חומר רקע
¸Èô¶ É´¸³» ³Å´Ç Á²¸½
»¯Çȸ° Á²¸½³ Èô¶ Æ´¶ ÉÁ½·³
Ç»´È·»¯ ÄÇ´´È ³»¸³É ,»°Ç¯ ¾É¿´¸
ÇŸ¿½ÇÆ ¸º²Ç½ ɸ¸¶¿³°
74 É´¸¿¸²½ ÇÆ¶½
2008 ǰ½Å² ,·"ÀÈÉ É°· ,¼¸»È´Ç¸
המכון†הישראלי†לדמוקרטיה
Information Wants to Be Free:
Implementing the Freedom of Information Act in Israel
Yonatan Arbel, Tehilla Schwartz Altshuler
Supervised by Mordechai Kremnitzer
b
Tb
Tb
ISBNa_`Ua^]U]YaUX]]U_J
TTTTTT
V
tT
VJ
b
XZU][XX`^_bcXZU][XX`XXTYU`XXUZXUZZZZb
[email protected]bJ
www.idi.org.ilb
aYX\\T\\`ZJT
JTPJQ
Copyright © 2008 by The Israel Democracy Institute
Printed in Israel
V
T T
TV
V
V
T
VT
TT
T
VT
T
TV
TTP''QbD
VT
V
JJ
VOO
O
V
V
ÌÈÈÈÚ‰ ÔÎÂ˙
_
Y[
Y^
Y
Z[
Z
[Y
[
\`
\
]Z
]
]a
^
_]
_
`\
`
a`
t
a
YY^
YX
Y[\
YY
YaZ
YZ
ZX[
Y[
ZY]
Y\
ZZZ
iii
Abstract
∑
¯Èˆ˜˙
T
Vs
T
VPQ
V
TT
TV
V
TV
V
s
V
V
T
V
VTTTb
TT
V
V
VT
V
T T V
∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
b
c
c
c
c
V
V
V¥Osu
T
TTOsu
T
VV
V
VT
TT
V
V
TT
T
V
T
V
V
TT
TV
VOu
T
V
V s
TV
π
T
V
V
VTT
T
T
TV
V
T T
T
V
V
Q
VP
cs
T
V
V
V
T
V
V
TTT
V
V
PQV
T
t
t
V
T
T
V
±∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
tt
V
tT
TV
Tb
Q TDe Novo
T
VP
V
T
T
VT
VT
V
V
T
V
PDe NovoQ T T
t
V
t
V
VT
T
V
TV
T
V
±±
T
TOO
V
T
V
T
V
V
b
T
c
VT
tT
V
V
VT
VT
Tt
Vt
VT
V
±≥
‡Â·Ó
T
OOVVV
VT
YV
TP bQ Yaa`sJ T
OO
V
V
V
T
T
V
TV
V
V
V
c
TT
ZV
VZXX^Yaaa
VT
TV
T
c T
O
[[_W^^J
Y
V_YOT
VYaa`sJT_
Z
±¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
V
T
T
c
c
c
TT
VT
VJT
T
Q
TTP
V
T
V
V T
V
T
TV
T
V
V
TT
V
T
V
V
T
±µ
V
T
V
TJ
V
T
J
T s
V
V
ZXX`
±∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
˜ÂÁ‰ ˙¯ËÓ
‡Â·Ó Ʊ
sTYaa`T
sV
T
T
V
V
c
V
[T
V
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ Ï˘ ˙ÂÈÏÎ˙‰Â ˙¯ËÓ‰ Æ≤
scb
Vc
c
V
\‰¯˜·‰Â Á˜ÈÙ‰ ÔÂÚÈË Æ‡
ObPBrandeisQ
VOtT
bT
[
QZsYOT
V
VPTbQP
T
V
V^_\s^_[T^^YPYQJTO]__YWa[J
\
±
±∑
V
T
TT
V
T
sTV
V
V
V
TTT
V
V
T
T
V
T
]V
V
T
V
T
V
t
t
V
TT
V
V]OT[JTT
]
±∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
˙ÂÓ‡–˙ÂÏÚ·‰ ÔÂÚÈË Æ·
s
T
T
T
V
^V
b
T
T
T
bT
T
TT
_V
T
V
VT
V
T
Vs
T
T
V
T
V
sT
V
PQ
Tb
PQ
T
T
V
JTOJOO`Z`ZWXZJ
^
V\^]PYQ
PYQJT
OY\ZW_XJ
_
V[[Zs[[YPbQT[Z]
±π
`Vrights are trumpss
V
tV
T
PO
OQt
T
V
T
VPQ
s
VsT
TT
sT
V
TPT
Q
V
V
V
T
TT
sc
TOOT
Vs
s
cPQb
Tc
T
V
˙ÂÙ˙˙˘‰‰ ÔÂÚÈË Æ‚
t
V
t
V
Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge: Harvard University
`
Press, 1978, p. ix
≤∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
V
VT
b
TTT
T
aV
V
c
T
T
V
b
V
TVT
T
V
VT
V
V
V
T
V
TO[aaW`]J
a
VZ]]P[QJ
≤±
ÈÂËÈ·‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ‰ÈÓ¡‰ ÔÂÚÈË Æ„
T
V
V
t
Vt
T
Q
V
VP
TO
O
V
T
T
V
T
YXVs
c
Q
VP
T
V
T
V
b
T
VVV
TOb
TTT
T VVV O
TT
T
T
YX
V
≤≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
YYV
ÌÂÎÈÒ Æ≥
T
V
c
cOOc
V
TT
V
T
V
TT
T
V
VPbQYZOTPQO_XZ\WX[J
YY
≤≥
˙ÂÎʉ Ï˘ È˙˜ÂÁ‰Â ȘÂÁ‰ ‰Â‚ÈÚ
χ¯˘È· Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁÏ
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁÏ ± ÛÈÚÒ ∫‡Â·Ó Ʊ
O P bQ Y
VO
T
YZVT
T
V
øÚ„ÈÓÏ ˙ÂÎÊ Â‡ Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁÏ ˙ÂÎÊ Æ≤
b
g
g
T
T
V
V
V
T
T
V
Vs
^\VT
\V
c
TT]
V
^c
TVT
V[
YZ
≤
≤¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T T^
TV
TsPQ
Y[VPQ
TT
V
Tt
t
T
V
V
t
T
TPQ
T
V
TV
T
V
V
T
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁÏ ˙ÂÎÊÏ ÌÈ‚ÈÈÒ Æ≥
T
ttT
T
V
Y\
V
T T
b
b O T
Y[
VPTbQPZXX]QZXOg
T
Y\
VY[V
≤µ
t
•
cbVZsY
c
c
V
t
•
Y\
T
V
s
V
T
Y]bt
•
c
T
c
c
sVc
V
PQat
•
cb
c c
V
Q
TT
VP
t
•
PQTPQa
V
V
V
T
TQ
VP
VYaa`sJT`
Y]
≤∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
O
O
V
V
T
T
T
t
V
T
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁÏ ˙ÂÎʉ Ï˘ È˙˜ÂÁ‰ ‰„ÓÚÓ Æ¥
Vs
t
TT
t
V
TT
Y^V
b
Vs
T
V
sT
T
T
V
TV
T7
b
V
T
^`ZYWa[J
Y^
O
VZZYP\QJTOJ
ZXX]TbTT TO
VPQ
≤∑
T T
T
TV
TPQ
Y_VT
T T
VT
bT
sT
tt
V
T
sVT
Y`V
YaVT
T
V
T
V
TT
VT
TOb
OT
Y_
QJOYXZX[WX[VZ]_P
JQ
VO]YU]XTP
T[^] P[Q J TO Zs O O _s YW`Y J
Y`
V[_`s[__
TPQObTOOT
Ya
b T T
QPTbQa_sa^OTJT
OQYYJTTP
VVV
T
VPO
≤∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
Vs
OYa
ZXVO
V
TOO T
VbZYOO
Ob
T
VVV
T
T
ZZVO
TT
tt
V
T
Ob
]Vb
T
VOVVV
TT
V]
VO
OTsT
Z[V
TT
V
bVT
ZX
www.e-q-m.com/clients/Huka/huka_01.html
TZXX`
Q
PV
T]ZaP[QJTOY^sJOO[sJY\ZW`aJ
ZY
V]][s]]Z
Va_OTYaJTT
ZZ
ZXX[sTJO
^]YWX[J
Z[
OQ \\a T\\] PYQ
V
T
VPVO
≤π
V
TV
b
OOV
T
V
V
V
TTV
Z]V
Z\V
Z^V
Tb
Z_V
T
TbTb
TT
T
V
V
V
VT
T
V
T
TT
T
V
TT
V
T^^YP]QJTOJ\`X\Wa\J
Z\
V^__s^_^
T[_[[P\QZXX^sTOOOZ]]_WX]J
Z]
V[_\]
VY[^P\QJTO\\^[Wa\J
Z^
bOT
Z_
YXZX[WX[VPJQTO
VPTQJO
≥∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
T
Z`V
V
V
VT
V
V
V
TZZYP\QJTOJ
^`ZYWa[J
Z`
OQ[X`s[X_
gTT
gT
VPOT
T
≥±
Â˙˙Ï ÌÈ·ÈÈÁ‰Â Ú„ÈÓ Ï·˜Ï ÌȇÎʉ
‡Â·Ó Ʊ
PbQY
t
V
TVPas`Q
ZaV
Tt
OO[XV
[YV
T V
[ZV
T
T
TZsY
T V
b
T
tVY
V
t
TVZ
TTTtOO
VT
VVV
TTT
TTtOO
V
VVV
VYT
Za
TVYZsYT
[X
V\]JV
OY[aXWXZPJQJcZsYT
[Y
Q_[aXT_[`aP[QZXXZsT
VPbQP
VYY
[Z
≥
≥≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
tOO
TPYQ
c
cPZQ
cP[Q
TP\Q
c
TTTP]Q
ct
cP^Q
cP_Q
cP`Q
sPaQ
T TZ Ya_]sJ T
c
c
TTPYXQ
T[ Ya]`sJ T a
T
c
V
VVV
TtOO
TT\Z\a
T]
c
T^Ya^]sJTYtOO
V
˙¢¯‰ Ȅȷ Â˙˜ÊÁ‰Â Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˙Â‰Ó Æ≤
TObOO
VOTTT
T
≥≥
t[[T
V
T
V
T
V
V
T
V
[\V
V
[]VT
V[^V
TT
TV
V
T
V
VO O
V
JTOORobert E. EisenmanZ_aXWa[J
[[
P\QJTExin-Lines Bros S. AVOInterlego A/S]Y[W`aJc`Y_P[Q
VY[[
Peter Bayne, ‘Freedom of Information in Australia’, Acta Juridica 1993,
[\
VPBayne, Freedom of InformationbQp. 225
OOJOOaZ\WXZPQJ
[]
VPJbQ\\Y[P[QZXX[sTO
P[Q`
[^
TOb
OZOO
VO
OTTTT
V
≥¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
[_T
T
I
T
T
V
Tb
[`V
Tc
bT
VV
VV
VV
[aVV
T
\XT
\YV
V
T
V
V
Va
[_
United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144–145
[`
(1989)
Burka v. HHS, 87 F.3d 508, 151 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Missouri v. United States
[a
Department of Interior, 297 F.3d 745, 750–751 (8th Cir. 2002). See also
American Department of Justice concise review of the matter, at
www.usdoj.gov/oip/procereq.htm#entities
VZXYOT[\JTBayne, Freedom of Information
\X
Ann Wion, ‘The Definition of “Agency Records” Under the Freedom of
\Y
Information Act’, Stan. L. Rev. 31, p. 1114
≥µ
Ú„ÈÓ Ï·˜Ï ÌȇÎʉ Æ≥
V
T
TYa^]sJYT
tOb
\ZVOT
V
T
TV
V
T
TV
OT
\[VO
TT
\\V
g
TTt
c
TV
ObYZ
JOVO
T
O
O
TbT
VYa^]sJTY
\Z
V[aaOTZ^[XT
\[
Section 11 to the Australian Freedom of Information Act 1982; Section 1 to
\\
the English Freedom of Information Act 2000; Section (a) to the American
Freedom of Information Act (‘Each agency shall make available to the public
V
information’)
Vwww.usdoj.gov/oip/introduc.htmb
Section 4 to the Canadian Access tob
Information Act (R.S., 1985, c. A-1)
≥∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
\]VT
\^V
Ú„ÈÓ ˙¯ÈÒÓ· ÌÈ·ÈÂÁÓ‰ ÌÈÙ‚‰ Æ¥
b
cT
Tcc
c
ccT
cPQc
s
TTc
a
VT
V
ÌȯÁ‡ ÌÈÙ‚ ÌÈÈÂËÏ˘ ÌÈ‚¯‡ Ï˘ ˙˘¯ÂÙÓ ‰‡ˆÂ‰ Ƈ
˜ÂÁ‰ ˙ÏÂÁ˙ ¯„‚Ó
V
tVY\
\_V T
bT
T
\]
JTTVP
TbQYXXsaaOTZXXXT
V`OT[
TO
\^
bODO
T
T
VaaOT\]JT
TV
cYaaasJTPQ
\_
cYaaasJTPQ
cYaaasJTPQ
≥∑
VT
V
T
OT
TO
V
ÌÈÈÂËÏ˘ ÌÈÙ‚ ÏÚ Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ˙ÏÁ‰ ȇ˙ Æ·
VOOT
s
TOO
V T
V
TVs
s
V
TTbs
TT
\`V
T
Ts
TVOO
T s
\aV
T
T
V
TP Q
VYaaasJ
OaYW`_JT_[YW`^Jb
\`
O[\Y\Wa[Jc\\aPZQJTJ
P]QJTOO`]_[Wa^JcYa^P[QJT
V]YYT\`Y
T[TYaa^TbTT
O
\a
VPT
bQYa
≥∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TT
]XTPQs
VT
T
]Yb
V V
V V
Ta
VZ
T`
bPQ
TTTT
cTVVV
T
]ZV
TV
T
s
][V
OO
V
V
Z]a\Wa^JVT
]X
VY_ZTY^^P]QO
OJ^aZ^Wa[J
V_\aP[QJTOJ
]Y
ttV
V
TTs
V_[aXT[YJT
VYa]`sJT
]Z
T\\aPZQJTOZsJO_[YW`^J
][
V\^[s\^Z
≥π
T
V
T
V
Oc
sVVV
]\VOTJ
V
QT
]]TP
T
V
T
T
]^V
T T T
]_
Q
]`TPIYZ
Tt
]aV
b
V
O
T
Vs
T
V
T
V
VY[^OT\]JT
T
]\
TTc[aa`OTY[VaVX\TT
]]
VY]_`OTY]VZVX]
b
]^
www.miki.org.il/miki/article.asp?newsid=1746
V[YJT
]_
VY]_`OTY]VZVX\TT
]`
VYX]YsYX]XOTZaVYZVX]T]\_]TT
]a
¥∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
V
TT
ZXX]
T
^XV
PYZTQT
TTV
V
V
V
ZXX^ ^YV
Tt
^ZV
Qs
^[VP
^\V
QZXX]]sV
VY]_`OTY]VZVX]TT
^X
Andrew Gray, ‘Freedom of Information and Universities: A Brief International
^Y
Survey,’ 2005, Available online: www.generalist.org.uk/foi/published-foi.pdf;
www.tut.ac.za/tut_web/file_store/files/7174/first_proceedings.pdf?P b
HPSESSID=751107609dfb0ce5c1efb055bb24c361
VYX]XOTZaVYZVX]T]\_]TT
^Z
TT
OTY_
T
OTOT
VO
Jc[]]T[]\PYQJTO\_\W_[J
^[
ZZa]Wa_JcPQOs
\YZ^Wa\
O]^`ZWa_JcPQO
YY`]WX\
VPQ
VPsQPQOs
TP Q O t _Y]YWX\ J
^\
VaO
¥±
VTPI
V
TT
T
V
^]V
VT
T
T
Vt
T
V
T
^^V
TT
V
V
T
VT
V
tQ[Y_`W
^]
cPQZXX]sJTP
ZXX^sJTPtQZX[WY_
TTTQ
[Z]YWscPTO
