DOCSLIB.ORG

A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 Union Calendar No. 127 109TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109–226 A CITIZEN’S GUIDE ON USING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 TO REQUEST GOVERNMENT RECORDS SECOND REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.house.gov/reform SEPTEMBER 20, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 21–892 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 D:\DOCS\21892.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina ——— CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent) JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director KEITH AUSBROOK, Chief Counsel ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian/Counsel TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, FINANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania, Chairman VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia MAJOR R. OWENS, New York GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee EX OFFICIO HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA MIKE HETTINGER, Staff Director DAN DALY, Counsel TABETHA MUELLER, Professional Staff Member NATHANIEL BERRY, Clerk ADAM BORDES, Minority Professional Staff Member (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 D:\DOCS\21892.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, DC, September 20, 2005. Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: By direction of the Committee on Govern- ment Reform, I submit herewith the committee’s second report to the 109th Congress. The committee’s report is based on a study conducted by its Subcommittee on Government Management, Fi- nance, and Accountability. TOM DAVIS, Chairman. (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 D:\DOCS\21892.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 C O N T E N T S Page I. Preface ............................................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction .................................................................................................... 2 III. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 4 IV. How to use this guide .................................................................................... 5 V. Which act to use ............................................................................................. 6 VI. The Freedom of Information Act .................................................................. 6 A. The scope of the Freedom of Information Act ................................... 6 B. What records can be requested under the FOIA? ............................. 7 C. Making a FOIA request ...................................................................... 9 D. Fees and fee waivers ........................................................................... 11 E. Requirements for agency responses ................................................... 13 F. Reasons access may be denied under the FOIA ................................ 15 1. Exemption 1.—Classified documents ....................................... 15 2. Exemption 2.—Internal personnel rules and practices .......... 16 3. Exemption 3.—Information exempt under other laws ........... 16 4. Exemption 4.—Confidential business information ................. 16 5. Exemption 5.—Internal Government communications .......... 17 6. Exemption 6.—Personal privacy .............................................. 18 7. Exemption 7.—Law enforcement ............................................. 18 8. Exemption 8.—Financial institutions ...................................... 19 9. Exemption 9.—Geological information .................................... 19 G. FOIA exclusions ................................................................................... 19 H. Administrative appeal procedures ..................................................... 20 I. Filing a judicial appeal ......................................................................... 21 VII. The Privacy Act of 1974 ................................................................................ 22 A. The scope of the Privacy Act of 1974 ................................................. 22 B. The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act ....................... 23 C. Locating records ................................................................................... 24 D. Making a Privacy Act request for access ........................................... 26 E. Fees ....................................................................................................... 27 F. Requirements for agency responses ................................................... 27 G. Reasons access may be denied under the Privacy Act ..................... 27 1. General exemptions ................................................................... 28 2. Specific exemptions ................................................................... 29 3. Medical records .......................................................................... 30 4. Litigation records ....................................................................... 30 H. Administrative appeal procedures for denial of access .................... 31 I. Amending records under the Privacy Act ........................................... 31 J. Appeals and requirements for agency responses ............................... 32 K. Filing for judicial appeal ..................................................................... 33 APPENDIXES Appendix 1.—Sample request and appeal letters ................................................. 35 A. Freedom of Information Act request letter ................................................ 35 B. Freedom of Information Act appeal letter ................................................. 37 C. Privacy Act request for access letter .......................................................... 39 D. Privacy Act denial of access appeal ............................................................ 40 E. Privacy Act request to amend records ....................................................... 41 F. Privacy Act appeal of refusal to amend records ........................................ 42 (V) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 8486 Sfmt 8486 D:\DOCS\21892.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 VI Appendix 2.—Bibliography of congressional publications on the Freedom of Information Act .................................................................................................... 43 Appendix 3.—Bibliography of congressional publications on the Privacy Act of 1974 ................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix 4.—Select bibliography on non-congressional materials on using the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974 ................................ 51 Appendix 5.—Text of the Freedom of Information Act ......................................... 52 Appendix 6.—Text of the Privacy Act of 1974 ....................................................... 63 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 8486 Sfmt 8486 D:\DOCS\21892.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Sep 20, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 8486 Sfmt 8486 D:\DOCS\21892.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 Union Calendar No. 127 109TH CONGRESS REPORT "! 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109–226 A CITIZEN’S GUIDE ON USING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMA- TION ACT AND THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 TO REQUEST GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEPTEMBER 20, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, from the Committee on Government Reform, submitted the following SECOND REPORT On September 15, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform approved and adopted a report entitled ‘‘A Citizen’s Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 To Re- quest Government
Recommended publications
  • Personality Rights in Australia1

