<<

. 49
( 53 .)



>>

45. Hoofnagle, “Big Brother™s Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other
Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process, and Package Your Data for
Law Enforcement,” 600.
46. Solove, “Access and Aggregation: Privacy, Public Records, and the Con-
stitution,” 1199.



295
Notes to Pages 209“211


47. Tom Zeller, Jr., “Release of Consumers™ Data Spurs ChoicePoint Inquiries,”
New York Times, March 5, 2005, C2.
48. Hoofnagle, “Big Brother™s Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other
Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process, and Package Your Data for
Law Enforcement,” 623.
49. Solove, “Access and Aggregation: Privacy, Public Records, and the Con-
stitution,” 1151.
50. Gar¬nkel, Database Nation, 20“21. The Privacy Act of 1974 introduced
speci¬c restrictions on the collection and use of the SSN by federal
agencies: Public Law 93“579, section 7.
51. D™Vera Cohn, “Long Forms Returning Slowly,” Washington Post, April 6,
2000, A15.
52. D™Vera Cohn, “Census Complaints Hit Home,” Washington Post, May 4,
2000, A09; Rad Sallee, “Texas Democrats Scold Bush over Census State-
ments,” Houston Chronicle, April 6, 2000, A28. At the same time, the
Republican majority in the U.S. Senate passed a resolution calling on
census of¬cials to ensure that nonrespondents would be prosecuted or
¬ned for refusing to answer questions. H.Con.Res. 260, 106th Cong., sec-
tion 344. Public concern was likely aggravated in 2004 when news reports
said that homeland security of¬cials had used specially prepared census
reports to identify areas with large numbers of people from Middle East-
ern countries.
53. Joan Biskupic, “High Court to Hear Privacy Case,” The Washington Post,
May 18, 1999, A8.
54. Reno v. Condon (98“1464) 528 U.S. 141 (2000).
55. Hoofnagle, “Big Brother™s Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other
Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process, and Package Your Data for
Law Enforcement,” Note 184.
56. Government Accountability Of¬ce, Social Security Numbers: Governments
Could Do More to Reduce Display in Public Records and on Identity
Cards, GAO-05-59 (Washington, DC: Government Accountability Of¬ce,
2004), 24.
57. Solove, “Access and Aggregation: Privacy, Public Records, and the Con-
stitution,” 1169“1170.
58. Melissa Brown, “Family Court Files: A Treasure Trove for Identity
Thieves?” South Carolina Law Review 55, no. 777 (2004).
59. Beth Givens, Public Records on the Internet: The Privacy Dilemma (San
Diego, CA: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2002), 2“3.
60. George Carpinello, “Public Access to Court Records in New York,” Albany
Law Review 66 (2003): 1089, 1122.
61. The bar on access to criminal court records was temporary, to permit fur-
ther consideration. The 2002 report of the Judicial Conference Commit-
tee on Court Administration and Case Management is discussed in Peter
Winn, “Online Court Records: Balancing Judicial Accountability and Pri-
vacy in an Age of Electronic Information,” Washington Law Review 79
(2004): 307; Gregory Silverman, “Justice Information Systems and the



296
Notes to Pages 211“214


Question of Public Access to Court Records,” Washington Law Review 79
(2004): 175.
62. The 2002 Model Guidelines of the Conference of Chief Justices and
Conference of State Court Administrators are discussed in Silverman,
“Justice Information Systems and the Question of Public Access to Court
Records.”
63. Kristen Blankley, “Are Public Records Too Public?” Ohio State Law Journal
65 (2004): 413, 433.
64. Martha Steketee and Alan Carlson, Developing CCJ/COSCA Guidelines for
Public Access to Court Records: A National Project to Assist State Courts.
(National Center for State Courts and the Justice Management Institute,
2002), 9.
65. A survey of state practices is provided in North Dakota Supreme Court,
Requests for Bulk Data from District Court Case Information Systems.
(Court Technology Committee, North Dakota Supreme Court, 2003).
66. One of the central characteristics of bureaucracy, Weber said, was its prac-
tice of managing on the basis of “written documents (˜the ¬les™) which are
preserved in their original or draft form.” Elsewhere Weber observes that
in bureaucracies, “administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated
and recorded in writing. . . . The combination of written documents and a
continuous organization of civil functions constitutes the ˜of¬ce™ which is
the central focus of all types of modern corporate action.” Max Weber, The
Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: The Free Press,
1947).
67. Merrill Lynch & Company, The Next Software Wave: Intelligently Closing
the Loop between EIPs, ERP, CRM and E-Commerce (New York: Merrill
Lynch & Company, 2000).
68. National Archives and Records Administration, Annual Report 2003
(Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 2004),
13.
69. Giovanna Patterson and J. Timothy Sprehe, “Principal Challenges Facing
Electronic Records Management in Federal Agencies Today,” Government
information Quarterly 19, no. 3 (2002): 307“315.
70. William Matthews, “NARA Seeks Ideas for E-Records Archive,” Federal
Computer Week, August 19, 2002, Web.
71. Michelle d™Auray, Presentation to CIPS Breakfast: Annual Federal CIO
Update (Ottawa: Of¬ce of the Chief Information Of¬cer, 2002).
72. Abigail J. Sellen and Richard Harper, The Myth of the Paperless Of¬ce
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002), 1“16.
73. Denise Kersten, “The Paper Paradox,” Government Executive, April 15,
2005, 42“48, 44.
74. Trent Lott and Ron Wyden, “Hiding the Truth in a Cloud of Black Ink,”
New York Times, August 26, 2004, 27.
75. More detail on original and derivative decisions is provided in the Infor-
mation Security Oversight Of¬ce™s annual reports.
76. The statistics are drawn from ISOO annual reports.