TT
QZXX]sJTPtQ
sTTTT
T
VPT
QO^`WX[PQJ
^^
QP
cP
QPQOsYY`]WX\PQJ
VP
¥≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V[XXs
V
T
VT
V
T
V
^_VOO
s
t t
O
V
V
O
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ß˙ȯÂËÏ‚¯‰ ‰È„Ó‰ß Ô„ÈÚ Æµ
s
s T
V
OO^`OOTOO
TT^aV
O
VY[`sY[_OT\]JT
T
^_
C. Hood, ‘Which Contract State? Four Perspectives on Over-
^`
Outsourcing for Public Services’, Australian Journal of Public Administration
56(3) (1997) 120–131; M. Moran, ‘Review Article: Understanding the
Regulatory State’, British Journal of Political Science 32(2) (2002) 391–413;
Colin Scott, ‘Accountability in the Regulatory State’, Journal of Law and
Society 27(1) (2000) 38–60; Richard Mulgan, Accountability Issues in the
New Model of Governance, Discussion Paper No. 91, April 2002, ISBN 0
7315 3434 4, ISSN 10302190, www.crawford.anu.edu.au/degrees/ (last
retrieved May 2008); Donald Kettle, ‘Sharing Power, Public Governance and
Private Markets’, Washington DC: The Brookings Institute (1993)
David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the
^a
Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, New York: Plume,
1992; Christopher Hood, ‘A Public Management for All Seasons?’, Public
Administration 69(3–20) (1991)
¥≥
VO
t V
tT
_XV
sT
T V
TT
_YV
_ZV
Os
tTO
V
s b
cPQ
Vcs
V
A. S. Roberts, ‘Less Government, More Secrecy: Reinvention and the
_X
Weakening of Freedom of Information Law’, Public Administration Review
60(4) (July 2000), 308–320; D. W. Schartum, ‘Access to Government-Held
Information: Challenges and Possibilities’, 1998 (1) Journal of Information,
Law & Technology: www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_1/schartum/
(last retrieved May 2008); Matthew Flinders, ‘The Politics of Accountability:
A Case Study of Freedom of Information Legislation in the United Kingdom’,
The Political Quarterly (2000) 422–435
Kathleen Thelen, Sven Steinmo, ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative
_Y
Politics’, in Thelen, Steinmo and F. Longstreth (eds.), Structuring Politics:
Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspectives, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 1–32
V[ZXU[X`OT_XJTRoberts, ‘Less Government’
_Z
¥¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TTT
_[V
T
T_\V
s
s V
V
T
TTT
_]V
OOs
T
V
Ts
T
_^V
T
sV
TT
__V
V
_[
A. S. Roberts, ‘Public Works and Government Services, Beautiful Theory
_\
Meets Ugly Reality’, in G. Swimmer (ed.), How Ottawa Spends, Ottawa:
Carlton University Press, 1996–1997, pp. 171–204
OaYW`_JT_[YW`^Jb
_]
O[\Y\Wa[Jc\\aPZQJcJ
P]QJcOO`]_[Wa^JcYa^P[QJc
VT\T
V]YYT\`Y
VYaT[T\aJTT
_^
Martin Lodge, ‘Accountability and Transparency in Regulation:
__
Critiques, Doctrines and Instruments’, in Jordana Jacint and David Levi Faur
(eds.), The Politics of Regulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the
Age of Governance, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 124–144
¥µ
V _`
_a
CIBA-GEIGY
V
PQFDAs
V
FDAs
V
V
V
TOOV
Tb
T
`XV
VT
V
V
T
V
T
V
TPQ
TT
TV
T
V
T. Adams, ‘Note, Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act –
_`
1977’, Duke L. J. 189 (1978)
CIBA-GEIGY Corp. v. Mathews, 428 F. Supp. 523 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)
_a
V]ZaOT
`X
¥∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
tT
[...] any executive department, military department, Govern-
ment corporation, Government controlled corporation, or
other establishment in the executive branch of the Government
(including the Executive Office of the President), or any
independent regulatory agencyV`Y
T T VVV
T
VTPQ
TVV
`ZV
T
`[V
V
T
V
T
T
V
T
5 U.S.C. §552(f)(1)
`Y
Lau v. Sullivan County Dist. Atty., No. 99–7341, 1999 WL 1069966, at *2 (2d
`Z
Cir. Nov. 12, 1999); Martinson v. DEA, No. 96–5262, 1997 WL 634559, at *1
(D.C. Cir. July 3, 1997); Jones v. City of Indianapolis, 216 F.R.D. 440, 443
(S.D. Ind. 2003), United States v. Mitchell, No. 03–6938, 2003 WL 22999456,
at *1 (4th Cir., Dec. 23, 2003), United We Stand Am. v. IRS, 359 F.3d 595, 597
(D.C. Cir. 2004); Buemi v. Lewis, No. 94–4156, 1995 WL 149107, at *2 (6th
Cir. Apr. 4, 1995)
bT
www.usdoj.gov/oip/procereq.htm#N_9_
VYaaOT[\JTBayne, Freedom of Information
`[
¥∑
T
V
tsts
`\V
T
V
T
TV
T
T
V
T
V
T
V
V
VOO
V
T
V
`]V
Richard Mulgan, Accountability Issues in the New Model of Governance,
`\
Discussion Paper No. 91, April 2002
Bunker Mattew and Charles Davis, ‘Privatized Government Functions and
`]
Freedom of Information’, Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly
75(3) (1998) 464–477
¥∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
˜ÂÁ‰ ˙ÚÓˉ ¯˜ÁÓÏ ‡Â·Ó
V
T T
TV
TT
T V
TV
T
TTQ
VPTQTP
T
T V
Q
V P
T
V
T
T
V
PQ
T
T
V
Tb
V
V
b
¥
¥π
T •
VPTTQ
•
V
V •
V
V
V
V
V^V
s
c c T V
Vc
PQ
VsT
b
VY
TTQV
T
QcP
cP T T
TQ
TT
T
P
Q
TsVP
WQ
µ∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
WQ P W W c W
T]XVP_sYt
V
ZZV^Z
TYZX
\XT
T]\M V
^ZMV\`Ms
V]YMT
TFisher Exact
V
VZ
PTTQ
V
c
c
TT
V
OOV
VOO
T
V
V
T
TsT
V
V[
VT
T
T
V
µ±
V
T
sc
c
cc
V
V
TT
V
µ≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Ì¢ÈÈÏ Ú‚Â‰ È‚¯‡‰ ͯÚÓ‰
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÏÚ ÌÈÂÓÓ‰ Ʊ
O
V[
TT
VO
T
VT
T
TV
tTV
T t
PQT
VT
Tt
Tt
V
‰ÂÓÓ‰ „ȘÙ˙ ÔÈ· ÈχȈËÂÙ ÌÈÈÈÚ „Â‚È Æ≤
ÌȯÁ‡‰ ÂȄȘÙ˙Ï
T
V
^]M
Z]MT
VYXMT
TOT
VO
µ
µ≥
T
T
T V
T
`^V
T
V
T
V
[XMs
V
T
V
TbV
TT
TV
TT
V
V
V
T
PQT
TVOO
O
VO
PQ
T V
T
`^
VZXX^ZX
µ¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
sVOO
‘good practice’
T
V
T
TV
TTV
V
TT
V
T
V
V
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ÏÚ ÌÈÂÓÓ‰ ˙¯˘Î‰ Æ≥
TZaM
Y]MVT
V
V_XMs
TT
T
VV
T
T
T
V
T
V
[XMbV
T
V
µµ
T
V
T
V
V
T
V
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ Ï˘ ˙È‚¯‡ ‰ÚÓˉ Æ¥
T_]Ms
Y`M V
V
T
V
T
c
V
t T
taXMs
V
ÌȯÁ‡ ÌȄȘÙ˙ ÈÏÚ·Â Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ÏÚ ‰ÂÓÓ‰ Ƶ
®ÌȯÈη ÌȄȘ٠¨¯·Â„ ¨ÈËÙ˘Ó ıÚÂÈ© Ô‚¯‡·
^]M
Z]M V
Z]MV
\XMs[XMT
V
V
V
µ∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
^XMsT
V
ÈËÙ˘Ó‰ ıÚÂȉ ڄÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ÏÚ ‰ÂÓÓ‰ Æ∂
T
O b V
VVV
VVVVVV
V
VOe
VO
VOT
VJ
T
V
c
Tc
V
V
V
cT
VTJ
T
V
T
TOT
VO
T
V
µ∑
TTT
VT
T
VT
T
V
T
V
„¯˘Ó‰ ¯·Â„ ڄÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ÏÚ ‰ÂÓÓ‰ Æ∑
V
TT
V
V
T
V
Vs
Z^M
V[XMsT
aYMV
Z^M
V
V
T T
µ∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
V
cT
T
OV
O V TO
VVVVVV
VVV
VOVVV
T
T
V
TOO
V
µπ
Ú„ÈÓ ˙Ï·˜Ï ˙¢˜·· ÏÂÙÈˉ
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ
¨Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ ˙ÂÁ„‰ ˙Â˘È‚ Ʊ
˙¢˜· ˙˘‚‰ ˙¯˘Ù‡Ï ڂ‰ Ú„ÈÓ‰Â
O
T`_TO
T
V
T
V
V
V
``T
V
VT
V
TPTQ
Q
VPT
TZXX]UZXX\
T
V
V
T T
www.gov.il/FirstGov/TopNav/Situations/SCertificateGuides/SInfoLawGuid/
`_
SIGeneralInformation
V]
``
∂
∂∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
aX `aT
TT
TT
t
V
TtT
V
TT
aYV
V
TaZ
V
VTZXX\-ZXX[
TV
V
T a[V
T
TT
V
b
TV
`a
V
V
TT
V
V
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Hofesh/DochHamemuna
www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Public+Applications/hofes
aX
default.htmWSWWwww.most.gov.il
aY
www.mof.gov.il/ptzibur.htm
aZ
www.tourism.gov.il/GOVheb/Ministry+of+Tourism
a[
∂±
TT
V
T
a\V
T
a]V
T
V
VT
V
t
a^V
PQT
V
V
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ ˙¢˜·‰ ¯ÙÒÓ Æ≤
T
O
ZXX[VO
a_VPQ^_]
ZXXXb
a`T_[
TV
aaVYXZXX\
www.justice.gov.il/MOJHeb/PniyotHazibor/Hadracha.htm
a\
www.health.gov.il/pages/default.asp?maincat=5&catid=592&pageid=3425
a]
V
a^
VaXOTY[JTT
a_
\[aOTPJQTObOT
a`
VPTbQ
V
aa
∂≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Q
PT
YXsY_MV
V]Xs_ZMT
VsYXX
T
Z_XsYaaa^sQ
YXYVPZXX^
aQ
TZXX]sYaaa
TPZXX][[TYaaa
YXZV
Q
V ZXX P
TtOQ
TPO
O b
VOT
T
YX[V
T
V
V
TZXX[UYaaaY\Xs
YX\VZXX_UZXX]ZZXsZXX\[XXs
ZXX\t
www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Public+Applications/hofes YXX
bZXX_T YXY
www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Public+Applications/hofes
VTa YXZ
VTa YX[
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Hofesh/DochHamemuna YX\
∂≥
Tt
YX]Vs
T
T
V
T
T
YX^V
T
t
TT
T
t
T
V
T
T
V
V
T
T
V
]XM
Z]MsT
V
T
V
T
V
V
www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=vi YX]
ew&enDispWhat=Zone&enDispWho=FREEINFO&enZone=FREEINFO
VTa YX^
∂¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
V
VOOT
b
T
V
˙¢˜·‰ ˙‰Ó ÌÈÂÙ‰ ˙‰ÈÓ Æ≥
b
c
c
TT
V
T
V