    Personality Rights in Australia1

    SWIMMERS, SURFERS, AND SUE SMITH PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA1 Therese Catanzariti2 It is somewhat of a misnomer to talk about personality rights in Australia. First, personality rights are not “rights” in the sense of positive rights, a right to do something, or in the sense of proprietary rights, property that can be assigned or mortgaged. Second, personality rights are largely a US law concept, derived from US state law relating to the “right of publicity”. However, it is common commercial practice that Australian performers, actors and sportstars enter endorsement or sponsorship agreements.3 In addition, the Australian Media and Entertainment Arts Alliance, the Australian actors union, insists that the film and television industrial agreements and awards don’t cover merchandising and insist film and television producers enter individual agreements if they want to use an actor’s image in merchandising.4 This paper considers Australian law5 relating to defamation, passing off, and section 52 of the Trade Practices Act,6 draws parallels with US law relating to the right of publicity, and considers whether there is a developing Australian jurisprudence of “personality rights”. Protecting Personality Acknowledging and protecting personality rights protects privacy. But protecting privacy is not the focus and is an unintended incidental. Protecting personality rights protects investment, and has more in common with unfair competition than privacy. Acknowledging and protecting personality rights protects investment in creating and maintaining a carefully manicured public image, an investment of time labour, skill and cash. This includes spin doctors and personal trainers and make-up artists and plastic surgeons and making sure some stories never get into the press.
  • Freedom of Expression

    Freedom of Expression

    ! BRIEFING NOTE SERIES Freedom of Expression Centre for Law and Democracy International Media Support (IMS) ! FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION BRIEFING NOTE SERIES July 2014 ! This publication was produced with the generous support of the governments of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. ! Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) International Media Support (IMS) 39 Chartwell Lane Nørregade 18 Halifax, N.S. 1165 Copenhagen K B3M 3S7 Denmark Canada Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Tel: +45 8832 7000 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 Fax: +45 3312 0099 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.law-democracy.org www.mediasupport.org © CLD, Halifax and IMS, Copenhagen ISBN 978-87-92209-62-7 This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and display this work and to make derivative works, provided you give credit to Centre for Law and Democracy and International Media Support; do not use this work for commercial purposes; and distribute any works derived from this publication under a licence identical to this one. ! Abbreviations ACHR American Convention on Human Rights COE Council of Europe ECHR European Court of Human Rights ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICT Information and communications technology IPC Indonesia Press Council OAS Organization of American States OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe PKK Kurdistan Workers’ Party PSB Public service
  • E Dawn of Robot Surveillance AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy

    E Dawn of Robot Surveillance AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy

    e Dawn of Robot Surveillance AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy June 2019 e Dawn of Robot Surveillance AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy By Jay Stanley © 2019 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Cover: Sources images, shutterstock.com “The robots are here. The robots control your warnings. They analyze and notify, following instructions you have set.” — Promotional web site for “Video Surveillance as a Service”1 “The overwhelming majority of images are now made by machines for other machines” 2 — Trevor Paglen 1 http://www.vsaas.com/. 2 https://thenewinquiry.com/invisible-images-your-pictures-are-looking-at-you/. 1 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 3 II. WHAT IS AI VIDEO ANALYTICS .......................................................................... 5 The rise of deep learning ........................................................................................... 6 Overcoming challenges with new sources of data .................................................. 8 III. CURRENT DEPLOYMENTS ................................................................................ 9 Government deployments ......................................................................................... 9 Commercial deployments ........................................................................................ 10 Analytics in the cloud .............................................................................................. 11 IV. HOW COMPUTERS WILL
  • Privacy and Publicity: the Two Facets of Personality Rights

    Privacy and Publicity: the Two Facets of Personality Rights

    Privacy and publicity Privacy and publicity: the two facets of personality rights hyperbole. In this context, personality In this age of endorsements and rights encompass the “right of privacy”, tabloid gossip, famous people which prohibits undue interference in need to protect their rights and a person’s private life. In addition to coverage in the media, reputations. With a growing number images of celebrities adorn anything from of reported personality rights cases, t-shirts, watches and bags to coffee mugs. India must move to develop its This is because once a person becomes legal framework governing the famous, the goods and services that he or commercial exploitation of celebrity she chooses to endorse are perceived to reflect his or her own personal values. By Bisman Kaur and Gunjan Chauhan, A loyal fan base is a captive market for Remfry & Sagar such goods, thereby allowing celebrities to cash in on their efforts in building up Introduction a popular persona. Intellectual property in India is no longer Unfortunately, a large fan base is a niche field of law. Stories detailing also seen by unscrupulous people as an trademark infringement and discussing opportunity to bring out products or the grant of geographical indications services that imply endorsement by an routinely make their way into the daily individual, when in fact there is no such news headlines. From conventional association. In such cases the individual’s categories of protection such as patents, “right of publicity” is called into play. trademarks, designs and copyright, IP laws The right of publicity extends to every have been developed, often by judicial individual, not just those who are famous, innovation, to encompass new roles and but as a practical matter its application areas of protection.
  • The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives

    The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives

    The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives Giorgio Resta* I. TORT LAW AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO PERSONALITY RIGHTS ........................................................................ 33 II. NEW DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PROTECTION IN PRIVATE LAW .................................................................................................... 37 A. From ‘Reactive’ to ‘Preventive’ Strategies ........................ 38 B. The Emergence of the Human Body as a Legal Object ................................................................................. 40 C. The Commercialization of Personality ............................... 41 III. WHO OWNS IDENTITY? ...................................................................... 43 IV. THE QUESTIONS AT STAKE ................................................................. 46 V. THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY: A MATTER OF PRIVACY OR PROPERTY? .................................................................... 48 A. Incorporeal Attributes and the Dominance of Property Rules .................................................................... 48 B. Body Parts and Liability Rules ........................................... 51 VI. LICENSING IDENTITY? ........................................................................ 54 A. The Human Body and the Gift Paradigm ........................... 54 B. Commercial Exploitation of Personality and the Limits of Freedom of Contract ..........................................
  • Freedom of Information: a Comparative Legal Survey

    Freedom of Information: a Comparative Legal Survey

    JeXo C[dZ[b ^h i]Z AVl J^[_cfehjWdY[e\j^[h_]^jje Egd\gVbbZ9^gZXidgl^i]6GI>8A:&.!<adWVa 8VbeV^\c [dg ;gZZ :megZhh^dc! V aZVY^c\ _d\ehcWj_edehj^[h_]^jjeadem_iWd ^ciZgcVi^dcVa ]jbVc g^\]ih C<D WVhZY ^c _dYh[Wi_d]boYedijWdjh[\hW_d_dj^[ AdcYdc! V edh^i^dc ]Z ]Vh ]ZaY [dg hdbZ iZc nZVgh# >c i]Vi XVeVX^in! ]Z ]Vh ldg`ZY cekj^ie\Z[l[befc[djfhWYj_j_ed[hi" ZmiZch^kZan dc [gZZYdb d[ ZmegZhh^dc VcY g^\]i id ^c[dgbVi^dc ^hhjZh ^c 6h^V! 6[g^XV! Y_l_bieY_[jo"WYWZ[c_Yi"j^[c[Z_WWdZ :jgdeZ! i]Z B^YYaZ :Vhi VcY AVi^c 6bZg^XV! ]el[hdc[dji$M^Wj_ij^_ih_]^j"_i_j gjcc^c\ igV^c^c\ hZb^cVgh! Xg^i^fj^c\ aVlh! iV`^c\XVhZhidWdi]cVi^dcVaVcY^ciZgcVi^dcVa h[WbboWh_]^jWdZ^em^Wl[]el[hdc[dji WdY^Zh! VYk^h^c\ C<Dh VcY \dkZgcbZcih! VcY ZkZc ldg`^c\ l^i] d[ÒX^Vah id egZeVgZ iek]^jje]_l[[\\[Yjje_j5J^[i[Wh[ YgV[ig^\]iid^c[dgbVi^dcaVlh#>cVYY^i^dcid iec[e\j^[gk[ij_edij^_iXeeai[[ai ]^h ldg` l^i] 6GI>8A:&.! ]Z ]Vh egdk^YZY ZmeZgi^hZ dc i]ZhZ ^hhjZh id V l^YZ gVc\Z jeWZZh[ii"fhel_Z_d]WdWYY[ii_Xb[ d[ VXidgh ^cXajY^c\ i]Z LdgaY 7Vc`! kVg^djh JCVcYdi]Zg^ciZg\dkZgcbZciVaWdY^Zh!VcY WYYekdje\j^[bWmWdZfhWYj_Y[h[]WhZ_d] cjbZgdjh C<Dh# Eg^dg id _d^c^c\ 6GI>8A: \h[[Zece\_d\ehcWj_ed"WdZWdWdWboi_i &.!IdWnBZcYZaldg`ZY^c]jbVcg^\]ihVcY ^ciZgcVi^dcVa YZkZadebZci! ^cXajY^c\ Vh V e\m^Wj_imeha_d]WdZm^o$ hZc^dg ]jbVc g^\]ih XdchjaiVci l^i] Dm[Vb 8VcVYVVcYVhV]jbVcg^\]iheda^XnVcVanhi 68dbeVgVi^kZAZ\VaHjgkZn Vi i]Z 8VcVY^Vc >ciZgcVi^dcVa 9ZkZadebZci ;gZZYdbd[>c[dgbVi^dc/ 6\ZcXn8>96# ÆJ^[\h[[Ôeme\_d\ehcWj_edWdZ_Z[Wi IdWn BZcYZa ]Vh ejWa^h]ZY l^YZan! b_[iWjj^[^[Whje\j^[l[hodej_ede\ 6 8dbeVgVi^kZ AZ\Va HjgkZn Xdcig^Wji^c\ id cjbZgdjh 6GI>8A: &.
  • Image Is Everything Lowenstein Sandler’S Matthew Savare Gives a Comparative Examination of Publicity Rights in the US and Western Europe

