it seems quite likely that many commercial entities will no longer be creating certain types of records..[h]ow deeply this will affect archives is unknown, but it will likely result in fewer and poorer records being transferred to archives".[41]

Privacy advocates do urge citizens to be diligent in order to prevent in further erosion of personal privacy amid twenty-first century surveillance. The problem arises in archives because "almost all information in archives consist of "secondary value" information, where the idea of "consent"- and the ability to reuse information - becomes blurry.[42] Archives house and preserve materials and records, "for purposes radically different than their original reason for being created"[42] for example, business records that are transferred and then applied for scholarly, journalistic, or historical purposes. Time contends that in terms of archives and privacy legislation, "...a legal requirement for consent applied at the lowest level might very well destroy how archives do their work of preserving and making available historical documentation".[43]

Could we understand the twentieth century with only government records and without private archives like diaries, letters, photographs, and videos of everyone from prime ministers to great war soldiers, from labour organizations to school teachers? --Tim Cook. [42]

See Also:
Archives and Privacy

"Commercial Espionage" and the Information Market

In the United States, the FOIA has been considered as a vehicle for "commercial espionage".[44]. Since FOIA outlines that requests can be made by "any person," corporations and similar entities are entitled to legally request information. Myriad parties have used FOIA as a convenient information-gathering device, including private citizens, special interest and advocacy groups, commercial organizations, and news personnel and authors.[45] FOIA commits all agencies to a reasonable course of action with respect to any individual request under FOIA, having to respond within 10 business days, unless unusual conditions prevent this.[45] In effect, as much as 75% of all FOIA requests are used as a vehicle for commercial espionage, where parties attempt to "gain access to proprietary information submitted by competitors pursuant to some requirement". [44] FOIA has also been used for varied attempts to gain access to law enforcement information or to classified national security documents.[44]

FOIA has also directly resulted in a large and growing industry "which is in the business of selling information —for example, lists of licensed drivers or registered voters". [44] Much of this information is obtained from the government by these re-sellers at very little cost, for when government agencies are responding to requests, the fees they can charge are also limited under FOIA. Re-sellers market the information is various packages, adds a value component such as a search engine or the ability to do customized searches for buyers, then marks of the cost of information accordingly.[44]Legislation such as FOIA and related laws have "resulted in a net transfer of wealth from government to private enterprises"[45] as they are effectively ousted from sharing in the profits of the information market. The "commercial espionage" and information market aspect of the FOIA has a significant effect and drawback from the intended purpose of the legislation in directly confronting a high degree of mistrust marking the American government.[18]

Increase in Litigation

The FOI Act in the United States has seen a significant increase in the availability of information for the public, and the requests for access have triggered an unprecedented amount of litigation, especially when the duty to respond timely is not satisfied.[45] Agencies, organizations, special interest groups, citizens and "individuals from every part of the political spectrum"[45] use FOIA for request for information; the consequent overflow of requests has in turn required the expenditure of staff time and resources to respond to these requests, and if these agencies find themselves unable to accommodate the request in an efficient manner, litigation ensues[45]. While the US courts have been tolerant of delays caused by inadequate resources, there is still the expectation that an agency demonstrate considerable effort to respond to a party's FOI request.[45] Correspondingly, it has also been the case where journalists and other similar investigating entities have "exposed many improper or illegal practices", and private citizens using FOIA have determined such things as the "scope of government surveillance of their activities, and other inappropriate or questionable practices have come to light, often with the result that significant reforms were implemented in response".[46]

External Resources

Canada and Freedom of Information:
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat on Privacy
Resources for Guidance for ATIP and security practitioners
Information about Open Government Activities across Canada
Open Government Licence Implementation Guidelines
British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Freedom of Information Around the World:
Global Right to Information Rating
Article 19 Mapping Project: National Laws and Regulations on the Right to Information
FreedomInfo, the global network of Freedom of Information Advocates
ICIJ's Guide to International Freedom of Information Laws
UNESCO: Communication and Information FOI Documents

See Also

Archives and Copyright
Archives and Privacy
Archives and Power
Ethics In Archives

