4 ms·

No, the Washington State law does not allow for agencies to reject requests on the basis of being overly broad or against data privacy laws. There are specific

by danso 8y ago

No, the Washington State law does not allow for agencies to reject requests on the basis of being overly broad or against data privacy laws. There are specific exemptions (e.g. library records), and for records that may contain personal info (like someone emailing the mayor and including their own credit card number), it is up to the agency to redact such info. However, the agency can charge the requester for that work. Moreover, the requester is not required to give a reason for the request. https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/washington/ https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/wash... https://www.rcfp.org/washington-open-government-guide/ii-exemptions-and-other-legal-limitations/exemptions-open-records-4 https://www.rcfp.org/washington-open-government-guide/ii-exe...

jacquesm 8y ago
Ok, so in that case redaction would have been the way to go here. But the request as it is actually harms the privacy of large numbers of individuals which is not what the FOI laws are supposed to be used for. Also, of course Seattle could reject the request, they could simply say: "Without an explicit court order to release this information we will not do so", and that would be that. It would then be upon the petitioner to ask the courts to force the release of the information requested, if the petitioner felt his rights had been violated. In the present situation the city is opening itself up to liability because of the privacy of all the people they have exposed (and more so because of the mistake). FOI does not mean 'every piece of data the government has should be released to the requester', the goal is increased transparency of government, not privacy violation of citizens using the FOI requests as an end-run around any kind of privacy law. There is a tension between those two and typically the legal branch will determine where exactly the line is, when in doubt: go to court.
- danso 8y ago
  But Seattle cannot summarily reject the request -- they have to follow the law, and the law does not require FOI requesters to get an explicit court order, e.g. a subpoena, for this information or for any other valid request. I mean, yes, the city of Seattle could try to reject the request, and the requester could sue and win in court after the judge finds that the city acted illegally. But that's like saying Seattle police "can" just arbitrarily arrest and imprison people, and fight the subsequent lawsuits. Because the FOI law exists, the city does not open itself to liability in releasing records, except when it accidentally releases records that are mandated to be private, which I'm not even sure is the situation here. Increased transparency is almost always a tradeoff with privacy. I don't disagree with you that the law may be abused for commercial or malicious intent, but it is up to the legislature to propose a bill that curbs FOI. Until then, the government cannot just deny valid requests because they don't approve of the requester or the requester's purported motives.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > which I'm not even sure is the situation here That's the key bit right there. So, if you are not sure - and they are also not sure - then they could ask for a ruling before releasing. Err on the side of caution is good practice when it comes to releasing data. I just looked at the dataset and it is full of information that I would normally consider to be private, which private citizens contact which government officials and when is in principle not something that should be disclosed to all callers in a format of their choosing. What's to stop you from asking for stuff that infringes other people's privacy? I'm all for a more open government but 'anything goes' FOI requests are only a little bit less dangerous than non-transparency. There is some middle ground to be found here.
    - danso 8y ago
      Sorry, what I'm not sure about is whether an agency is liable if it releases exempt information. Exemptions allow an agency to deny a request, but the agency still has discretion whether or not to follow the exemption. > So, if you are not sure - and they are also not sure - then they could ask for a ruling before releasing. Err on the side of caution is good practice when it comes to releasing data. Again, that is simply not how the law works. Some years ago, elected Washington state legislators and the governor decided the law should make these tradeoffs between transparency and privacy. And until subsequent legislators get together and decide otherwise, that is the law of the land. Washington government agencies do not have discretion to reject requests based on requester identity or motivation, period, nor can they make up their own reasons for exemptions. The "middle ground" has already been decided -- that's ostensibly how the law got written and signed in the first place. Your line of argument would allow literally any government employee to make arbitrary rejections -- the law was codified to prevent exactly that situation. Your concerns are no different than concerns raised about freedom of speech and the press (and of course, the right to bear arms, but let's not follow that tangent for now) -- e.g. "I'm all for people being able to express themselves, but what if those people say incredibly hurtful and damaging things?". The legislature can pass laws that limit those rights (e.g. defamation laws), and courts interpret whether those laws follow the Constitution, but it is not up to the executive branch (i.e. government agencies) to ignore the law because they disagree with it.

by danso 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

Ok, so in that case redaction would have been the way to go here. But the request as it is actually harms the privacy of large numbers of individuals which is not what the FOI laws are supposed to be used for. Also, of course Seattle could reject the request, they could simply say: "Without an explicit court order to release this information we will not do so", and that would be that. It would then be upon the petitioner to ask the courts to force the release of the information requested, if the petitioner felt his rights had been violated. In the present situation the city is opening itself up to liability because of the privacy of all the people they have exposed (and more so because of the mistake). FOI does not mean 'every piece of data the government has should be released to the requester', the goal is increased transparency of government, not privacy violation of citizens using the FOI requests as an end-run around any kind of privacy law. There is a tension between those two and typically the legal branch will determine where exactly the line is, when in doubt: go to court.

danso 8y ago
But Seattle cannot summarily reject the request -- they have to follow the law, and the law does not require FOI requesters to get an explicit court order, e.g. a subpoena, for this information or for any other valid request. I mean, yes, the city of Seattle could try to reject the request, and the requester could sue and win in court after the judge finds that the city acted illegally. But that's like saying Seattle police "can" just arbitrarily arrest and imprison people, and fight the subsequent lawsuits. Because the FOI law exists, the city does not open itself to liability in releasing records, except when it accidentally releases records that are mandated to be private, which I'm not even sure is the situation here. Increased transparency is almost always a tradeoff with privacy. I don't disagree with you that the law may be abused for commercial or malicious intent, but it is up to the legislature to propose a bill that curbs FOI. Until then, the government cannot just deny valid requests because they don't approve of the requester or the requester's purported motives.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > which I'm not even sure is the situation here That's the key bit right there. So, if you are not sure - and they are also not sure - then they could ask for a ruling before releasing. Err on the side of caution is good practice when it comes to releasing data. I just looked at the dataset and it is full of information that I would normally consider to be private, which private citizens contact which government officials and when is in principle not something that should be disclosed to all callers in a format of their choosing. What's to stop you from asking for stuff that infringes other people's privacy? I'm all for a more open government but 'anything goes' FOI requests are only a little bit less dangerous than non-transparency. There is some middle ground to be found here.
  - danso 8y ago
    Sorry, what I'm not sure about is whether an agency is liable if it releases exempt information. Exemptions allow an agency to deny a request, but the agency still has discretion whether or not to follow the exemption. > So, if you are not sure - and they are also not sure - then they could ask for a ruling before releasing. Err on the side of caution is good practice when it comes to releasing data. Again, that is simply not how the law works. Some years ago, elected Washington state legislators and the governor decided the law should make these tradeoffs between transparency and privacy. And until subsequent legislators get together and decide otherwise, that is the law of the land. Washington government agencies do not have discretion to reject requests based on requester identity or motivation, period, nor can they make up their own reasons for exemptions. The "middle ground" has already been decided -- that's ostensibly how the law got written and signed in the first place. Your line of argument would allow literally any government employee to make arbitrary rejections -- the law was codified to prevent exactly that situation. Your concerns are no different than concerns raised about freedom of speech and the press (and of course, the right to bear arms, but let's not follow that tangent for now) -- e.g. "I'm all for people being able to express themselves, but what if those people say incredibly hurtful and damaging things?". The legislature can pass laws that limit those rights (e.g. defamation laws), and courts interpret whether those laws follow the Constitution, but it is not up to the executive branch (i.e. government agencies) to ignore the law because they disagree with it.