Rationale:
The current classification system often results in information being withheld from the public longer than necessary, sometimes indefinitely. This policy aims to radically increase government transparency by systematically reviewing classified information for declassification and leveraging AI to improve the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process for greater efficiency and accessibility.
Objectives:
Promote transparency by declassifying information where national security isn’t compromised.
Use AI to streamline FOIA requests, ensuring real-time access to unclassified or declassified information.
Policy Provisions:
Declassification Review Panel:
Formation: Establish an independent Declassification Review Panel (DRP) with experts in national security, information classification, technology, and public interest representatives.
Mandate: Regularly review classified documents for potential declassification, adhering to timelines set by Executive Order 13526 or subsequent updates.
Criteria: Documents should be declassified unless there’s a compelling reason for continued classification, focusing on national security, not just bureaucratic inertia.
AI-Enhanced FOIA Processing:
Real-Time Access: Develop an interface where requesters can query for documents in real-time, receiving immediate access to documents that have been pre-approved for release or are already declassified.
Feedback Loop: AI systems should learn from user requests and agency responses to improve categorization, redaction, and the prioritization of documents for declassification.
Agency Compliance:
Timeline for Compliance: All federal agencies must fully implement AI solutions for FOIA requests within three years of the policy’s enactment, with phased integration starting immediately.
Annual Reports: Agencies will submit annual reports detailing the number of documents processed, declassified, and the reasons for continued classification or redaction.
Public Access and Education:
Public Portal: Create a user-friendly public portal where anyone can make FOIA requests or search through declassified documents without needing to understand complex legal or bureaucratic procedures.
Educational Resources: Provide tutorials and guides on using the system, understanding classification levels, and the appeals process for denied requests.
Legal Framework and Appeals:
Appeals Process: Enhance the appeals mechanism for FOIA requests, allowing for faster judicial review if transparency is unjustly denied.
Whistleblower Protections: Strengthen protections for government employees who disclose information that should be public but is improperly classified.
Oversight and Adjustment:
Oversight Committee: Establish a bipartisan Congressional Oversight Committee to review the effectiveness of the DRP and FOIA modernization, ensuring they serve public interest without compromising national security.
Adaptive Legislation: The policy should be revisable every five years to adjust to technological advancements, changes in information security needs, and public feedback.
Implementation Strategy:
Phase 1: Legislation and Funding - Secure legislative approval and allocate funding for the DRP and AI infrastructure development.
Phase 2: Technology Development - Develop AI tools in collaboration with tech companies and cybersecurity experts.
Phase 3: Rollout and Training - Begin phased rollout, starting with agencies handling lower sensitivity information, while training staff on new systems.
Phase 4: Full Integration - Achieve full integration across all agencies, with comprehensive public access.
Expected Outcomes:
Increased Trust: Greater transparency could enhance public trust in government operations.
Efficiency: Streamline the FOIA process, reducing backlog and improving response times.
Informed Public: Enable citizens, journalists, and researchers to better understand and critique government actions.
Challenges:
Security Concerns: Balancing transparency with legitimate national security needs remains a complex task.
Technological Limitations: Ensuring AI systems are secure, bias-free, and handle sensitive information appropriately.
Conclusion:
This policy aims to revolutionize how government information is handled, pushing for a default stance towards openness unless explicitly justified otherwise. By leveraging AI, it seeks to make the FOIA process not only more accessible but also more reflective of real-time governance, encouraging a more informed and engaged citizenry. However, its success hinges on continuous evaluation, technological advancement, and a commitment from all levels of government to uphold transparency as a core democratic value.
I also suggest adding real accountability in performance reviews or legal ramifications for willful or negligent noncompliance. Accountability at the employee level, like where misspelling and wrong words were used to subvert FOIA search requests. And Mgmt level accountability when their dept./team/employee’s do not adhere to FOIA requests. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and transparency via FOIA process is an important aspect of trust.
Policy Proposal for Enhanced Government Transparency
Introduction
This policy aims to enhance government transparency by revising existing exemptions and exceptions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The goal is to reduce the scope of excluded material while balancing the need for confidentiality in certain sensitive areas.
Current Exemptions Overview
Exemption 1: Information classified for national security.
Exemption 2: Internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption 3: Information prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
Exemption 4: Trade secrets or confidential commercial/financial information.
Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies.
Deliberative Process Privilege
Attorney-Work Product Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege
Exemption 6: Information that invades personal privacy.
Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that may:
Interfere with enforcement proceedings.
Deprive a person of a fair trial.
Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Disclose the identity of a confidential source.
Reveal law enforcement techniques or procedures.
Endanger life or physical safety.
Exemption 8: Information concerning financial institutions’ supervision.
Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.
Proposed Changes to Exemptions.
