Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States)

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 (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/index_en.html) (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 (http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/) including this (http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/a51-680828-1_2.jpg) 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] (http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_13509.shtml)[2] (http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers4.html) And he is not happy about Dubya's unravellings of FOIA. 142.177.23.90 17:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)