V
T
T
V
TPOOQ
V
T
V
V
V
YX_T
Q
www.knesset.gov.il/library/heb/docs/rep2004-36.htm YX_
∂µ
TT
VP
TT
V V
T
V
V
T
b
g
Vg
T
V
YYZYX`
ZXX]
[[T_ZT
V_T
V
OO
T
Z]MZXX[b
T
V\[M
ZXX\
T
T
T Q
YXaVPT
YYXVPQYZXX]
www.btl.gov.il/NR/exeres/028B102E-B9F8-4CC8-8F49-A3EA56062A65. YX`
htm#91752FCF_94CA_4971_9C3D_C0ED2E60E816
www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay YXa
view&enDispWhat=Zone&enDispWho=FREEINFO&enZone=FREEINFO
VT YYX
∂∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ ˙¢˜· È˘È‚Ó ˙‰ÈÓ ± ÌÈ˘¯˙
≤∞∞µ ¨‰·È·Ò‰ ˙ÂÎÈ‡Ï „¯˘ÓÏ
Æ˙¯Á‡ ÔȈ ̇ ‡Ï‡ ¨Ìȯ·ÁÓ‰ Ï˘ „·ÈÚ Ì‰ ‰Ê ¯˜ÁÓ· ˙ÂÁÂω ÌÈÓÈ˘¯˙‰ ™
T
O O
V
T
T Q
P
TTT
YYYVPQ
s
V
T
T
TJ
V
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Hofesh/DochHamemuna YYY
43% ,¸´²Ã±«
5% ,¸´´Å¬´¬¼ ¸´Á½°´
17% ,º´® ´¶Ã°½
18% ,¸´Â°Ã´ ¸´¿°
11% ,¸´´Ã°¬´Á ¸´¿°
6% ,¼½
´Å¬/¸´·½¿¹
∂∑
T
YYZV
OT
O
VO
VO
TOO
V
t
Tt
VT
T T
T
TV
Os
QOOTO
T
TVP
kVOOT
T
V
_[MYY[TT
Z_M
V
TaV
V
TPTQ
YY\V
T YYZ
www.meida.org.il/?transfered=meida.org.ilb
VTa YY[
V[a_OTYaa_s
JT YY\
∂∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
ÁÂÎÓ ˙¢˜· È˘È‚ÓÎ ˙¯Â˘˜˙ ÈÏΠÌȇÂ˙ÈÚ Æ¥
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ
YXMs
V
V
V
g
V
T
VT
T
V
TT
VT
V
TOb
VVVObVO
TJTVVV
VOJVVVTTb
T
VO O
V
s
TV
YY]V
A. S. Roberts, ‘Is there a Double Standard on Access to Information?’, Policy YY]
∂π
V
T
TT
T T
V
T
TO
VO T
T
OV
V
O
T
V
c
Q
VPTOO
s
TP
OOTQ
V
T
T
V
V
T
VOptions (May–June, 2002) 49–55
TT
V
TTV
V
∑∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
V
OT
VO
T
V
T
V
‰ÈÈÁ„ ¨‰Ï·˜ ∫Ú„ÈÓÏ ˙¢˜·· ÏÂÙÈˉ ÔÙ‡ Ƶ
˙ȘÏÁ ‰ÈÈÁ„Â
V
TT
YY^VYTY\[ZXX\
ÂÙ‰˘ Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ ˙¢˜·Ï ˙ÂÚȉ‰ ÁÂÏÈÙ ± ÁÂÏ
≤∞∞¥ ¨‰Ï˘ÓÓ‰ ˘‡¯ „¯˘ÓÏ
‰ÚÓ‰ ˙‰Ó
˙ÂÈÙ‰ ¯ÙÒÓ
‡ÏÓ ÔÙ‡·Â ·ÂÈÁ· ÂÚ
π∞
ÍÓÒÂÓ Ú„ÈÓ ¯Â˜ÓÏ ÂÙ‰ ‡ ˙ȘÏÁ ÂÚ
±π
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁÏ ±¥ ÛÈÚÒ ÏÚ ÍÓ˙Ò‰· ‰ÏÈÏ˘· ÂÚ
≤
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁÏ π ÛÈÚÒ ÏÚ ÍÓ˙Ò‰· ‰ÏÈÏ˘· ÂÚ
≥
‰˘˜· ˙¯‚‡ ÌÏ˘Ï ˘È˘ ÂÚ ¨Ú„ÈÓÏ ‰˘˜· Â˘È‚‰˘ ÌÈÂÙ
ƯÒÓ ‡Ï Ú„ÈÓ‰ ÍÎÈÙÏ ÆÂÓÏÈ˘ ‡Ï ͇
≤π
ÏÂΉ ÍÒ
±¥≥
www.pmo.gov.il/PMO/Public+Applications/hofes YY^
∑±
Ya`ZXX]T
`TZ_TY\`c
YY_VsY]s
V
YY`
ZXX]
Y]MsVYXMs`aMcYYZ
b
T
VT
T
T
V
ZXX\ YYa
V ][ O O
T
`^OOZXX]V
T
V
TOO
V
YZXVZXX^ZV
ZXX^
ZXMV[XMsT\XM
Vts
YZYTZXX\V\Ms
ZXX\VZXX^
t_YM
PZXX^Q
www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/EC2C655F-DDEA-4D31-8316-243E21 YY_
F92082/0/pniyut2005.doc
www.btl.gov.il/NR/exeres/028B102E-B9F8-4CC8-8F49-A3EA56062A65. YY`
htm#91752FCF_94CA_4971_9C3D_C0ED2E60E816
www.moc.gov.il/new/hebrew/index.html YYa
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Hofesh/DochHamemuna YZX
bZXX\ YZY
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Hofesh/DeenVeHeshbon/
2004/2004/DivuchHamemune.htm
∑≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TPXVaMQ
VT
V
TPZQT
V
YYMT[`McaXbZXX[
YZZVP]YMQ
TZXXX
YZ[VPIQ[XTYXZ
TT
YXZV
TZY
V
T
V
¨Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ ÍÂÈÁ‰ „¯˘ÓÏ Â˘‚‰˘ ˙¢˜·Ï ˙ÂÚȉ ≤ ÌÈ˘¯˙
≤∞∞∂
www.moag.gov.il/news/doch_sofi_2003.pdf YZZ
V\\\OTa`JTT YZ[
32.10% ,Å´·´·Ä ¯¬°ÄÅ °»½»
3.80% ,Ŵ·² ¯¬°ÄÅ °»½»
¸°·ÄÅ ´« ·Ä¬ °·¿°³
«·
20.70% ,¯Ã«
3.40% ,·°¿´³¬ Ű´»¿
,¯«·¹ Å´¬°´² ¯¬°ÄÅ °»½»
40.10%
-
∑≥
V
VPTTTQ
T
T
Q
VP
YaTaYYT[^`ZXX]T
YV\MTa`MbPIQ
TQP
Q
T
TT
VP
T
VPQ[T
[[MT
VYYV]MsT
V
_ZV\Mc[aTZ^]ZXX\
V^V\MZYVZMT
T
T
YZ\V
Z_VYMVZ]TZX_ZXX\WZXX]
bVZaV_Ms\[VZMT
T
V
V T
V
The Attorney General’s Department (on behalf of the Freedom of Information YZ\
Act 1982), Annual Report 2004–2005, p. 1 (Minister’s Introduction):
www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/PublicationsAnnual_Reports
Annual_Report_2004
∑¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
¨¯ÊÂÁ ÔÂÈÚ· ˙¢˜· Ï˘ ‰ÈÈÁ„ ‡ ˙ȘÏÁ ‰Ï·˜ ¨‰Ï·˜ ȯÂÚÈ˘ ≥ ÌÈ˘¯˙
≤∞∞µ ¨˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
¯·¬Â
Ŵ·² ¯·¬Â
ò« ,¯´´²®
33.47%
11.64%
54.86%
∑µ
˙ÚÓˉ· ÌÈÈϯ„ˆÂ¯Ù ÌÈ˷ȉ
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ
ÌÈÈϯ„ˆÂ¯Ù‰ Ìȯ„Ò‰‰ ˙Â·È˘Á Ʊ
V
V
T
YZ]V
T
c
T
T
V
OO
T
V
gJOV
JJ
JV
VJJVJTTJVJ
VJTJTJJgTTJ
YZ^VOJT
bT
T
V
T
V
V
V\[`OTa`JTT YZ]
T b T T YZ^
VaOTYaaYTb
∑
∑∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Ú„ÈÓÏ ˙¢˜·· ÏÂÙÈˉ ÔÓÊ Í˘Ó Æ≤
_
b
TPQ
cT[Xs
TT
T[XsTT
VT
T T PQ
TPQ
T
c
T
V^X
TPQ
Y]s
T T
T
c
V
c[XT
T[Xs
c
TYZXT
V\
TT
TY[]cY]
V
b
T
TV
V
TV
∑∑
V\
T
TTT
V
V
[XM
T\]MT[X
^]MVsZ]Ms
T
Z]MV
YXMT
V
_XM ZXX\ T
VZXMsT
TZXX]
YZ_
ZXX\V
T
YZ`VZT[X
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ ÂÙ‰˘ ˙¢˜· ÏÚ ‰·Â˘˙Ï ÔÓʉ ˜¯Ù ≤ ÁÂÏ
≤∞∞¥ ¨‰Ï˘ÓÓ‰ ˘‡¯ „¯˘ÓÏ
‰ÚÓÏ ‰˙Ó‰‰ ÔÓÊ Í˘Ó
˙ÂÈÙ‰ ¯ÙÒÓ
ÌÈÓÈ ¥ „Ú Ï˘ ÔÓÊ ˜¯Ù· ÂÚ˘ ˙ÂÈÙ
πµ
ÌÈÓÈ ∏ „Ú Ï˘ ÔÓÊ ˜¯Ù· ÂÚ˘ ˙ÂÈÙ
±∂
ÌÂÈ ≤± „Ú Ï˘ ÔÓÊ ˜¯Ù· ÂÚ˘ ˙ÂÈÙ
±µ
ÌÂÈ ¥∞ „Ú Ï˘ ÔÓÊ ˜¯Ù· ÂÚ˘ ˙ÂÈÙ
π
ÌÂÈ ∂µ „Ú Ï˘ ÔÓÊ ˜¯Ù· ÂÚ˘ ˙ÂÈÙ
≥
ÌÈÓÈ ∑∞ ¯Á‡Ï ‰˙Ú˘ ‰ÈÈÙ
±
ÌÈÓÈ ±∞∞–Ó ¯˙ÂÈ ¯Á‡Ï ÂÚ˘ ˙ÂÈÙ
¥
ÏÂΉ ÍÒ
±¥≥
www.pmo.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/EC2C655F-DDEA-4D31-8316-243E21 YZ_
F92082/0/pniyut2005.doc
V YZ`
∑∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
^XMs ZXX^ T
T_]Ms
]_MT
TZXX\YZaV
V^X
V
V
OTV
VO
T
V
kT
Ts
TT
V
T
T
V
cst
V
TYa^^T
V
tT
Ya_\Y[XV
TYXV
Y[YVZXs
TPunusual circumstancesQOO
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Hofesh/DochHamemuna YZa
Ava Barbour, ‘Ready…Aim…FOIA! A Survey of the Freedom of Information Y[X
Act in the Post 9/11 U.S.’, 13 B. U. Pub. Int. L. J., 2003–2004, pp. 205–206
Pub. L. No. 104–231, §8(b), 110 Stat. 3048, 3052 (codified as amended at Y[Y
5 U. S. C. §552(a)(6)(A)(i))
∑π
TV
bV
c
Y[ZVc
TYX
Y[[V
T
T
TT
Y[\V
ZXTZXXXT
V
TT
Vtt
V
T
T
Y[]VOO
T[XT
P[XsQ
T
Y[^V
Y[_VT
Tb
Tc
T
Tc
T
Q
5 U. S. C. §552(a)(6)(B)(iii) Y[Z
5 U. S. C. §552(a)(6)(B)(ii) Y[[
Walsh v. VA, No. 03-C-0225, slip op. at 3–4 (E. D. Wis. Feb. 10, 2004); McCall Y[\
v. United States Marshals Serv., 36 F. Supp. 2d 3, 5 (D.D.C. 1999)
Section 10(3) to the Freedom of Information Act Y[]
Section 10 to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Y[^
[RSBC 1996], Chapter 165
Section 15(5)(b) to the Australian Freedom of Information Act 1982 Y[_
∏∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
P
Tc
sPQ
V
Ú„ÈÓÏ ˙¢˜·· ÏÂÙÈˉ ˙¯‚‡ Æ≥
Y[`V
TJ `[ Y[aT
Qc
VJ\]TP
V
T
V
V
TV
T
Y\XV
T PQY`
b
V
O
VO
VVVOY`
OO
VO
bQ
VY` Y[`
cYaaasJ TPQ Y[a
VZXX]sJTPQ
VZXTaYOTY[JTT Y\X
∏±
TPOT
VPQ
Tb
TV
V
[XMZXX^
Y\YIsZXMT
T
V
T
TV
TTZXX]V
Q Y` T a`
VsPZXMs
V
VOO
V
T
Q
VP
V
T
V
VT
T
TV
T
V
http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Hofesh/DochHamemuna Y\Y
∏≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
V
T
tV
T
VO O V
VT
VT
T
TTV
V
T
VZXX\
TZXX\
V
TT
T
VT
V
VT
V
V
T
TV
Q
TP
Y\ZVPQ
T
VY^OT[JTT Y\Z
∏≥
Y\[V
T
Y\\V
QTZVY]M
VP
T
T
V
Y\]T V
VPvexatiousQOO
VT
TV
VT
V
T
Va\OTY[JTT Y\[
VZ Y\\
Section 14 to the English Freedom of Information Act 2001 Y\]
∏¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
˙¯˜Ú Ï˘ ˙Èίډ ‰ÚÓˉ‰
ÔÂËÏ˘‰ ˙ÂÈ¢¯ ·¯˜· Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁÏ Ú‚Â· ˙„‚ÂÓ ˙ÂÒÈÙ˙ È˙˘ Ʊ
˙ÈÂËÏ˘‰ ˙ÂÙȘ˘ÏÂ
t
t
VT
Q
TP
V
T
c
c
c
V
V
O O
TQ
VP
T
V
VT
VVVOcOOb
OcO
VO
g
g
b
g
∏
∏µ
VOOTg
TT
V
TJJO
VOT
O
TtVVV
Y\^VO
OT
VOOTO
b
TTO
VO
Ob
V
VVV
VVV
OVO
V TO
b
V
O
TOOVO
ObV
VV
T
VO
T
V
V
T Y\^
V
∏∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
QT
VP
TPQ
V
VT
T
T
V
TT
V
ÌÈÈÂËÏ˘ ÌÈ‚¯‡· ˙ÂÙȘ˘ Ï˘ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó Æ≤
Vc
V
\_MsV
T
V
[XM
V
VZXM
b
T
V
Ô‚¯‡· Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ˙ÚÓˉ Æ≥
˙ÈÏÏÎ ‰Ù˜˘‰ Ƈ
∏∑
eYQ_T
TcPe_T
V
TXVX]sp-valuect-test
OtXVYXsXVX^p-value
VO
P Q
T
V
c
V
T
V
T
V
b
g
\V_\Q
VP\VX[
TPp-valueeXVX_\]Q
T
V
OV
[VZ\[V]ZO
OO
V
OOTOOOO
VPQ[T
∏∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
˙Ó ÏÚ È„ ˙¢ÂÚ Ôȇ χ¯˘È ˙Ȅӷ ˙ÂÈ¢¯‰ß˘ „‚ȉ‰ ÈÙÏÎ ˙„ÓÚ ≥ ÁÂÏ
ßÚ„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÈÙ ÏÚ Ú„ÈÓ ˙Ï·˜Ï Â˙ÂÎÊ ˙‡ ÏÈÚÙ‰Ï ¯Â·Èˆ‰ ˙‡ „„ÂÚÏ
˙ÂÈÙˆ˙ ¯ÙÒÓ
ÚˆÂÓÓ
Ô˜˙ ˙ÈÈËÒ
ÌÈÂÓÓ‰
≤±
≥Ƶ≤
±Æ∑≤
ÌȄȘÙ˙‰ ÈÏÚ·
≥∑
≥Æ≤¥
±Æ≤±
T-Test p-value: 0.5140
O
TOTT
T
V
T
V\
˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁÏ È·ÓÂÙ ˙Â˙ ˙Âȯ·Ȉ‰ ˙ÂÈ¢¯‰ß˘ „‚ȉ‰ ÈÙÏÎ ˙„ÓÚ ¥ ÁÂÏ
߉ȇ¯‰ ‰„ÈÓ· ˯Ëȇ‰ ȯ˙‡·Â ˙ÂÂ˙ÈÚ· ¨Â· ˙ÂÓÈȘ‰ ˙ÂÈÂÎÊÏ ڄÈÓ‰
˙ÂÈÙˆ˙ ¯ÙÒÓ
ÚˆÂÓÓ
Ô˜˙ ˙ÈÈËÒ
ÌÈÂÓÓ‰
≤±
≥Æ∑∂
±Æ∑≥
ÌȄȘÙ˙‰ ÈÏÚ·
≥∑
¥Æ±¥
±Æ∂¥
T-Test p-value: 0.4253
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ÈÙÏÎ ˙È‚¯‡ ˙·ÈÂÁÓ Æ·
PQ
T
V
T
V
^XMT
\XMV
TV
∏π
TT
Vk
T
YYMb
OOV
][MT
[_MT
V
V
YYM V
_ZMsTT
V
TT
V
V
V
O]]M
TO
ZXMTZ]M
t
V
V
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ˘ÂÓÈÓ Í¯ÂˆÏ ÌÈ·‡˘Ó ˙‡ˆ˜‰ Æ‚