297
Notes to Pages 214“219


77. See the ISOO™s comments in its annual reports for 1996, 2000, and 2001.
78. Information Security Oversight Of¬ce, Report to the President 2004, 4.
79. National Archives of Canada, The Access to Information Act and Record-
Keeping in the Federal Government (Ottawa, Canada: National Archives of
Canada, 2001).
80. Lawrence E. Walsh, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-Up
(New York: Norton, 1997), 3“15.
81. John G. Tower, Edmund S. Muskie, and Brent Scowcroft, The Tower
Commission Report on the Iran“Contra Affair (New York: Bantam Books,
1987).
82. Thomas S. Blanton, White House E-Mail: The Top Secret Computer Mes-
sages the Reagan/Bush White House Tried to Destroy (New York: New Press,
1995), 4“6.
83. Ibid., 6“11.
84. Peter W. Rodman, “Memos to Cover Your Trail,” The Washington Post,
July 2, 1993, A19. Also quoted in Blanton, White House E-Mail: The
Top Secret Computer Messages the Reagan/Bush White House Tried to
Destroy, 14.
85. Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report, Volume 1 (Washington,
DC: 2003).
86. Joint Inquiry, Report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community
Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,
National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Final
Report.
87. Senate Intelligence Committee, Report on the U.S. Intelligence Commu-
nity™s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, 60.
88. Demetri Sevastopulo, “Air Force Secretary Lobbied for Boeing to Win
Deal,” Financial Times, November 22, 2004, 4.
89. Hutton, Report of the Inquiry to the Circumstances Surrounding the Death
of Dr. David Kelly.
90. Owen Gibson, “Government Emails To Be Kept on Record,” The Guardian,
September 15, 2003.
91. Financial Times, “Haunted by E-Mail,” Financial Times, January 24, 2004,
10.
92. Blanton, White House E-Mail: The Top Secret Computer Messages the Rea-
gan/Bush White House Tried To Destroy, 5 and 12“13. Emphasis in original.
93. Bob Anez, “Gop Chairman Blasts Cost of Media™s E-Mail Request,” Asso-
ciated Press Wire Service, May 31, 2002.
94. The requests were submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency.
95. Media reports now talk routinely about the search for “smoking gun”
documents; the phrase entered the contemporary lexicon in 1974, during
the Watergate investigation.
96. David Walker, E-Government in the Information Age: The Long View
(Washington, DC: General Accounting Of¬ce, 2001).
97. Treasury Board Secretariat, Media Release: Canada Leads World in E-
Government for Third Straight Year (Ottawa, Canada: Treasury Board Sec-
retariat, 2003).


298
Notes to Pages 219“233


98. Public Records Of¬ce, E-Government Policy Framework for Electronic
Records Management (Kew, United Kingdom: Public Records Of¬ce,
2001), 3.
99. General Accounting Of¬ce, Electronic Records: Management and
Preservation Pose Challenges, GAO-03-936T (Washington, DC: General
Accounting Of¬ce, 2003).
100. European Commission, Model Requirements for the Management of Elec-
tronic Records (Brussels: IDA Programme of the European Commission,
2002).
101. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Electronic Records
and Document Management Systems: A New Tool for Enhancing the Pub-
lic™s Right to Access Government-Held Information? (Toronto, Canada:
Of¬ce of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2003).
102. Department of Finance and Treasury Board of Canada, RDIMS Reference
Manual (Ottawa, Canada: Treasury Board Secretariat, 2003), 6.
103. Hans-Gunnar Axberger, Public Access to Of¬cial Documents (Stockholm:
Swedish Institute, 1996).
104. See Chapter 2 of the Freedom of the Press Act.
105. The public statements on priorities are provided in Treasury Board Sec-
retariat, Backgrounder: The Expenditure Review Committee “ a Catalyst
for Moderning Management Practices (Ottawa, Canada: Treasury Board
Secretariat, 2004); Treasury Board Secretariat, News Release: President
of the Treasury Board Announces Expenditure and Management Reviews
(Ottawa, Canada: Treasury Board Secretariat, 2004).
106. Request DFO2004000171, received July 26, 2004.
107. Exemption 2 of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Among specialists
this interpretation is known as a “Low 2” exemption.
108. Athan Theoharis, Chasing Spies (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2002), 244“247.
109. Graham, Democracy by Disclosure: The Rise of Technopopulism, 58“59.