    Image Is Everything Lowenstein Sandler’S Matthew Savare Gives a Comparative Examination of Publicity Rights in the US and Western Europe

    Publicity rights Image is everything Lowenstein Sandler’s Matthew Savare gives a comparative examination of publicity rights in the US and western Europe Comedian Steven Wright once joked, “It’s a small world, but I the person’s identity has “commercial value” versus only 10 years for wouldn’t want to paint it”. Over the last decade, the proliferation those whose identity does not. of digital technologies has not made the world smaller or easier to • Remedies – the remedies available to plaintiffs also vary from state paint, but it has significantly hastened the globalisation of content. This to state. For example, New York’s statute provides for injunctions, transformation, coupled with the developed world’s insatiable fascination compensatory damages, and discretionary punitive damages. Ohio’s with fame, has spurred the hyper commoditisation of celebrity. statute, which offers the most remedies of any state statute, permits Despite the universality of celebrity, the laws governing the injunctions; a choice of either actual damages, “including any commercial exploitation of one’s name, image, and likeness differ profits derived from and attributable to the unauthorised use of an widely between the US and the nations of western Europe. In light individual’s persona for a commercial purpose” or statutory damages of the increased trafficking in celebrity personas between the two between $2,500 and $10,000; punitive damages; treble damages continents, a brief comparative analysis is warranted. if the defendant has “knowledge of the unauthorised use of the persona”; and attorney’s fees. A primer on US right of publicity law Courts have used primarily three methodologies or some The right of publicity is the “inherent right of every human being to combination thereof to value compensatory damages.
  • Privacy Online: a Report to Congress

    Privacy Online: a Report to Congress

    PRIVACY ONLINE: A REPORT TO CONGRESS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION JUNE 1998 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Robert Pitofsky Chairman Mary L. Azcuenaga Commissioner Sheila F. Anthony Commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson Commissioner Orson Swindle Commissioner BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION Authors Martha K. Landesberg Division of Credit Practices Toby Milgrom Levin Division of Advertising Practices Caroline G. Curtin Division of Advertising Practices Ori Lev Division of Credit Practices Survey Advisors Manoj Hastak Division of Advertising Practices Louis Silversin Bureau of Economics Don M. Blumenthal Litigation and Customer Support Center Information and Technology Management Office George A. Pascoe Litigation and Customer Support Center Information and Technology Management Office TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................... i I. Introduction ........................................................... 1 II. History and Overview .................................................... 2 A. The Federal Trade Commission’s Approach to Online Privacy ................. 2 B. Consumer Privacy Online ............................................. 2 1. Growth of the Online Market ...................................... 2 2. Privacy Concerns ............................................... 3 C. Children’s Privacy Online ............................................. 4 1. Growth in the Number of Children Online ............................ 4 2. Safety and Privacy Concerns ...................................... 4 III. Fair
  • The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’

    The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’

