Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Would Require Public Information To Be Online

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the common-sense-approach dept.

Andurin writes "A bill that was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week would require all Executive Branch agencies to publish public information on the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats. The Public Online Information Act would also establish an advisory committee to help craft Internet publication policies for the entire US government, including Congress and the Supreme Court. Citizens would have a limited, private right of action to compel the government to release public information online, though common sense exceptions (similar to those for FOIA) would remain in place."

3 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Funny thing about "common-sense exceptions"... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While "common sense" is terribly rare in government, "exceptions" are never in short supply.

  2. Hard not to like this by Improv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile. It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  3. Why Just Executive? by anorlunda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do all these transparency things only apply to the executive branch of government?

    I think it should be just as important to the public to know who lobbied which congressman and how as it is to know who talked to the White House about energy policy or heath care.

    How about emails? Is there any rational arguments why rules about email archiving and disclosure are different for the different banches.

    I'm afraid that the real answer to my question is that Congress always exempts itself from any kind of onerous rule. Just think how angry the public would be if they could read all those blackberry messages sent between members of the same party.

    The judicial branch may have better arguments for secrecy, but even there the default rule ought to be openness. Let them argue case by case to exempt different classes of records.

    All three branches would argue that public disclosure puts a chilling effect on honest deliberations. True, but all three branches need to deliberate to make decisions. Again, there's no reason to give different treatment to any of the branches.