Date:         Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:01:08 -0500
Reply-To:     Discussion of Government Document Issues 
Sender:       Discussion of Government Document Issues 
From:         Ssdb Admin 
Subject:      Re: Rumblings of new assault on EPA right to know regulations.
              Comment
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


    The case of Risk-Management Plans, the EPA, and worst-case scenario
    data is an excellent example for government information specialists
    to study.  I believe we will be seeing many more of these
    "sensitive, not classified" information debates in the aftermath of
    September 11.

    My apologies for the length of this. I've tried to include some real
    information, not just my opinions.  :-)

    It sounds easy, obvious, and even patriotic today, to say it is bad
    for the government to release data that will give terrorists
    information that could be used to "identify potential targets." We
    will hear many more calls to keep things secret.  Many will sound
    reasonable and thoughtful.

    I believe strongly that we, as citizens, need to be very cautious
    about allowing the extension of secrecy.  I believe that we, as
    government information specialists, can provide a unique and useful
    perspective to the upcoming debates on secrecy by sharing what we
    know of the value of information and how it is used.  We also have a
    professional responsibility of helping ensuring access to government
    information and I believe this extends to examining the issues
    carefully and thoroughly.

    The upcoming debates will be difficult and contentious.  Some will
    use and our grief and our feelings of powerlessness and our fear of
    terrorism to further their own political and economic ends.  They
    will attempt to restrict access to data that, if released, might
    cause them financial harm or political embarrassment.

    They will use many ways to do this, not just classifying information
    as secret, but restricting the ways it can be used.  We've seen this
    already with the EPA data.  Indeed, the debate about this stretches
    back at least two years to the passage of public law 106-40 and to
    the January 2001 Federal Register EPA request for comments on the
    posting of worst-case scenario data on the Internet (FR 1/17/01
    p4021-4024).  A variety of proposals to restrict access to the
    public data came, evidently, from heavy chemical industry lobbying.
    Most of these proposals will hinder citizens more than terrorists.

    Making the data available only in paper makes the numbers difficult
    to analyze, summarize, order, and aggregate but does nothing to
    hinder a terrorist from identifying potential targets.  Restricting
    locations will make it harder for working people (but not
    terrorists) to obtain the data.  Requiring that people register to
    use unclassified information will be much more effective at scaring
    off employees from examining records of employers than in scaring
    off terrorists.

    Many have used the Toxic Release Inventory (which the chemical
    industry opposed) as a tool for making  their communities safer and
    hope to use the RMP data the same way.

    If facilities are unsafe, the solution is to make them safe, not
    hide the fact that they are unsafe.

    Taking public, unclassified information and restricting access and
    use of it in these ways will make it difficult for us to hold
    government officials and corporations accountable for their actions.

    There is no "liberal" or "conservative" monopoly on politicians who
    like secrecy.  Our current administration is showing an enthusiasm
    for it.  It has refused to turn over information about Vice
    President Dick Cheney's energy task force to the GAO.  It has had
    secret negotiations with the Salvation Army over the faith-based
    initiative.  And it has prevented the National Archives from
    releasing 68,000 pages of Ronald Reagan's correspondence with his
    top presidential aides -- correspondence due for release last January.
    The Senate Intelligence Committee, meanwhile, is again putting
    together a bill that would establish a British-like official secrets
    act.

    These are upsetting and scary times, but it is times like these that
    we can show just why an open, free society is stronger than a
    closed, secret one.

    jim


---
Jim Jacobs, Data Services Librarian             voice: (858) 534-1262
University of California, San Diego               FAX: (858) 534-7548
9500 Gilman Drive   Library 0175-R                  jajacobs@ucsd.edu
La Jolla, CA 92093-0175