T
V
V
TT
V
π∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
^[M
[ZMVOO
V
T
V]M
O
`^MVsTO
^`MT
V
V
T
·Â¯ÈÒ‰ ˙˜Ó‰ ˙Â·È˘Á ˙¢˜·‰ ÈÓÚË ˙Â·È˘Á Æ„
‰˘˜·Ï
tV
Q
cP
t
Vs
T
V
P`^MQ
V
YYM
V
VT
T\]M
V]]M
Tt
t
V
P^XMQT
P^^MQ
π±
V
V
[]T
VOO
VT
Y\_V
`]MT
T
YXMV
]MV
V
ÌȯÁ‡ ÌÈÈ˙¯·Á ÌÈÒ¯Ëȇ ÏÂÓ Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ Ɖ
T
V
V
b
Tc
V
˙ÂÈ˯ÙÏ ˙ÂÎʉ ڄÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ®±©
O
VO
V
t
T
_XMs
V]T
ObPQ_ Y\_
VOc
π≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
ȉ˘ÏÎ ‰ÚȂ٠‰ÂÂ‰Ó ÂÈÂÏÈ‚˘ Ú„ÈÓ ˜ÙÒÏ ÔÈ‡ß „‚ȉ‰ ÈÙÏÎ ˙„ÓÚ µ ÁÂÏ
ß˙ÂÈ˯ٷ
ÔÂÎ
ÔÂÎ ‡Ï
Ú„ÂÈ ‡Ï
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
ÌÈÂÓÓ‰
±∑
∏π
±
µ
±
µ
ÌȄȘÙ˙‰ ÈÏÚ·
≤∂
∑∂
∂
±∏
≤
∂
Fisher's exact Test p-value: 0.5678
T
T
`\M V
`XMs
aXMsV
`\Ms`[MV
P Q
__MV
a\Ms
a[MsaXMV
Q
Tt
VP
a_Ms PYXXMQ
V
V
T
V
π≥
VTOO
T t PO OQ
[_MVt
cZ`Ms
[^Ms[ZM
V
[XMV
T
_[MV
V^T_]M
ÏÈ·Â‰Ï ÌÈÏÂÏÚ‰ ÌÈȘÒÚ ˙„ÂÒ Û¢ÁÏ ˙¢¯‰ ˙·ÂÁÏ ¯˘˜· ˙„ÓÚ ∂ ÁÂÏ
‰·È·Ò‰ ˙ÂÎȇ· ‰¯ÂÓÁ ‰ÚÈ‚ÙÏ
ÌÈÎÒÓ
˙ȘÏÁ ÌÈÎÒÓ
ÌÈÎÒÓ ‡Ï
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
ÌÈÂÓÓ‰
π
¥∑
µ
≤∂
µ
≤∂
ÌȄȘÙ˙‰ ÈÏÚ·
∏
≤≤
±π
µ≥
π
≤µ
T
V
V
T
Y\`V
VTYY
Y\`
π¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
‰È„Ó‰ ÔÂÁËÈ·Â Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ®≤©
T
OT
`aMVO
V
`XMs
V
T
``Msa^M
Q
VP
V
PQ
J
TPsQ
[aMV
Y`MV[[MT
VY^MT
T
V_
Ï¢‰ˆ ÈÎ ¯ÂÚÈ˘ ˙‡ ÌÒ¯ÙÏ ÔÂÁËÈ·‰ „¯˘Ó ˙·ÂÁÏ ¯˘˜· ˙„ÓÚ ∑ ÁÂÏ
Ï¢‰ˆ· ˙¢ ˙‚¯„ ÈÏÚ· ·¯˜·
ÌÈÎÒÓ
˙ȘÏÁ ÌÈÎÒÓ
ÌÈÎÒÓ ‡Ï
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
¯ÙÒÓ
ÊÂÁ‡
ÌÈÂÓÓ‰
∑
≥π
µ
≤∏
∂
≥≥
ÌȄȘÙ˙‰ ÈÏÚ·
∂
±∏
±≤
≥µ
±∂
¥∑
Fisher's exact Test p-value: 0.2799 ¨∂ ∫˙¯ÒÁ ˙ÂÈÙˆ˙
T
V
πµ
V
V
OOT
b
T
V
ÌÈÈÓÈÙ ÌÈÂÈ„ ÏÂÓ Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ®≥©
OV
Z]MsZ]MTO
Q]XMT
VP
\XMb
V
\[MsT
TT
O
\XMsT^XM VO
V
TP][MQ
VPY\MQ P[[MQ
]]M
\]MsTw
V
V
V
a\MsPYXXMQb
a]M V
T
V
π∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
TOO
TO
VO
OV
VOT
T
V
O b
VT
V
TVVVg
VOtV
Ob
VOV
g
Ob
TVV
VOTV
T
ZYMs]`MTV
T
`[MVP[YMs]_MQ
T
T
V
V[ZMs\YM
O T
TO
ZXMsZZMb
π∑
]YM_ZMT
V
V
Y\aV
VTa Y\a
π∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ ˙¯È˙Ú
ÌÈÈ˙ÂÓÎ ÌÈ˷ȉ ≠ ËÙ˘Ó‰ È˙··
‡Â·Ó Ʊ
TPY_QT
VZXX]T
c
VT
T
V
V
V
TT
Y]XTVT
T
T
T
V
V
Y]YT
VVVV
Y]ZT
V
T
VT
VPQOJY[YZWXYJ Y]X
QJOJ
VVVV`YZZWXXPsQJ Y]Y
VPYZVZVZXX[T
VYa_^sJTPZQPQY\Z Y]Z
V
YY[
π
ππ
V
TZXX^
VYYa
T
YXT_Xs^X
V
TT
V
VT
T
T
V
Tt
c
V
c
Ts
V
c
V
V
˙¯È˙Ú‰ ¯ÙÒÓ Æ≤
T\
TV
VY][TZXXYYaa_
V Z^ ZXXZ
VYXZXX]T
VTYaaa
Yaa_T Y][
QV
TTP
VPQ
±∞∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
#
TYaaa
V
VP]Q
VYa`Z
T
V
sT
TT
V
TPZXX\YV\MQ
T
TT
V
T
V
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Űôޝ ÿ¼¹
ÌÈ˘ ÈÙÏ ¨Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ Â˘‚‰˘ ˙¯È˙Ú‰ ¯ÙÒÓ ÁÂ˙È ¥ ÌÈ˘¯˙
±∞±
T
T
T
VOO
T
V
˙¯È˙Ú‰ Ï˘ ‰Áψ‰‰ ȯÂÚÈ˘ Æ≥
PQ
V
T V T
T
TV
T
V V
T
VYOTYZ\JTAnnual Report 2004–2005 Y]\
200
310
171
80
101
73 68 74 78
129 113 118 117 122 140
109
150
99 118
158 142
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-2000
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
267
Űôޝ ÿ¼¹
¨‰ÈϯËÒ‡· Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘ÙÂÁ ˜ÂÁ ÁÂÎÓ Â˘‚‰˘ ˙¯È˙Ú‰ ¯ÙÒÓ ÁÂ˙È µ ÌÈ˘¯˙
Y]\®Ì˘ ˜ÂÁ‰ ˙˜È˜Á „ÚÂÓ ¨±π∏≤ ˙˘ ʇө ÌÈ˘ ÈÙÏ
±∞≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
tOOt
T
V
T
V
Tb
V
V^
T
T
TV
b
Y]]VPQ
VTT
VY]MsT
V[aMs
V
TPY]MQ
VT]\M
T
Y]^V^[M
Y]_V\`MT
b
t
V
V\\Y[OT[]JTJ Y]]
www.usdoj.gov/oip/05decisions.htmbPZXX]Q Y]^
bT Y]_
www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341
DBE097801FF)~table15.htm/$file/table15.htm
TZXX`VZXX_
Q
PV
±∞≥
TV
V
V
T_
V
TV
tb
V
tZXXZ
QT
__MQZXXZVP
TP
TT
V
TT
T V
T
V
ÔÈ„ ȘÒÙ ˙‡ˆÂ˙ ÁÂÏÈÙ ∂ ÌÈ˘¯˙
46% ,¯´´²®
39% ,¯·¬Â
15% ,Ŵ·² ¯·¬Â
±∞¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
ËÙ˘Ó ˙‡ˆÂ‰ Æ¥
VT
VTT
w`
TOOOOTb
Tc
TTOO
V
V
YaMsPOOQT
QV
TPTT
T`XMs
VZXMs
`MsV
Z]MsT
VPOOQ
ÌÈ˘ ÈÙÏ ¨˙¯È˙Ú Ï˘ ˙ȘÏÁ ‰Ï·˜Â ‰Ï·˜ ¨‰ÈÈÁ„ ÁÂÏÈÙ ∑ ÌÈ˘¯˙
1
1
3
9
11
6
10
5
7
1
2
7
6
16
6
6
1
1
1
2
4
2
6
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
¯ ´²®
¯·¬Â
Ŵ·² ¯·¬Â
´
Űôޝ ÿ¼¹
±∞µ
V
V
b
T
V
V
V
‰¯È˙Ú‰ ȇ˘ÂÓ Ìȯ˙ÂÚ‰ ˙‰ÈÓ Æµ
T
Y]`V
TO
Y\`XWX[P QJ Y]`
VaZ_aTaZ_^TP[QZXX[s
ÔÈ„‰ ˜ÒÙ ˙‡ˆÂ˙ ÈÙÏ ËÙ˘Ó ˙‡ˆÂ‰ ÁÂÏÈÙ ∏ ÌÈ˘¯˙
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
¯´´²®
¯·¬Â
Ŵ·² ¯·¬Â
6 ,®Á ·¶
(60%)
2 ,¬´Ä¹
(20%)
2 ,ÃŰ½
(20%)
6 ,®Á ·¶
(19%)
25 ,¬´Ä¹
(81%)
9 ,®Á ·¶
(25%)
3 ,¬´Ä¹
(8%)
24 ,ÃŰ½
(67%)
Űôޝ ÿ¼¹
±∞∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
V
T
V
Vb
V
QT
VPT
VT
T
`a Y]aT
T
TT
V
V
TT
Y^XTO
T
V
V
bT
QV
TPT
V
Y^YV
VPQO OYZ\ZWXYJ Y]a
TtOOYX\\WX[PJQJ Y^X
VPQ
J
Y^Y
J O YZ]^WXY PJQ J
ObJ
TVs
V
V
±∞∑
VY^Z
T
T
V
T
QTb
VTTP
Tk
tV
cT
T
V
Q`ZT_\M
TZ^M
VTP
VTZ`
V
c
TTV
V
V
QV
T
PV
T
V
T
ZXMb
aMbV
Y^[V
VVV
VO
tOJY\Y^WX\PJQJ Y^Z
VPQ
TT Y^[
V
T
±∞∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
Tt
tt
OV
VVV
T O
Y^\VO
TsTTVVV
VVV
V
T
Y^]VO
T
V
V
b
Q
VPOO
V
T
V
TVT
T
TP^QY^^V
V
T
T
V
T
]`MQ
VP]\MT
V[a_OTYaa_s
JT Y^\
VZ_O T\]JT
T Y^]
Paul B. Tetro, ‘Freedom of Information in Canada: An Undiscovered Y^^
Resource’, Intl. Legal Prac. 15(3) (1990) 83
±∞π
T
TV
T
V
T
T V t
V
ÌÈ·È˘Ó‰ ˙‰ÈÓ Æ∂
TYXsaT
TV
Q
V\ZMTVP
TQ
VY_MtT[]MtPO
T
T
PQV
VV
V
T
V
Q
tP
T
V
VT
T
V
±±∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
T
V
QT
V
P
V
[MT\
T
V
V
T
TV
V
T
V
YYQPaQ
VP
V
Vs
T
V
T
TOOV
TV
T
V
T
VVOO
±±±
Y^_V
V
VT
TT
V
VOO
T
V
OOT
TY^`V
V
V
t O VV t [\\WXY PsQ J Y^_
VPVVbQPQ
VVtOtY`Z]WXZJ Y^`
VPVVbQ
Ô‚¯Â‡ ÈÙÏ ·È˘Ó π ÌÈ˘¯˙
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
´Ã°¬´Á
¯´´»¬° º°»¶Å
Å®½°
´Ã°³°³³¼
®´«Å
Å´¹°Â¹ ŰÄÃ
ŰÄÃ
´Å·Ä¹¹
(1%) 1
(2%) 2
(4%) 4
(16%) 17
(35%) 37
(42%) 44
±±≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
]]Mt
TV
T
V
V
T
V
OO
V
b
T
TTb
V
˙¯È˙Ú‰ ¯ÙÒÓ ÈÙÏ ¨‰˘Ó ˙„ÈÁÈÏ ÌÈ·È˘Ó ˙˜ÂÏÁ ±∞ ÌÈ˘¯˙
½¬Ä ë¬
´¹°«· ²°³´¬
¯¿´²
¯»´®¹¯ ì¹
"·¹
¼¹
¯¼»¶¯ ¼¹
¾¼°¹ µÃ½ ¼¹
¯Ã³Ä¹
Ű³´·Âÿ
¯¿°½Å¯ Ű®Ä
Űô´Å
¸´³¿Ä¹
¯¬´¬¼¯ ۶´«
¸´»¿
ï°¼¯ ´Å¬
¼´¿¯ ·½¿¹
º°²³´¬
ÃÁ°«
¸´³¿Ä¹
Ű«´Ã¬
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
6
6
11
Ã
Ä«
¯·Ä¹¹¯
·¯»´¹
·«ÃÄ´ ´½Âù
Űôޝ ÿ¼¹
±±≥
ÌÈÙÒ ÌÈ˷ȉ Æ∑
T
VV
TV
V
V
V
ZYMTZ[bTU
TV
TU
_\sV\st
VT
VTT
TV
V
Y^aV
V
T
cZ]
tc]]TU
cY\
TQV\
Y_XV
P
T P Q
Q
V
Q
TP
T
V\]XOTa`JTT Y^a
V Y_X
tT
Q
c
V
VP
T
T
b PZXX\ Q
V
www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/cw_usr_view_SHTML?ID=629
±±¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TZV_
TPYYsY
T
Y_YV
TPQ YY V
VP\`MQ
Q
P[[MQ
YXMVP
t
J_MV
VZMs
TT
T
T
V
T
T
Y_Y
T TY\ Q ZXXXsJ
VPYa`\sJ
ËÙ˘Ó È˙· ÈÙÏ ÁÂÏÈÙ ±± ÌÈ˘¯˙
7% ,À"¬
10% ,º°´·½
2% ,¯®°¬½
48% ,´·¯» ¹
33% ,´±°²¹
´
±±µ
Y_ZVJ
T b
Tc
TcOOT
t
V
V
^VJ Y_Z
T T O b
TT
T
TTT
VO
J
t
T
V
±±∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
ÌÈÒ¯Ëȇ ڄÈÓ ˘ÙÂÁÏ ˙ÂÎʉ
ÌȯÁ‡ ÌÈÈ˙¯·Á
The struggle for information is, first and last, a struggle
for accountability
T T
Y_[V
‰·ÂÁ‰Â Ú„ÈÓ ˙¯ÈÒÓÓ ÚÓÈ‰Ï ˙¢¯‰ Ʊ
Â˙¯ÈÒÓÓ ÚÓȉÏ
Va
t
PYQb
T T
PZQ c
TT
P[QcT
TYa`YsJTT
P\Qc
V
V
`Qas`
a T
VP
OTT
VO
Jeremy Pope, ‘Access to Information: Whose Right and Whose Information’, Y_[
in Global Corruption Report 2003, p. 8
±∞
±±∑
TY_]V
Y_\T
VT
V
Y_^T
Y__V
ObV
Ts
Y_`VO
g
PQcPQb
Q
cPQcP
PQ
Y_aV
Y`XVT
T
V
V
b
^TbsTTTO Y_\
JTT
PTbQ
VYYTZT\a
TP]QJTOYY]ZWaYJ Y_]
TP\QJTOO[[]W`ZJc[Ys[XT`
OO[^JZ`]]WX[Jc_`]
V[a]TPZQZXX\sTO
Q\^s\]TZaTP[Q
JTOO\s
Za_W`ZJ Y_^
VP
TP[QZXXXsTOOZsZ[\\Wa`J Y__
VZa__TZa]`
T\X\TP]Q
JTO[Xa\Wa[J Y_`
V\ZZs\ZY
`Y_P]QJTOJVVV
^]_^WXYJ Y_a
V`Z[TPJbQ
PYaa`QZXXYYYYaWX]PQJ Y`X
V\_ZZT\_Y`TPYQZXX]sTOOJ
±±∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
T
T
VVVOO
TVV
T
V
T
V
V
VVV
TT
Y`YV
ga`
gT
T
s`V
t Y`Z
tat
V
V
OT`V
TO
T
TV
T
V
V
V`Z\OTY_aJTJ Y`Y
VY^]OT\]JT
T Y`Z
±±π
TaT
V s
OYaT
T
VO
T
V
T
VOOOO
T
Q
VTP
OO
OOT
T
V
V
O O O T
Tbas`O
TOtO
T
VTPQ
T
TTt
V
t T
TY`[V
aOT
Y`[
V
V
V
V
VT
TOT
V\\Y\OT[]JTJ
JTJPQ
V`Z[s`ZZOTY_a
±≤∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Y`\T
T
V
V
J
V
TP
Q
Y`]VOO
T
V
T
T
Y`^VT
bTas`
T
t
VOT
VT
Q
T
T
VPOO
T
T
TV
V
TT
V
VYZ[OTY^_JTVV Y`\
bQPQOaY[]WX[J Y`]
VP
Maislin Ind. Ltd. v. Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce [1984], 1 Y`^
VFCR 939, p. 43
Reporters CommitteeV
DOJ v. ReportersVPTRap Sheets
Q
Comm. for Free Press, 489 U. S. 749 (1989)
±≤±
OOOOTOOb
Y`_V
T b
t
tY``T
V
TTV
T V
T
V
V
T
bY`aV
O
VVVT
VVV
YaXVO
bT
V
V T
TT
VTT
VPQasPQaT` Y`_
OO b Y``
V
tT
V
TV
V
T
TcYYOT[JTT Y`a
OVY_[OT\]J
VO
V\X\TZ^[XJTYaa_s
JT YaX
±≤≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
tTT
V
Q
T
VP
b
V