10. The end of the story?
1. James Ettema and Theodore Glasser, “Narrative Form and Moral Force,”
Journal of Communication 38, no. 3 (1998): 8“27.
2. Alan J. Pakula, All the President™s Men (Warner Brothers, 1976).
3. Louis D. Brandeis, “Other People™s Money,” Harper™s Weekly, December
20, 1913.
4. Washington Post, Washington Post-ABC News Poll: U.S. Treatment of Iraqi
Prisoners (Washington, DC: Washington Post, 2004 [Accessed May 11,
2005]), available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/
polls/polltrend 050704.html.
5. Washington Post, Washington Post-ABC News Poll: Bush and Iraq
(Washington, DC: Washington Post, May 26, 2004 [Accessed May 11,
2005]), available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/
polls/trend 052304 q27 31.html. See also: PIPA/Knowledge Networks,
The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll: Americans on Detention, Torture,
and the War on Terrorism (Washington, DC: Program on International


299
Notes to Pages 233“236


Policy Attitudes, July 22, 2004 [Accessed May 11, 2005]), available from
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Torture/html/new 7 22 04.html.
6. Harris Interactive, Harris Poll: Two in Five U.S. Adults Believe That Torture
of Prisoners Still Prevalent in Iraq and Afghanistan (Rochester, NY: Harris
Interactive, April 20, 2005 [Accessed May 11, 2005]), available from
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris poll/printerfriend/index.asp?
PID=559.
7. PIPA/Knowledge Networks, The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll: Ameri-
cans on Detention, Torture, and the War on Terrorism.
8. NBC News, NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll NBC News, June 25“28,
2004 [Accessed May 11, 2005]), available from http://www.pollingreport.
com/iraq3.htm.
9. Washington Post, Washington Post-ABC News Poll: Bush and Iraq.
10. Craig R. Whitney, “Introduction,” in The Abu Ghraib Investigations, ed.
Steven Strasser (New York: PublicAffairs, 2004), xxiii.
11. Washington Post Daily Tracking Poll, July 25-October 31, 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/2004tracking/
track110104.html
12. The transcripts, prepared by the Commission on Presidential Debates,
can be found at http://www.debates.org.
13. Jane Mayer, “Outsourcing Torture,” The New Yorker, February 14, 2005.
14. New York Times, “Time for an Accounting,” February 19, 2005, 14.
15. Anthony Lewis, “More Than Fit To Print,” New York Review of Books 52,
no. 6 (2005).
16. Washington Post, “The System Endures,” December 5, 2005, B6.
17. Bob Herbert, “Is No One Accountable?” New York Times, March 28, 2005,
17.
18. Mark Danner, “We Are All Torturers Now,” New York Times, January 6,
2005, 27.
19. PIPA/Knowledge Networks, The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll: Ameri-
cans on Detention, Torture, and the War on Terrorism.
20. Suppose that you are prepared to concede that in extraordinary circum-
stances “ such as the so-called “ticking time bomb” case “ torture by
government of¬cials may be justi¬ed. Suppose, however, that you believe
any formal policy acknowledging this fact would lead to excesses “ either
because the policy would not be appropriately monitored or because it
would erode the stigma that deters torture. Hypocrisy might be the best
path: refusing to condone a policy of torture, but tacitly accepting it in
extraordinary cases.
21. NES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior. Table 5C.1. http://
www.umich.edu/∼nes/nesguide/toptable/tab5c 1.htm. Accessed April 29,
2005.
22. Campbell Public Affairs Institute, The Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement
and Inequality (Syracuse, NY: Campbell Public Affairs Institute, 2005).
23. Douglas Kellner, Media Spectacle (New York: Routledge, 2003). See also
Murray Edelman, Constructing the Political Spectacle (Chicago: University

<<

. 49
( 53 .)



>>