    ‘The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’ ABSTRACT This article considers the feasibility of the adoption by the Council of Europe Member States of a multilateral binding treaty, called the Intelligence Codex (the Codex), aimed at regulating the working methods of state intelligence agencies. The Codex is the result of deep concerns about mass surveillance practices conducted by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The article explores the reasons for such a treaty. To that end, it identifies the discriminatory nature of the United States’ and the United Kingdom’s domestic legislation, pursuant to which foreign cyber surveillance programmes are operated, which reinforces the need to broaden the scope of extraterritorial application of the human rights treaties. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the US and UK foreign mass surveillance se practices interferes with the right to privacy of communications and cannot be justified under Article 17 ICCPR and Article 8 ECHR. As mass surveillance seems set to continue unabated, the article supports the calls from the Council of Europe to ban cyber espionage and mass untargeted cyber surveillance. The response to the proposal of a legally binding Intelligence Codexhard law solution to mass surveillance problem from the 47 Council of Europe governments has been so far muted, however a soft law option may be a viable way forward. Key Words: privacy, cyber surveillance, non-discrimination, Intelligence Codex, soft law. Introduction Peacetime espionage is by no means a new phenomenon in international relations.1 It has always been a prevalent method of gathering intelligence from afar, including through electronic means.2 However, foreign cyber surveillance on the scale revealed by Edward Snowden performed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and their Five Eyes partners3 1 Geoffrey B.
  • The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists

    The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists Anya Bernstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Anya Bernstein, "The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists," 61 Buffalo Law Review 461 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 MAY 2013 NUMBER 3 The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists ANYA BERNSTEIN† INTRODUCTION The No Fly List, which is used to block suspected terrorists from flying, has been in use for years. But the government still appears “stymied” by the “relatively straightforward question” of what people who “believe they have been wrongly included on” that list should do.1 In recent months, courts have haltingly started to provide their own answer, giving some individuals standing to sue to remove their names or receive additional process.2 This step is particularly important as the No Fly List continues † Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law, The University of Chicago Law School. J.D., Yale Law School; Ph.D., Anthropology, The University of Chicago. Thanks to Daniel Abebe, Ian Ayres, Alexander Boni-Saenz, Anthony Casey, Anjali Dalal, Nicholas Day, Bernard Harcourt, Aziz Huq, Jerry Mashaw, Jonathan Masur, Nicholas Parrillo, Victoria Schwartz, Lior Strahilevitz, Laura Weinrib, Michael Wishnie, and James Wooten for helpful commentary.
  • FOIA--Public Records Request

    FOIA--Public Records Request

    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION--REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS To: City of Liberty From: __________________________ City Administrator’s Office Name PO Box 716 __________________________ Liberty, SC 29657 Address [email protected] __________________________ City, State, Zip Code __________________________ Telephone Description of records requested: Are you asking for these records for a commercial use/purpose? Yes No Please indicate the format in which you would like the City to respond to your request. Please know the City may not be able to accommodate the requested format. Cost per the City’s policy may be applied to any of these formats. Inspection Only Hard Copy Email: ___________________________ Fax: ____________________________ Other Format: _____________________ By my signature, I hereby state that I have received a copy of the City of Liberty’s policy outlining possible charges I may incur as part of this request. Signature: ________________________________ Date: ____________________________ For Office Use Only: Date Received: _____________ Due Date: ______________ Response Date: _____________ Department(s) Responsible for Responding: __________________________________________ City Attorney Involvement: Yes No City Staff Assigned Response: ___________________________________________________ Notations:________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Associated Fees: _______________________ Paid: Yes No FREEDOM OF INFORMATION POLICY The City of Liberty upholds the Public’s right to know the activities of its government, but finds it necessary to adopt a written policy to advise its employees. With regard to our own records, this office discloses records in compliance with the state’s Freedom of Information Act. All FOIA requests must be submitted in writing and will be responded to within ten (10) business days unless the records are more than 24 months old, then it will be responded to within twenty (20) business days.
  • Cross-Border Data Transfers Between the EU and the US

    Cross-Border Data Transfers Between the EU and the US

    Santa Clara Journal of International Law Volume 19 Issue 2 Article 1 5-1-2021 Cross-Border Data Transfers Between the EU and the U.S.: A Transatlantic Dispute Jiménez-Gómez, Briseida Sofía Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Jiménez-Gómez, Briseida Sofía, Cross-Border Data Transfers Between the EU and the U.S.: A Transatlantic Dispute, 19 SANTA CLARA J. INT'L L. 1 (2021). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol19/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2021 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 19:2 Cross-Border Data Transfers Between the EU and the U.S.: A Transatlantic Dispute By: Briseida Sofía Jiménez-Gómez* This article deals with the clash between the European and American approach to transborder data flows. In the last decades, the discourse has been that the U.S. offers a market-dominated approach while the EU was embedded in a right-dominated policy. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) restricts data transfers outside the EU. An analysis of the meaning of the level of adequate protection of a non-EU country is necessary to transfer data beyond the EU. The Court of Justice of the European Union has invalidated the Privacy Shield agreement to transfer commercial data from the European Union to the United States, leaving transatlantic data transfers in a current predicament.