TT
YaYV
VT
V
T
V
T
T
V
b
T
V
T
TOO
V
V
V
TTO
YaZVO
V
TPYQZXX[sTJOZYZWX[J YaY
T`_YTPZQ
JTOJOO _[W][JcZa[TZ`_
V`__s`_^
VYXXOTYaJTT YaZ
±≤≥
Ya[T
OO
VT
OO
V
Ya\V
O V
PNon-SequiturQ
O
OOTV
T
V
Oba
Ya]VO
T V
Tc
V
VOOT
OYXT
TTas`T
OVVVT
TaaV
aTsYX
V
Ta
TV
T
T
TTV
T\V
VYZXOTY^`JTVV Ya[
VYZZOT Ya\
c^TTY_\JTT Ya]
VYYTZT\aJTT
±≤¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TOO
TYa^V
TTPDe NovoQ
TVtt
T
T
V
T
TV
V
V
V
T
Ya_V
T
VT
J
J
TJ
V
TQ
VP
V
VT
O O
Ya`T
V
TT
V
T
TT Ya^
V]ZXTYaXOT\]J
QZcYa`ZsJTP
Q
Q_cZXXZsJTP
VcYa^^s
JTP
VZZ^OTY_\JT Ya_
VY_[OT\]JT
TT Ya`
±≤µ
T
TV
TT
V
TPPZQasPYQaQ
YaaV
ZXXV
VPQ
POOQ\
TV
V
OT
ZXYVOT
ÔÂÊȇ‰ ÍÈω ≠ ±∞ ÛÈÚÒ Æ≤
VYX
b
t
Tas`T
T
TTT
VYYT Yaa
O__\`WaaJcY`XOT\]JT
T ZXX
OT
V
PQ
VYXasYX^TYX]TPJQYTO
b
TYa__s
JYY_VY`aOT ZXY
TTObT
TT
TTT
VOtT
±≤∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
VT
PQ b V
PQc
PQc
PQc
T
VT
g
T
V
V
˙¯ÈÒÓÓ ÚÓȉϩ ‰·ÂÁ ÈÙÈÚÒ ÏÂÓ ¯ÂËÙ ÈÙÈÚÒ Æ‡
®Ú„ÈÓ
YX
TVas`
Qb
ccP
Q
TVP
V
V Ta
T
VYX
t
Ta
T
VT
T
YX
T
V
±≤∑
T
PYQ`T
V
T
tV
TVT
T
V
ÔÂÊȇ‰ ·Ï˘ Æ·
TYX
TTV
TV
T
V
VTs
TT
c
TZXZV
T
ZX[T
VTT
ÔÂÊȇ‰ ͯÚÈÈ Ì‰·˘ Ìȯ˜Ó‰ Æ‚
O
gO
g
T
VPOOQ
T
V]a ZXZ
V[a ZX[
±≤∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
ZX\V
O
VOVVVT
TTa
V
V
Ú„ÈÓ‰ ˘˜·Ó Ï˘ ÂÈÈÚ ˙ÏȘ˘ Æ„
TPQ_s Y
T
V
V
T
V
T
T
V
T
T
ZX]V
YX V
s
tTtb
V
T
V
T
V
T
T
T
Vt
T
V
V
bQ]Y^TPZQJTOY\YZWa\J ZX\
V]Z\P
sTOOJY\[]WXZPQJ ZX]
V\_]^T\_][TPYQZXX[
±≤π
TPQYX
ZX^V
T
T
T
V
VT
T
T
V
ObT
ZX_VO
TT
V
s
V
T
V
T
T
V
VsT
t
TTO
VVV
^V
ZX^
O YaaasJ TPQ
\TT
QPY\QZ
VO
TYaaasJTP
TOT
VO
sTO
OZ[XWXZPQJ ZX_
VcYZ_Z_TYZ_ZXTPZQZXX[
T
V
±≥∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TOT
V
V
Q
T
T
TTP
VT
V
T
ÛÈÚÒ ≠ ˘„ÂÁÓ ÔÂÈÚÏ ËÙ˘Ó‰ ˙È· ˙ÂÎÓÒ Æ≥
®„©±∑
bPQY_
Ta
TT
T
V
V
T
ZX`VOO
V
V
VZXaT
T
ZYXVV
P. Nick, ‘De Novo Review in Reverse Freedom of Information Act Suits’, ZX`
Ohio St. L. J. 50 (1989) 1307, p. 1319
V`[ZT`Y_TP\QJTOYY^[Wa`J ZXa
TP[QZXX[sTOYaa[WX[J ZYX
O Z][[Wa_ J cYaaXsYa`` TYa`Z
V]`s]_T\^TP[QJT
±≥±
t
t Q
TPDe Novo
ZYYT
V
ZY[VZYZT
T
V
T
V
V
T
Ob
PQY_V
TT
VOVVV
V
T
V
VVVObV
VOVVV
T
V
T
V
ZY\V
TVVcZ[T ZYY
VZXTY^`J
Q P Q O
YYXWXX POQ J ZYZ
TDe Novo
VPReview
VPQJOYZ\]WXYPJQJ ZY[
QOZa]WXYPsQJ
VY^_JTVVVPbQP
VZ]ZsZ]YOT\]JT
T ZY\
±≥≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
TTYX
PQY_ZY]V
TPQO
T
VO
V
g
g
V
V
T
V
T
V
T
ZY^V
T
VY\TY^_JTVV ZY]
5 U.S.C.S. 552(a)4)(b): ‘On complaint, the District Court of the United States ZY^
in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place
of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District
of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency
records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld
from the complainant. In such a case, the court shall determine the matter de
novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to
determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld’
T
TO
TT
T
V
TDe Novo
VO
±≥≥
ZY_VPReverse FOIAQ
ZY`V
ZYaV
T
T
ZZXV
T
V
V
V
T
VZX`JTNick, ‘De Novo Review’ ZY_
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 318 ZY`
V`[U`ZOTY^^JTTetro, ‘Freedom of Information in Canada’ ZYa
VZX\UZX[OT[\JTBayne, Freedom of Information ZZX
±≥¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
¯ÂËÙ‰ ÈÙÈÚÒ ÁÂ˙È
V
TTT
V
t
T
VP\Q
Tb
c
TTV
VT
ÌȈÂÙ ¯ÂËÙ ÈÙÈÚÒ Æ±
VYZ
T
TV
V
TYV
VP
Q
VOOa
TZZYT
P
Q
VPTZQY
T
V
VPQOJYY\aWXZPJQJ ZZY
±±
±≥µ
TT
V
T
TV
T
Y[V
V
¨˙Âȯ·Ȉ ˙ÂÈ¢¯ È„·ÂÚ ÔÈ· ˙ÂÈÓÈÙ ˙ÂȈÚÈÈ˙‰ Ï˘ ˙ÂÓ¢¯˙ ¨ÌÈÈÓÈÙ ÌÈÂÈ„ ¯·„· Ú„ÈÓ ∫®¥©·π ÛÈÚÒ
¨‰ˆÏÓ‰ ‡ ‰ˆÚ ¨‰ËÂÈË ¨˙Ú„ ˙ÂÂÁ ÔΠ¨ÈÓÈÙ ¯È˜Á˙ ˙¯‚ÒÓ· ¯Ӈ˘ Ìȯ·„ Ï˘ ‡ ¨Ô‰ÈˆÚÂÈ Â‡ ԉȯ·Á
ÆÔÈ„· ˙ÂÚ·˜‰ ˙ÂȈÚÈÈ˙‰ ËÚÓÏ ¨‰ËÏÁ‰ ˙Ï·˜ Í¯ÂˆÏ Â˙È˘
˙¯È˙Ú‰ ¯ÙÒÓ ÈÙÏ ¨¯ÂËÙ ÈÙÈÚÒ ÁÂÏÈÙ ±≤ ÌÈ˘¯˙
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
9
¬
9
¬
9
«
9
¬
20
1
2
13
9
«
8)1(
14
«
17
«
9
«
7
17
7
¯
2)4(
9
«
14
8)2(
10
7
¬
8)5(
Űôޝ ÿ¼¹
Åò« ŰÄà ´®´¬ ½®´¹
¬Å¶¬ ¯Ä¬ Å´´²®
½¬Ä ´»¿·¹ ½®´¹
¸´»Ä
𳿠´¿°
Ű´³Ã¿
Åð´¬
¯»´®¹¯
½®´¹¯ ®°¬´½
®Á Ű®»Å¯
Åį
¬Å¶¬ ¯Ä¬
À°² ´¼²´° º°²³ ¬
Å´»´´»½ ۶¹¼
¯Ã´Â² ´¿° ð³¿
¯Ã´¬¼
¸´¬«Ä¹ Å«Á¯
·¶ ´¿· º°´¼ ²
º´®
Ű´³Ã¿
®Á
Ŵð¬´Á ŰÄÃ
²Ã±«
/
¬Ä°Å
¸´»´® Åô¹Ä
ŰÄï Å·°½¿ ݬ´Ä
Ű´³Ã¿¬ ¯½´¿
´½°Á¹ ®°¼
¸´´¹´»¿ ¸´»°´®
´
´
·
«
Å·½¿¯
ŰÄï ·Ä Ž® ·°Â´Ä
)3(
)1(
)8(
)4(
)6(
)3(
)1(
)4(
±≥∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T_T
_VZs]T^
^ZZZV
(7) ‘records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but ZZZ
only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial
adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the
identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency
or authority or any private institution, which furnished information on a
confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a
criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or
by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation,
information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques
and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would
disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such
disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or
0.003%
0.105%
28.965%
23.905%
21.175%
2.455%
5.540%
16.645%
1.207%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
¬´
À°² ´¼²´° º°²³ .1
¸´´¹´»¿ ¸´·¯» .2
²« º´® ´¿· ð³¿
Ã
.3
ò¼¹ Ű®°¼ .4
´¹´»¿ ½®´¹ .5
Ű´³Ã¿¬ ¯½´¿ .6
°² Å¿´¶« .7
¸´´¼»»´¿ ²°Â´¿ Ű²°® .8
°Ã«¬ ´¹°Â´¹
Å
.9
˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡· ¯ÂËÙ‰ ÈÙÈÚÒ ˙ÂÁÈ΢ ±≥ ÌÈ˘¯˙
±≥∑
ZZ\cs]ZZ[c
TZ
ZZ]V
T
TV
V
V
T
T
V
VT
T
V
(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of
any individual’
TP_Q
PQcPQb
PQc
T
PQc
TT
T
T
TPQc
TT
PQc
V
(6) ‘personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which ZZ[
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy’
TP^Q
V
(5) ‘inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters, which would ZZ\
not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the
agency’
TP]Q
V
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency ZZ]
PZQ
±≥∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
ÈÓÈÙ Ú„ÈÓ ≠ ®¥©·π ÛÈÚÒ Æ≤
V
Y[c[_MTYXcZ_s
VPY]MQ\scP\`MQ
b
TV^[M
b
VVV
TP\Q
T T
TTT
TT
V
O
ZZ^VOT
b
T
V
TV
T
ZZ_V
T
TV
VT
T
V
VZXYOT\]JT
T ZZ^
V\X\TZ^[XJTYaa_s
JT ZZ_
±≥π
T
V
V
tt
VT
V
b
T
TV
V
tTT
V
t
T
g
g
T
V
V
g
b
g
TT
V
T
TOOV
V
T
V
VOO
t
V
bt
±¥∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Tg
g
T
T V
V
V
T
OTV
T T
ZZ`VO
TV
V
T
TZZaTT
T
TV
Z[XT
V
PNLRBQ
V
b
c
c
T
V
T
V
VZX`OT\]JT
T ZZ`
T ZZa
V
National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 Z[X
VY^XOT(1975)
±¥±
T
V
TTT
TQ
Z[YVP
T
T
T
Q
VP
t
t
V
t
t
V
VOO
TTT
V
TV
OO
gPQ
gOO
V
T
T
V
TT
Z[Y
VT
T
V
±¥≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
Ts
T
c
TV
V
T
Tc
QTT
VP
T
V
bT
T
c
VT
T
Z[ZV
TP
TQ
VT
tT
Z[[Vt
T
c
V
V
T
T
V
VOO
T
VZXZOT\]JT
T Z[Z
VaOTY`]JT Z[[
±¥≥
V
V
T
QTZ[\V
VTP
V
T
VT
T
V
T
V
V
TT
T
V
b
Z[]g
T
V
Z[^VT
Tt
Vt
TT
tT
Z[_V
T
V
T
VYaOT[JTT Z[\
V\]]OTa`JTT Z[]
V
Z[^
Z[_
_Y_XWX[PJQJT
VPQO
±¥¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
PaccountabilityQV
V
V
Z[`VOO
T
V
T
V
OOV
V
TT
TPQY_
Z[a
De Novo
Z\XV
VTJYXTXXXT
t
bt
TT
V
TT
T
sTOY^[]WXXPQJ Z[`
VPQY_`^TP[QZXXY
TDe Novo Z[a
TVVT
VY^_J
TaObPQY_ Z\X
TT
T
VO
±¥µ
T
VVV
TT
T
T
T
T
Z\YV
O
T Z\ZTO
V
OOV
TTT
TV
VVVOT
VVVT
VO
sTOO
Z\[V
s
T
T
V
V
T
V a
T
V`TZ[`JT Z\Y
V Z\Z
V Z\[
±¥∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Q
Z\\VPT
TT
V
OTb
VVVT
TTO
V
OOT
V
O O T T T
OTOO
VO
T
VPQ
Q
TOOP
TO
Z\]VOVVV
V
T
VT
T
T
tt
V
t
V
b[]JTJ
Z\\
O
V]Z\TZX\JTTOJJ
VY_Y\TZ[`JT Z\]
±¥∑
Z\^V
TTT
V
J
T
Vs
VV
TV
Q
P
VT
Tb
V
T
T
V
T
TVT
T
T
TVT
T
tt
V
Z\_VTT
PJQ
V T
VJ
sT
JV
tOYY]XWXXPsQJ Z\^
VPQ
O t \`aWX\ PQ J Z\_
V]]\ZTP[QZXX\sTO
±¥∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
JT
V
T J T T
tt
J V J
JV
VJT
VJT
b
T
V
T
TJ
V
T
TTZ\`V
T
T
TV
V
JTT
JZ\aV
TP\Qa
T
Tc
V
TJcY]T Z\`
VP[QZXX[OT[]J
VY`]JT Z\a
±¥π
P\Qa
T
VTV
T
V
V
T
T
V
TP
Q
bV
t
t
g
g
T
g
V
T
V
TZ]XV
VT
T
V
T
V
PNovo DeQ
V
T
c
VT
TYX
Z]X
V
±µ∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
V
V
TP\Qa
TT
V
T P\Qa T
T
V
TT
V
PQb
T
PQV
VT
T
T
PQV
c
VTT
‰ÂÂ˘Ó ËÙ˘Ó Æ≥
TT
Z]YV
TssO
VO
This section does not apply to matters that are [...] inter-
agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters, which
V5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5) (2000) Z]Y
www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption5.htmb
±µ±
would not be available by law to a party other than an
agency in litigation with the agency.