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Right2Info, "Access to Information Laws: Overview and Statutory Goals," http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws/access-to-information-laws#_ftnref7
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Right2Info, "The Right to Information - Good Law and Practice" Open Society Justice Initiative. http://www.right2info.org/
  3. ↑ Article 19, "Freedom of Information." http://www.article19.org/pages/en/freedom-of-information-more.html
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Gilbert, Jay. "Access Denied: The Access to Information Act and Its Effect on Public Records Creators." Archivaria 1, no. 49 (2000):85.
  5. ↑ Encyclopaedia Britannia "Freedom of the Press Act of 1766" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1973849/Freedom-of-the-Press-Act-of-1766
  6. ↑ Wikipedia, "Censorship in Sweden," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Sweden
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1377737&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75%20Council%20of%20Europe%20Convention%20on%20Access%20to%20Official%20Documents Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "COE" defined multiple times with different content
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Right2Info, "Scope of Bodies Covered," Open Justice Society Initiative. http://www.right2info.org/scope-of-bodies-covered-by-access-to-information
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Access to Information Act R.S.C., 1985, c A-1. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-1/page-1.html
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Gilbert, Jay. "Access Denied: The Access to Information Act and Its Effect on Public Records Creators." Archivaria 1, no. 49 (2000): 90
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Suzanne Legault, "STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE FOR TRANSPARENCY" Recommendations to modernize the Access to Information Act. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1698568/oic-14-418-modernization-report-e-final.pdf
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Access to Information Regulations, SOR/83-507. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-83-507/page-1.html> Government of Canada Website. (Accessed March 28, 2015)
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Privacy Act R.S.C., 1985, c P-21. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/index.html> Government of Canada Website. (Accessed March 28, 2015).
  14. ↑ Government of British Columbia Open Government Website, "Freedom of Information (FOI)," http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=191474C489EC421BB160EA26B14CAECA
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services, "Guide to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act," http://www.cio.gov.bc.ca/cio/priv_leg/foippa/foippa_guide.page
  16. ↑ Freedominfo.org "New Paraguay FOI Law Culmination of Campaign."http://www.freedominfo.org/2014/10/new-paraguay-foi-law-culmination-campaign/
  17. ↑ Access-Info.org. "RTI Rating Data Analysis Series: Overview of Results and Trends." Centre for Law and Democracy. 28 September 2013
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Montana, John. "The Freedom of Information Act." ARMA Records Management Quarterly 32, no 2 (1998): 47.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 "The Freedom of Information Act." U.S. Department of State, http://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx
  20. ↑ "The Privacy Act." U.S. Department of State. http://foia.state.gov/Learn/PrivacyAct.aspx.
  21. ↑ "FOIA Reports." U.S. Department of State, http://foia.state.gov/Learn/Reports.aspx.
  22. ↑ Birkinshaw, Patrick. "Freedom of information and its impact in the United Kingdom." Government Information Quarterly 27, no. 4 (2010): 318
  23. ↑ Hazell, R., et al. Does FOI work? The impact of the Freedom of Information Act on central government in the UK. forthcoming (2010)
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Birkinshaw, Patrick. "Freedom of information and its impact in the United Kingdom." Government Information Quarterly 27, no. 4 (2010): 317
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 Ibid., 313.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Ibid., 320
  27. ↑ Gilbert, Jay. "Access Denied: The Access to Information Act and Its Effect on Public Records Creators." Archivaria 1, no. 49 (2000): 88.
  28. ↑ German, Daniel. "Access and Privacy Legislation and the National Archives, 1983-1993: A Decade of ATIP." Archivaria 1, no. 39 (1995): 196.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 Gilbert, Jay. "Access Denied: The Access to Information Act and Its Effect on Public Records Creators." Archivaria 1, no. 49 (2000): 91.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Ibid.,103.
  31. ↑ Ibid.,113.
  32. ↑ Ibid.,111.
  33. ↑ German, Daniel. "Access and Privacy Legislation and the National Archives, 1983-1993: A Decade of ATIP." Archivaria 1, no. 39 (1995): 197.
  34. ↑ Ibid., 198.
  35. ↑ German, Daniel. "Access and Privacy Legislation and the National Archives, 1983-1993: A Decade of ATIP." Archivaria 1, no. 39 (1995): 205.
  36. ↑ Gilbert, Jay. "Access Denied: The Access to Information Act and Its Effect on Public Records Creators." Archivaria 1, no. 49 (2000):111
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 Ibid.,87
  38. ↑ Ibid.,92
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 Badgley, Kerry, Margaret J. Dixon, and Paulette Dozois. "In Search of the Chill: Access to Information and Record-keeping in the Government of Canada."Archivaria 1, no. 55 (2003): 1-20.
  40. ↑ Cook, Tim. "Archives and Privacy in a Wired World: The Impact of the Personal Information Act (Bill C-6) on Archives." Archivaria 1, no. 53 (2002): 98
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 41.2 Ibid.,106.
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Ibid.,109.
  43. ↑ Ibid.,110.
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 Montana, John "The Freedom of Information Act." ARMA Records Management Quarterly 32, no 2 (1998): 50.
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5 45.6 Ibid., 48.
  46. ↑ Ibid., 49.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ARST573/Archives_and_Freedom_of_Information&oldid=388966"