All request and the justification for their denial shall be maintained on a publicly accessible www site that allows filtering by FOIA requesting number, requester, exemption or exclusion justification and date of next automatic review for release. Requests for Classified material shall also include the classification, classifying authority and the name or title and date of publication of the Classification guides, also known as security classification guidance, are instructions or sources outlining the classification of a system, project, plan, program, or mission. They are created by Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) to document and share classification decisions.
Exemption 1: National Security
Change: Establish a review board to evaluate the necessity of classification after a set period (e.g., 10 years). FOIA requests which were initially exempt shall be processed when declassification occurs and shared on publicly available www site.
Rationale: This will ensure outdated classifications do not unnecessarily hinder transparency.
Exemption 2: Internal Personnel Rules
Change: Limit this exemption to only rules that directly affect personnel safety and security. This exemption must identify safety or security in the response.
Rationale: Most internal rules do not require confidentiality and can be disclosed.
Exemption 3: Other Federal Laws
Change: Require agencies to provide justification for citing this exemption by specific law, promoting accountability.
Rationale: This ensures agencies cannot broadly claim this exemption without a clear basis. The number of requests by title and specific law number and shall be reported to Congress annually as well as published on the f federal government FOIA site.
Exemption 4: Trade Secrets
Change: Narrow the definition of “trade secrets” to exclude information essential for public interest.
Rationale: Public interest should take precedence over corporate confidentiality if or when health or safety is at stake.
Exemption 5: Privileged Communications
Change: Limit the applicability of the Deliberative Process Privilege to documents created within the last 5 years.
Rationale: Older documents should be accessible to promote accountability.
Exemption 6: Personal Privacy
Change: Allow for the disclosure of information when public interest outweighs personal privacy concerns.
Rationale: A balancing test will ensure that important public information is accessible. Data masking of PII specific details to allow disclosure of requested information should be weighed rather than blanket application of the PII protections.
Exemption 7: Law Enforcement
Change: Implement a tiered approach where non-sensitive information is disclosed unless there is a compelling reason not to.
Limit the applicability to documents exception to those created within the last 5 years unless current practices are essentially identical.
Any case no longer actively being investigated and pursued for prosecution shall no longer be exempt.
Rationale: This encourages transparency without jeopardizing ongoing investigations.
Exemption 8: Financial Institutions
Change: Allow public access to non-confidential portions of oversight reports.
Rationale: Transparency in financial oversight is essential for public trust.
Exemption 9: Geological Information
Change: Review the necessity of withholding geological information, particularly when it pertains to resource management and environmental impact.
Rationale: Information that impacts public health and safety shall be disclosed.
Exclusion Section
Exclusion 1: Ongoing Criminal Investigations
Description: Protects the existence of an ongoing criminal law enforcement investigation when the subject is unaware, and disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
Exclusion 2: Informant Records
Description: Limited to criminal law enforcement agencies; protects the existence of informant records when the informant’s status has not been officially confirmed.
Exclusion 3: FBI Records
Description: Limited to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and protects the existence of foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism records when such existence is classified.
Recursion of Excluded Material
To further enhance transparency, it is crucial to establish guidelines for the potential recursion of excluded material. The following measures are recommended:
Periodic Review: Implement a mandatory, periodic review of excluded material to assess whether the conditions justifying the exclusions still apply. This should occur at set intervals (e.g., every 5 years).
Public Reporting: Require agencies to report annually on the volume and reasons for exclusions, enabling public scrutiny and promoting accountability.
Transparency in Criteria: Clearly define the criteria under which exclusions are applied, ensuring that decisions are consistent and transparent.
Appeal Process: Establish a process for individuals to appeal exclusions, allowing for an independent review of claims made by agencies.
Conclusion
The proposed changes aim to foster a culture of transparency within government agencies by minimizing the scope of exemptions and establishing clear exclusions. By balancing confidentiality needs with the public’s right to know, this policy seeks to enhance trust and accountability in government operations. Regular review of exemptions and exclusions will ensure that transparency remains a priority in the evolving landscape of governance.
Right now there are no consequences for an agency ignoring / stone walling a FOIA or excessively redacting a response. Suggest that when a citizen is forced to retain counsel and commence litigation to force an agency to comply with a FOIA request the director of the non-responsive agency is personally responsible for the costs incurred by the citizen. The more they stonewall, the bigger the check they write. Costs are to be out of personal funds and it is a felony for any member of government to authorize reimbursement of these costs from public funds.
I agree with an independent review of classification, additionally there needs to be an agency by agency independent review of rational for denial with an eye on narrowing the reasons for denial to the greatest extent possible.
The DOJ needs special consideration, as the active investigation denial seems to have no time limit. Don’t know the answer here, could be a finite time (maybe two years) after the start of the investigation or after 90 days with fewer than 4 hours being expended on an investigation.