TOO
VTOO
Vt
TT
T
Z]ZV
PQ b OO
PQ c
V
V
TT
Z][V
TV
T
V
T
tt
TTV
V
V T
Z]\V
T
Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 360; Judicial Watch, Inc. Z]Z
v. Clinton 880 F. Supp. 1, 13 (D.D.C. 1995); AGS Computers, Inc. v. United
VStates Dept. of Treasury, No. 92–2714, slip op. at 13 (D.N.J., Sept. 16 1993)
PZ[XJQT
V
VZ[XJT Z][
EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 91 (1973); Natl. Wildlife, 861 F. 2d at 1118; Wu v. Z]\
National Endowment for Humanities, 460 F. 2d 363 (2d. Cir. 1971)
±µ≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
Z]]V
TOsO
T
Q s
T
Z]^VP
T
Z]_VT
T
PQ
Z]`V
T
T
TOpen Meetings ActsQPQ
VPGovernment in the Sunshine Acts
T
TTV
Z]aV
bV
(2) Information to which this section applies is exempt
information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified
person, disclosure of the information under this Act –
[…]
[Author name not specified], ‘The Freedom of Information Act and the Z]]
Exemption for Intra-Agency Memoranda’, Harv. L. Rev. 86 (1972–1993)
1053
Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn., 532 U.S. Z]^
1 (2001Q
Ryan v. Department of Justice, 617 F. 2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Z]_
Dow Jones & Co. v. Department of Justice, 917 F. 2d 571, 574–575 (D.C. Cir. Z]`
1990)
29 Del. C. §10004(f). Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. 87–284, 86–316. O.C.G.A. Z]a
§50-14-1(e)(2), 5 ILCS 120/ 2.06(b)
±µ≥
(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit-
(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or
(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the
purposes of deliberation, or
(c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise
to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.Z^X
T
PQ
V
‘would be likelyQ T
Potherwise to prejudice’
V
T
V
V
T
Z^YVPlikelyQ
PQbOO
PQcT
s PQ c
PQc
PQ c
Section 36 to the U.K Freedom of Information Act 2000, Chapter 36 Z^X
O_[W][Jlikely Z^Y
V`_YTPZQ
JTOJO
±µ¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Z^ZV
V
TV
TZ^[V^X
b
tc
t
T
TTT
TZ^\V
Regarding Murtagh and Commissioner of Taxation (1984), 1 AAR 419, at Z^Z
178
Section 20 to the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Z^[
Act [RSBC 1996], Chapter 165
Section 13 to the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Z^\
Act [RSBC 1996], Chap. 165, states that: ‘(1) The head of a public body
may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice
or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister. (2) The
head of a public body must not refuse to disclose under subsection (1): (a)
any factual material, (b) a public opinion poll, (c) a statistical survey, (d) an
appraisal, (e) an economic forecast, (f) an environmental impact statement
or similar information, (g) a final report or final audit on the performance
or efficiency of a public body or on any of its programs or policies, (h) a
consumer test report or a report of a test carried out on a product to test
equipment of the public body, (i) a feasibility or technical study, including a
cost estimate, relating to a policy or project of the public body, (j) a report on
the results of field research undertaken before a policy proposal is formulated,
(k) a report of a task force, committee, council or similar body that has been
established to consider any matter and make reports or recommendations to
a public body, (l) a plan or proposal to establish a new program or to change
a program, if the plan or proposal has been approved or rejected by the head
of the public body, (m) information that the head of the public body has cited
publicly as the basis for making a decision or formulating a policy, or (n) a
decision, including reasons, that is made in the exercise of a discretionary
power or an adjudicative function and that affects the rights of the applicant’
PYQ
PZQc
PQ T PQ T PQ bPYQ s
PQ T
PQ T PQ T
P
QT
PQT
PQT
T
T
±µµ
V
T
Tb
V
VT
Z^]TT
c
TTZ^^V
T
T
PQ
T
V
ÌÈȯÁÒÓ ˙„ÂÒ ≠ ®∂©·π ÛÈÚÒ Æ¥
bP^Qa
b
VVV
P^Q
T
T
PQTPQT
TT
PQT
TT
PQ
TTPQT
V
Solar Sources, Inc. v. United States, 142 F. 3 d 1033, 1037: Z^]
‘A government agency bears the burden of justifying a decision to withhold
requested information pursuant to a FOIA exemption’
V
V
Z^^
±µ∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
tc
cTTPQ
VTTPQ
tt
V
\]MT
[[M
VZZMs
T
T
V
V
VT
ø„ÂÒ Â‰Ó Æ‡
bT
TQ
T
VP T
b
T
V
V s
VPQ
V
Tss
V
T
TOOO
TT
TZ^_VO
OOOOT
V
b
VaX[OTYa__s
JTbTTTs Z^_
±µ∑
TT
bT
J
PQ
t Pknow-howQ O O T
T T T T T
TT
TPQt
VTTT
TT
TbQ
TPbQP
b
t
Z^`V
T
T
V
Tt
t
V
TT
Z^aV
OOTT
V
bT]TT
YY\aWXZPJQJTZ^TOOTO Z^`
VPcQTOJ
cP[Q\\TPQYa]`sJTb Z^a
c\a^TYa__s
JT
OTZ[]T
T
T
cOT
TP]Q[TYa]`sJTPQ
Vc
±µ∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TTtOOTOO
T
T
V
T
ObV
OOVO
T
T
TOOZ_XV
OOTT
VOO
OOb
V
TT
V
T
V
T
T
V
T
TVT
T
V
cT
T
VT
V
T
T
V\^[OTZXXZTbsTTO Z_X
±µπ
V
T
TV
T
T
c
T
c
V
TT
TV
V
TOO
VO O
TOO
V
T
V
ø„ÂÒ‰ ÏÚ· ‰ÈÓ Æ·
VT
TT
TVPQ
TV
TT
V
Z_YV
O
O
VO
TTO
T
V
VZYXOT\]JT
T Z_Y
±∂∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TTc
VT
TT
T
Ts
V
Z_ZV
b
tOOOO
V
VTOO
V
T
V
TTc
V
T
T
t
V
J
VPQ
T V
Q
VP
T
V
TT
t
Vt
OJPYaa`QZXXYYYYaWX]PJQJ Z_Z
VPbQPQ
±∂±
sZ_[
T
V
bT
t
TT
T
V
YX
Z_\V
VVVOt
tZ_]OT
VPQ
¯Á‡ Ú„ÈÓ Æ‚
O
OTO
VOT
V
V
ø˙È˘ÓÓ‰ ‰ÚȂى ˙˘È¯„ ˙ÒÁÈÈ˙Ó ‰ÓÏ Æ„
ttT
VT
VVVO Z_[
J J
VaTTO
T
ObYX Z_\
TTTas`
T
T
VOT
VYXTZ_ZJT Z_]
±∂≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
bT
OOT
T
c
TT
VT
V
VT
Z_^VOO
OO
V
V
˙ÂÈ„ÂÒ ÏÚ ‡ÏÏÎÓ ¯Â˙ȉ ˙ÈȈ˜Â¯ËÒ˜ Ɖ
VOOOO
Z__V
Z_`TT
V
VPQ
T
TTV
TV
V T T
T
VT
Vt
TT
T
TTT Z_^
VZYXsZXaOT\]JT
TV
Y``XWX\VY_aJTJ Z__
VYXOTPQJO
VYTYZ
Z_`
±∂≥
Z_aV
V
V
b
T
t
t
V
TT
Z`XV
T
VVV
V
TO
T
TT
TVZ`YVO
TT
T
VOO
T
V
V
VT
VttT
PQZYV`ZZs`ZYOTY_aJTJ Z_a
V
V Z`X
ZZTY^`JTVV Z`Y
VPQ
V
±∂¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TV
T
V
T
VTc
V
V
˙ÂÈ˯ى ˙‚‰ ≠ ®≥©‡π ÛÈÚÒ Æµ
Each adult in the developed world is located, on average,
in 200 computer databases.Z`Z
TT
VZXX
T
Z`[VOO
T
[V
b
T
T
TPQ_Ya`YsJT
V
TT^s
V
TT
S. Davies, ‘Time for a Byte of Privacy Please’ [undated]: Z`Z
www.oneworld.org/index_oc/issue697/davies.html Index on Censorship
ZXX`TZXX_
Q
PV
Va Z`[
±∂µ
Q ZX PYXsaQa TP\s[Qa TP\Qa
TVP
TT
V
V
VsT
b
T
TY`
T T O
Z`\VO
TT
Z`]VT
TT
TQ
Ya T
cP
V
V
OO
T OO
VT
V
Z
V
VT
t
Z`^V
P[QY`T
T
VPQ
T
VPQPZQY` Z`\
T Z`]
Tc
V
V_ Z`^
±∂∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
TV
T
Q
T
VP
V
OO
V
TOO
TVOOT
t
T
VPQ
TT
V
b
tt
TV
V
V
V
c
V
Z`_V
P[QY` Z`_
TV
VT
t
T
t
V
±∂∑
T
tT
Z``V
tT
V
V
Ob
OZ`aTO
ZaXVO
T
T
V
_ T
Tb
ZaYV
T
V
V
T
T
V
T
s T
T
T
V
T
T
T
V
btObT] Z``
TPYYQPaQsP_QP[QTPZQTPYQT
VOt
VY Z`a
VY ZaX
V
ZaY
YYX_WX]PJQJT
TP[V_VZXX]TQO
TTVPbQYXO
VPYTY[Q
±∂∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
tPQY_t
T
TP[QY`
V
V
ttT
T
V
V
VT
w
V
V
w
VT
bT
T
PaQ
V
V
T
VT
TV
T
ZaZVOO
Q
VP
Za[V
tTQOO
TVY`\OT\]JT
T ZaZ
V
T
O
JTTVO
T
Va`OTYa
OZ\`YWa[JcYXXOTYaJTT Za[
Ob\`\s\`[T\]^TPZQJTO]s
T
VOTT
±∂π
TTsTt
Za\VPO
O
bT
TT
Za]VO
Za^V
T
TV
TZa_V
Za`V
T
VT
TPQs
ZaaV Y[ T
TPaYQJTJOJZY[W^aJ Za\
VPZQ`_
TO
OT
Za]
bTPQ
ObTJb
\[aW``JTZY]TY__TJT
VPQ`Z`s`Z_T`X`TP[QJTOO
O O Z[YZWXY PQ J
Za^
V^]]\XT^]][]TP[QZXXYsT
T
V Za_
VT
bt
t
JT
V
T
TT
tV
V
tOY][\WXXPsQJ Za`
TY]_YZTY]_X`TP[QZXXXsT
V
T
VVYXO Zaa
TTTas`
±∑∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
V
T
T
QT
t
P
TV
V
T
T
V
V
bs
tT
T
t
V
[XXVT
TV
T
VT
T
T
VOT
TaTT
VT
VOO
V [XX
J O J OO YXZ[WXZ PJQ J
PJObQPQ
T
V
TT
VPQ
±∑±
V
TT
TcOO
T
V
TV
OO
V
T
TV
V
V
VOO
TOO
T
V
T
Vk
t
t
b
V
T
V
T
T
[XYV
[XZP[Qa
b
OZXX`_YWa`PJQJ [XY
bQ P Q t
V]TP
T P[QO b P[Qa [XZ
TPQ`TYa`YsJT
VO
±∑≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
VT
V
b
[X[T
[X\V
bTPaQa
V Va
V
b
T PaQ
c
T T t OO T
V
bPaQa
g
T
g
T
[X]V
VOQP\Qa [X[
TOb
T
VOQZXTP
TT
TO
OQPYQaTP
VPOb
OQ P[Qa T TPaQa [X\
b
TT
TO
TOQP\QaTP
TT
TTTT
TOT
VP
VZY`OT\]JT
T [X]
±∑≥
TOO
VT
T
V
T
[X^V
V
TT
V
V
V
V
T
V
T
T
V
TQ
VTP
T
V
[X_V
T
tt
V\TZXXY
V
T
VY[OT[JTT [X^
VZaYJT [X_
±∑¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
VVT
V
OV
T PYYQZ TO
T O
VPaQZTO
TV
VO
O
[X`T
T
Q T
P
VOO
T
V
Tt
V
t
t
VPQY_
b
T
ttc
T
V
TPQY_
T
O
T [XaVO
[YXVT
V`Y\s`Y[T`X`TP[QJTOO\[aW``J [X`
VYXOTZaYJT [Xa
[YX
V
±∑µ
T
TT
V
T
T
V
V
T
YV
V
TTT
V
tT
V
t
TV
VT
V
PQY_
T
T
c
VTPQ
TT
V
V
[YYVJ O
T
ZXXYsYaa`V
V[XXJTJO [YY
±∑∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
ZXXY
OOV
V
TT
[YZV
P\QaQ
TTP
V
TZT`XXs
T
[Y[VPYQ`
TOO
TV
T
V
T
V
tT
V
TZT`XX
V
T V
T
Tb
c
TOO
[YZ
b V
www.mqg.org.il/ /tabid/335/ctl/Detail/mid/1005/ItemID/10309/Default.aspx?
SkinSrc=[G]Skins/mqg/Announcment+Skin+-+Full+Width
VVV V`O [Y[
VOPYQb
±∑∑
TV
T
c
TV
cT
VPDe NovoQ
t T
T
V
J OO
t
V
t
TPQ
JOO
V
TT
TV
b
OTV
TTTT
T
[Y\VOTT
V
T
ObT
[Y]VOT
VT
OO
V
J
TT
T
V
T
VPQZ[ [Y\
VPaQZ [Y]
±∑∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
OOV
Q
TP
T
ObV
VVVgJJ
T
[Y^VO
VT
ObV
TPQY_
TV
TVVV
JJ T T T
PQJJT
VOPTQ
T
V
TV
V
T
VT
TT
[Y_V
T
VT
TT
V`OT[XXJTJO [Y^
T [Y_
V
±∑π
T
V
VT
TT
V
T
[Y`V
[YaV
T
[ZXT
T
tOO
T
Tt
V
V
V
Q
VP
T
V
TP Q
T
T
V
T
V
[Y`
V
YY_a[WX]JT [Ya
Y[TPQOJ
TYaa`sJT
Ob
T
TV
VO
[ZX
JTOV
V][_s][^OT]ZaTPYQ
±∏∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
V
TV
c
T V
T
V
t
V
V
T
T
T V PQ_
T
V
T
T
V
VT
V
V
TJO
TsTV
TPQY_
V
V
V
TPQY_T
TV
T
V
t
V
±∏±
T
VttT
bT
T
T
V
tT
V
V
b
T
V
tT
VPQ
T
T
V
‰ÂÂ˘Ó ËÙ˘Ó Æ∂
[ZYbTV
Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy.322
O
VOT
V [ZY
T
bV
www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption6.htm#N_1_
5 U.S.C. §552(b)(6) (2000) [ZZ
±∏≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Tt
T
V
T
[Z[V
T7(c)
b
Records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes, but only to the extent that the production of
such law enforcement records [...] could reasonably be
expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
T
VVV
V
VOO
T
Ya`Z
[Z\TOO
bVOO
In sum, we do not think that Congress meant to limit
Exemption 6 to a narrow class of files containing only
a discrete kind of personal information. Rather, ‘[t]he
exemption [was] intended to cover detailed Government
records on an individual, which can be identified as
applying to that individual’.
O [Z[
TO
[Author name not specified], ‘Freedom of Information:V
The Statute and the Regulations’, 56 Geo. L. J. 1967–1968, p. 44
United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 [Z\
(1982)
±∏≥
T
^
OVV
VO
b
[Z]V
Reporterss
OO[Z^VCommittee
FBIs
V
V^T
7(c)
T
T
V
T
V
T
[Z_V
[Z`V
TT
TTV
[ZaV
T
V [Z]
United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of [Z^
the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989)
V
[Z_
VYa`YsJTPYQZZ
Sean Andrussier, ‘The Freedom of Information Act in 1990: More Freedom [Z`
for the Government; Less Information for the Public’, Duke L. J. (1991)
761–762
National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish, 124 S. Ct. 1570 [Za
(2004)
±∏¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
VT
TPQ
V
VPExpectation of PrivacyQ
T
Tc
[[XV
c
t
[[YV
[[ZV
T
[[[V
OO
[[\VTtOO
[[]V
City of Chicago v. United States Department of the Treasury, 287 F. 3d 628 [[X
(7th Cir.)
Holland v. CIA, No. 91–1233, 1992 WL 233829; Nation Magazine v. United [[Y
States Customs Serv., 71 F. 3d 885, 896 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Core v. United
States Postal Serv., 730 F. 2d 946, 948 (4th Cir. 1984); FLRA v. United States
Dept. of Commerce, 962 F. 2d 1055, 1059–1061 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Sims v. CIA, 642 F. 2d 562, 572 n. 47 (D.C. Cir. 1980) [[Z
Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, 460 F. Supp. 778, 785 (D.R.I. 1978) [[[
Or. Natural Desert Assn. v. United States Dept. of the Interior, 24 F. Supp. 2d [[\
1088, 1089 (D. Or. 1998); Wash. Post Co. v. USDA, 943 F. Supp. 31, 34–36
(D.D.C. Oct. 18, 1996)
ObPYQa [[]
VOb
PQObZ]
T
TTVVV
PQV
TVVVT
T
TT
VO
±∏µ
T
VT
[[^VSurvivor Privacy
T
T
[[_V
c
V
T
V
T
V
T
T
V
T
[[`V
P Q
b
Any information to which a request for information relates
is exempt information if it constitutes personal data of
which the applicant is the data subject.339
V
Ob]
TT
W
T
VOTTT
W
Lesar v. United States Department of Justice, 455 F. Supp. 921, 925 (D.D.C. [[^
1978)
Carter v. United States Dept. of Commerce, 830 F. 2d 388, 391 nn. 8 & 13 [[_
(D.C. Cir. 1987)
Jonathan Steele, ‘Freedom of Information: is Privacy Winning?’, 13 [[`
Nottingham L. J. (2004) 18
Section 40 to the English Freedom of Information Act 2000 [[a
±∏∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
V
b
T
V
˙¢¯‰ ˙ÏÂÚÙ ˘Â·È˘ ≠ ®±©·π ÛÈÚÒ Æ‡
`[MQ]T^sPYQa
VP
b
TV
bPQ
V
T
Vtt
V
V
OOb
V[\Xc
Tg
V
V
T
V
[\YVs
T
V
TPYQPQacYaaOT\]JT
T [\X
VYaa_s
J
VYX[ O TYa J T T cYaa O T [\Y
V]T[XYJT
±∏∑
T
V
TPQ
V
t
t
T
V
VT
OO
V
[\ZT
V
T
VOOT
T
T
T T
V
VT
T
V
T
TV
O
[\[VO
T
OYY]aWXZPJQJTV [\Z
VPQ
VY_OT[\YJT [\[
±∏∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
V
V
T
V
V
T
T
T
V
V
T
V
ÌÈÚˆÓ‡ Ï˘ ‰¯È·Ò È˙Ï· ‰‡ˆ˜‰ ≠ ®±©∏ ÛÈÚÒ Æ·
PYQ`
VP
Q
VT
b
V`
b
V
QPYQa
TP
[\\Ttb
PYQa
V`T
V`t
TV
T
t
Tt
VYX [\\
±∏π
V`
TPYQa
TT
V
[\]V
T
VOT
V
T
VPO
OQ
T
Q
VP
TT
T
V
tT
g
cT
T
VT
Q
[\^TP^
V
VPQOZ\XWXYPJQJ [\]
PQ
Ob^ [\^
TTaPQc
PQc
VO
±π∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Tc
[\_T
T
Vs
[\`VOO
T
Vw
V
V
T
[\aVO
b TO O
T
[]Xg
VT
V
T
T T
[]YVV
T
T
V
V
VT
Va\P\QJTO\]\YWa\J [\_
VY^^OT\]JT
T [\`
VPvexatiousnessQOO
V\]YOTa`JTT [\a
OT_[V\]ZOT []X
T
VO
O
VO
Tt
VYY []Y
±π±
T
[]ZV
QJOYY_YWXXPJQJT
[]Z
TVP
V
±π≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
˙ÂÈÊÎ¯Ó ˙ÂÎω ÌÈÓÈ„˜˙ ÁÂ˙È
V
T
V
V
[][¯ÈÓ‡ Ô¯ÈÏ ß Ó¢Ú· ÌÂÊÈÈÏ ‰¯·Á‰ Ʊ
V
[]\T
VY\s
tO
Ot
V
T
V
O
O
sT
TT
VV
T
tT
V
Tt[]]
Y[
V`Y_TY_aJTJ [][
VOY\`\WXXPUJQJ []\
T
V
PQbObY[ []]
TT
T
TT
VO
±≤
±π≥
Q
VTP
b
c
c
Ta
Tt
[]^Vb
T
TVa
T
TTV
VT
TZX
Va
OTY[
TVVVT
aTT
VO
T
V
T
VT
VTT
VT
OT
Tc
T
T []^
V
±π¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
[]_VO
T
V
O b
TT
V
TT
VO
T
V
T
VT
V
T
TV
T
T
V
V
T
V
T
VT
TT
V
TT
TTV
Tb
V
tt
V
T
V`Z[s`ZZOTY_aJTJ []_
±πµ
T
V
T
T
V
tV
V
T
T
V
V
[]`Vc
T
V
V
V T
T
V
TT
TV
T
VT
V
T
T
V
V
[]`
s`Ta
T
V
V
±π∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
˘ÙÂÁ ÏÚ ‰ÂÓÓ‰ ß ı¯‡‰ ÔÂ˙ÈÚ ˙‡ˆÂ‰ Æ≤
[]a˙‡ȯ·‰ „¯˘Ó· Ú„ÈÓ‰
V`s
VT
T
V
OO
VT
T
V
T
TV
TOOV
T
TV
T
V
T
TV
V
V
V
T
T
TTV
T
V
V\\]OTZY[JT []a
±π∑
c
T T c
TT
V
VPQP^QasPYQa
V
T
V
sTb
TPDe NovoQ
TV
[^XVT
V
T
Q
VP
V
tTO
VO
T
b
VVVTT
T
T
T
[^YV
V [^X
V]Z\OTZX\JT [^Y
VT
±π∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
V
TT
V
t
t
V
c
V
T
T
t
V
[^ZVT
c
V
˙Î˘Ï Ï˘ ÈÊÂÁÓ‰ „Ú‰ ß ‡¯ÈÙ˘ ÔÈÓÈ· Æ≥
[^[ÔÈ„‰ ÈίÂÚ
t
V
t
Q
t
VP
TT
T
V
T
V
TY[T [^Z
V\TY[Tc]
V_JT [^[
±ππ
V
T
ObZVPQ
TPQZ
T[^\VO
b
T
c
V
V
V
T
V
T
V
b
Ts
Tc
VVV
tT
VVV
Vs
T
T
T
T
Tb
TT
[^]V
VYa]`sJTPQ [^\
V[[Zs[[YOT_JT [^]
≤∞∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
P Q T
[^^V
[^_„ÚÏ‚ ß ‰Ò„‰ ˙ÈÈˆÈ„Ó ˙¯„˙Ò‰ Æ¥
b
T V T
V
V
TV
TT
T
V
T
V
T
VT
b
T
cPQ
T
V
T
T
V
TTT
V
Ob
[^`VOPJusticia fiat et pereat mundusbQT
ca_sa^OTYaJTTTT [^^
PQT
VT
VZX\JT [^_
V]Z]OT [^`
≤∞±
V
bT
c
cT
V
Tb
c
Q
TT
VPT
b
tt
VVVT
VVV
T
[^aV
T
V
VYaa^sJ
[_XV
T
[_YVOO
OT
V[_ZTO
T
VOO
tT
V]Z`s]Z_OT [^a
VPQZYTYaa^sJT
[_X
VPQZYT [_Y
VPQZYT [_Z
≤∞≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Tt
V
T
V
V
T
V
V
TV
T
TV
tV
T
c
T
TV
Q
TVP
TOO
V
≤∞≥
‰ÂÂ˘Ó Ë·Ó
‰È„¢ Ʊ
V
TY_^^ T
O[_\TYa\a
[_[V
T
[_]VO
[_^TOO
V
T
V
V
TT
[__V
T
[_`V
cb
c
Vc
V
b
T
V
[_aV
V
VPZQYTZ [_[
Chapter 2 to The Freedom of the Press Act [_\
www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sw03000_.htmlb [_]
Chapter 2, Article 1 to The Freedom of the Press Act [_^
VaYOT\]JT
T [__
[_`
www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/03/68/28/b8e73d81.pdf
VYYsYXOT [_a
±≥
≤∞¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
Qb
ccPs
cc
[`XVc
c
[`YV
T
[`ZVOOT
V
V
T
T
[`[V
‰ÈϯËÒ‡ Æ≤
TYa`Z
[`\T
TV
[`]VOO
TVTTYa`[
T
V
c
VT
V
VArticle 3T [`X
T. Riley and H. Relyea (eds.), Freedom of Information Trends in the [`Y
Information Age, London: Frank, Cass & Co., 1983, pp. 6–8
The Secrecy Act [`Z
VZ^OTwww.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/03/68/28/b8e73d81.pdf [`[
P. Birkinshaw, Freedom of Information: The Law, the Practice and the Ideal, [`\
VPBirkinshawbQ London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988, p. 53
V[XOT[`YJ ,Riley and Relyea [`]
≤∞µ
ZXXY T T
T
[`^V
T
T
T
V
[`_VT
V
VT
s[``b
cP Q s
Qc
cP
cc
c
cc
ccs
V
c
V
T
[`aV
V
T
V
T
T
TVV
R. McLeod, ‘Freedom Of Information – An Ombudsman’s Perspective’, [`^
Federal Law Review 16 (2001)
V]^OT[`\JTBirkinshaw [`_
Sections 32–47 to the Australian Freedom of Information Act (1983) [``
Section 54 to the Australian Freedom of Information Act (1983) [`a
≤∞∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V\ZYZXX]sZXX\
\\Mb
[aXV
TV
V
VPXV^MQ
[aYV
TPQV
V[X
[aZV
V
b[a[VTZXXX
V_sY\s
V
V
V
T V
V
V
VPQ
T V
V
Annual Report 2004–2005, p. 16 [aX
V]]OT[`\JTBirkinshaw [aY
Section 26 to the Australian Freedom of Information Act (1983) [aZ
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee inquiry into the freedom of [a[
information amendment (open government) bill 2000. Also available online in:
www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/
1999-02/freedom/report/report.pdf
≤∞∑
˙ȯ·‰ ˙ˆ¯‡ Æ≥
VYa^^
VT
V
T
T
[a\VPgood causeQOO
[a]VT
VYa_\
T
V
a]MTT
T[a^V
T
[a_V
T
V
TPover classificationQ
V
bYa`^
t
V
TT
V
VPcould be reasonably expected toswouldsQ
The Administrative Procedure Act 1946 [a\
TP Q
[a]
V
TYa]`sJ
[Author name not specified], ‘Freedom of
Information: The Statute and the Regulations’, 56 Geo. L. J. 18 (1967–1968),
pp. 18–19
Congress Rec. 36, 874 120 [a^
Keith Anderson, ‘Freedom of Information Act in Post-9/11 World’, Ohio St. [a_
L.J. 64(6) (2003) 1613
≤∞∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
ZXXYYY
V
sound legalQ
TPbasis
T
[a`VPforseeable harmQ
TYY
National t V
tSecurity Studies v. Department of Justice
TVYY
[aaV
TPatriot Actk
V
Tc
\XXV
T
VPatriot ActT
T
\XYV
TT
V
\XZV
tT
John Ashcroft, Memorandum for Heads of All Federal Departments and [a`
TAndersonVAgencies on the Freedom of Information Act (Oct. 12, 2001)
VY^ZZUY^ZXOT[a^J
Center for National Security Studies v. Department of Justice, 331 F. 3d 918 [aa
(D. C. Cir. 2003)
VZYZTZX`UZX_OTY[XJTBarbour \XX
ACLU v. US Department of Justice, no. 02-CV-2077(ESH) (D.D.C): \XY
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17265lgl20030520.html#attach
Section 552(a)(1), USA Freedom of Information Act \XZ
≤∞π
\X[VT
VPIndexQ
sV
Vts
VPagencyQ
T T T :
TV
T\X\VTagency
T
\X]Vt
bV
cccs
c
V
T
\X^V
T
T
V
TVTPDe NovoQ
V
‰ÈÏ‚‡ Æ¥
TZXXX
c
VZXX]
t
T
VZXOT[a]JT[Author name not specified], ‘Freedom of Information’ \X[
VZY`OTY[XJTBarbour \X\
V[_OT[`\JTBirkinshaw \X]
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 99 S. Ct. 1705 (1979) \X^
≤±∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T\X_V
\X`VZX
T
TV
\XaV
T
\YXV
V
TVPData Protection ActQ
VV
c
c
VTt
b
T
Vs
T
V
VOTT
\YYVT
\YZT
VHer Majesty’s High Court
Section 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \X_
Section 10 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \X`
Section 16 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \Xa
Sections 47–49 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \YX
www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Decisions/foi.htm \YY
Section 57 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \YZ
≤±±
OT
VPCode of PracticeQ
\Y[VT
T
TT
Ocb
c
\Y\VPQ
Q
TP
V
TT
\Y]V
TT
T
\Y^V
PQ
V
T\Y_cPvexatiousQ
\Y`V
V
t
PRecycle BinQO
O
Sections 45–46 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \Y[
Sections 3–7, 46 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \Y\
Sections 21, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 44 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \Y]
Sections 22–24, 26-31, 33, 35–43 to the Freedom of Information Act 2001 \Y^
Section 14 to the English Freedom of Information Act 2001 \Y_
The Information Commissioner, Freedom of Information Act: An Introduction \Y`
(2003): www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/
detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_
repeated_requests_final.pdf
≤±≤
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
t
t
\YaV
T
Q
VP
T
TPQ
\ZXV
T
TT
V
T
\ZYV
‰„˜ Ƶ
Ya`Z
T\ZZV
VT
T
T
V
\Z[V
V
T
Information Tribunal decision in the case of Mr. P. Harper v. The Information \Ya
Commissioner ea/2005/0001
Information Tribunal decision in the case of Mr. E. A. Barber v. The Information \ZX
Commissioner ea/2005/0004
Data Protection Act 1998 \ZY
V\`OT[`\JTBirkinshaw \ZZ
www.onlinedemocracy.ca/CAIRS/CAIA-OD.htm \Z[
≤±≥
TV
cc
VO
T
TT\Z\V
T
Z]
\Z]VT
V
T
V
T
\Z^V
c [X V
Q
[X cP
\Z_VT
V
V
bV
T
Divison 2 to thecY^^JTTetro, ‘Freedom of Information in Canada’ \Z\
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter
165
Section 25 to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act \Z]
[RSBC 1996] Chapter 165
Section 6 to thecY^^JTTetro, ‘Freedom of Information in Canada’ \Z^
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter
165
Sections 7 and 10 to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy \Z_
Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 165
≤±¥
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
VT
\Z`VP[ZV`MQTP[[VYMQ
V
TD
\ZaV
TPTerrorism Act 2001Q TZXXY
PAttorney GeneralQ
V
TV
T
YY \[XV
T
T
\[YV
bZXX]UZXX\ \Z`
www.infocom.gc.ca/reports/section_display-e.asp?intSectionId=445
David Banisar (ed.), Freedom of Information and Access to Government \Za
Records Around the World, London: Privacy International, 2002, p. 10
VYYOT \[X
The 2001–2002 Annual Report of the Federal Information Commissioner \[Y
≤±µ
˙ˆÏӉ ÌÂÎÈÒ
Vs
V
c
sc
c
V
V
TT
T
V
T
V
V
V
T
T
V
V
Ts
T ss
V
V
V V
V
TOsOT
T
VT
OO
VT
TT
Vs
±¥
≤±∂
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
b V
V
V
T
V
c
P
Q
PQ
V
b V
Vs
T
TV
V
b V
V
T V
V
V
VT
T
V
Vb V
tV
t
V
TV
T
T
V
≤±∑
V
b V
V
T
V
V
VPQ
s
TV
V
Vb V
V
T
V
TTT
V
VT
TV V
T
V
T
T
TV
T T
V
T
VPQ
T
V
T
V
TV
tPQ
≤±∏
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
T
V
V V
V
V
PQ
T
Vt
T
T
T
T
V
t
Vt
T
Vt
bT
T
QTDe Novo
VP
V
V
VT
t
T
TV
T
V
T
V
V
V
V
≤±π
OTV
V
TO
V
t
Tt
V
V V
tPQY_
tTPDe NovoQ
TPQ
V
V
V
V
V
VT
T
T
V
T
V
TOO
T
V
V V
VV
TOO
VPTTQ
T
V
TOO
≤≤∞
È˘ÙÂÁ ˙ÂÈ‰Ï ‰ˆÂ¯ Ú„ÈÓ ∑¥ ˙ÂÈÈ„Ó ¯˜ÁÓ
V
T
V
VV
VT
V
TPYQaV V
tt
V
PYQ`VV
Tb
c
VTT
T
TT
V
T
T
V
V
VT
V
b
c
c
cT
c
V
V
T
VV
≤≤±
V
VT
t
tsT
V
V
VT
VT
Tt
V
t
Tt
Vt
VT
V
≤≤≤
‰Â¯Á‡Ï ¯Â‡ ‡¯
‰È˯˜ÂÓ„Ï Èχ¯˘È‰ ÔÂÎÓ‰ ˙‡ˆÂ‰·
ZXX`
T
gt
V_[TT
Q PQ TZXX^ t
VP
QOTTTb
VP
TOECD
TPQTZXX_bTY]sT
VPQ
T b
TPQTZXX_bTY]sT
VPQ
VTTb
b
V_YTTT
T
bZXX`
QTTTTT
VP
TTb
V_\TT
Tb
VTTsTT
V_XTTT
TTbt
V
VTT
T
TPQTZXX_bTY]sT
VPQ
Language Editor (Hebrew): Noam Lester
Cover and Series Design: Ron Haran, Yossi Arza
Layout and Printing: Art Plus, Jerusalem
ISBN 978-965-519-055-7
No portion of this book may be reproduced, copied, photographed, recorded,
translated, stored in a database, broadcast, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, optic, mechanical, or otherwise. Commercial
use in any form of the material contained in this book without the express
permission in writing of the publisher is strictly forbidden.
The Israel Democracy Institute’s books and policy papers may be ordered
from:
Tel: 1-800-20-2222, (972)-5300800; Fax: 02-5300867
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.idi.org.il
The Israel Democracy Institute, P.O.B. 4482, Jerusalem 91044
© Copyright by The Israel Democracy Institute
Printed in Israel 2008
All policy papers and one chapter of each book are now available for free
download at www.idi.org.il
The statements published in the policy papers do not necessarily reflect the
position of the Israel Democracy Institute.
iii
Abstract
Information Wants to Be Free
Implementing the Freedom of Information Act in Israel
Yonatan Arbel, Tehilla Schwartz Altshuler
Supervised by Mordechai Kremnitzer
This book explores Israel’s Freedom of Information Act
from a theoretical, doctrinaire, comparative, practical and
empirical perspective in order to provide a complete and
thorough understanding of the impact of the Act, its modes of
implementation and the difficulties (and successes) that it has
encountered.
The study includes an empirical case analysis of all the
Israeli Supreme Court decisions relating to the Freedom of
Information Act over a span of seven years. The findings,
which were analyzed according to the types of petitions filed,
their chances of acceptance and the issues they addressed,
reveal a trend of minimal invocation of the Act, in particular,
by public bodies and newspapers.
A comprehensive survey, consisting of questionnaires and
in-depth interviews of government officials regarding their
operational approaches to the implementation of the Freedom
of Information Act was concurrently conducted with this
assessment. The survey reveals a general lack of awareness
of the Act, conflicting approaches to its implementation and a
lack of appropriate resources for its enforcement.
This study includes an academic examination and
interpretation of the decisions rendered concerning different
sections of the Act, with a focus on the clauses that have
* Translated by Karen Gold.
iv
received the most attention in Israeli case law. The rulings and
decisions concerning the implementation of these clauses are
also examined, both descriptively and critically, in order to
delineate the proper scope of the Act.
This book also presents a comprehensive, comparative
survey of the implementation of similar laws in five countries:
the U.S., England, Australia, Canada and Sweden. The survey’s
findings, which are discussed in the presentation of the study
as well as in a separate chapter, yield fascinating observations
regarding both practical trends and modes of implementation
of the law and of legal approaches to the right to freedom of
information. The conclusions and insights drawn from a close
examination of foreign law serve as the basis for some of our
recommendations.
The study’s conclusions specify a lengthy list of
recommendations that should be introduced in the formulation,
integration and application of the Freedom of Information
Act in Israel. First and foremost, we propose that the right to
freedom of information be established in the Constitution
of the State of Israel. The enactment of this right will make
it possible to overcome many of the difficulties that arise
from the current ambiguous nature of this right, thereby,
raising Israel to the same standing as that of the many states
that have established this right in their constitutions. Second,
we recommend setting up an autonomous Freedom of
Information Commission that would serve as a central agency
for the implementation and incorporation of the Act through
the supervision of the appointment and training of the officials
charged with implementing the Freedom of Information Act;
the monitoring of the enforcement of the Act by the relevant
officials in every government body; the issuing of a uniform
outline and model for generating the reports required by
law, including the data specifications; the acceptance or
refusal of requests for extensions; and the decision to order
v
the reexamination of a request for information that has been
previously denied by a specific government body.
We also propose modifying the Freedom of Information
Act itself by changing the Act’s approach to bodies with a “dual
function” and expanding its application to their activities.
Developments in Israeli administrative law concerning the
application of the Freedom of Information Act to “dual-
function” bodies do not adequately address the issues of
transparency and freedom of information, and the Act should
be adapted to the era of the regulatory state, privatization and
outsourcing. We also suggest that the information request fee
be revoked for a trial period. The study clearly demonstrates
that the fee is a significant impediment to the submission of
requests under the Act. Moreover, there is a considerable lack
of consistency in the regulations and guidelines governing
exemption from the initial fee as well as from the handling fee.
We propose that the fee for the initial application be abolished,
at least for a trial period, in order to encourage the public to
exercise its right to information. We also call for the creation
of uniform procedures in all government bodies regarding the
amount of the additional fees, and clear guidelines to regulate
exemption from the fee.
In light of the findings of the interviews, we propose making
an organizational change by establishing stipulations for
the position of Freedom of Information Officer; in some
government bodies, the same person who holds this position
simultaneously serves as the office’s spokesperson. Since
these multiple roles involve an inherent conflict of interest, we
propose avoiding it by prohibiting such a duality of offices.
It is also evident from the study that the number of hours of
seminars and of on-the-job training, as well as the qualification
requirements for the position are totally inadequate.
Consequently, the officials charged with enforcing the Freedom
of Information Act tend to hold conflicting views and at times,
vi
misconceptions, about the right to freedom of information. For
example, some of them assume that government bodies “own”
the information and that the citizen must justify “acquiring” it
from them. For this reason, we propose the establishment of a
network of on-the-job training, education programs and
meetings for the Freedom of Information Officers.
The study indicates a lack of public awareness of
the Freedom of Information Act and of its application;
therefore, we recommend the publication of information about
the public’s rights under the Act. At the same time, considering
the very small number of requests for information by both
public bodies and the media, we recommend the creation
of a fast track for requests that will expedite the process of
obtaining some types of information, and will make it readily
available for investigative reporting.
The processing of requests for information, particularly
in terms of the length of time involved, was also found
to be defective. The failings stem both from the Act itself,
which sets a lengthy and unreasonable amount of time to
process requests, as well as from the way in which the Act
is applied in certain government bodies. It is clear that there
is an extremely large gap in the time that it takes to handle
most of the requests, which is relatively short, and the lengthy
amount of time that it takes to process the others. Since the
majority of the requests are handled within a briefer period
than established by law, we propose that the stipulated time
be shortened. We further recommend adopting an approach
similar to that of U.S. legislation and to specify a limited list
of reasons that would justify extending the processing period.
In addition, such an extension should require the approval of a
high-ranking official outside the public authority that received
the request (e.g., a Commissioner for Freedom of Information).
It is likewise advisable to adopt the American principle that
if the public authority does not respond to the request within
vii
the processing time frame set by law, the applicant will not be
required to reapply to the authority in order to file an appeal.
We also found that the high fees and court costs substantially
impede the applicant’s right to legal recourse and we, therefore,
propose that the courts limit imposing court costs on the
petitioners. Furthermore, we propose that a basic approach be
adopted whereby the burden of proof for privileged information
rests with the public authority and not with the applicant.
On the judicial level, we propose a lengthy series of changes
that can and should be instituted in the field of case law. We
recommend the adoption of a complete legal decision making
model, which we have developed and which we believe is
more appropriate than the current model. The advantage of
the proposed model is that it provides an entire framework
for structuring an authority’s judgment. The first stage of
this model involves assessing whether any of the exemption
clauses apply. If the authority upholds that one (or more) of
the values protected by an exemption clause is violated, it must
consider whether there are concrete grounds for applying the
exemption as set forth in the clause; it is not enough to cite the
existence of the exemption clause. During the second stage,
the authority must balance the various competing interests,
which include the right to information, the public interest and
the values protected by the exemption clauses. If the authority
determines that the balance reached is to the detriment of the
applicant, it is allowed to inform him or her that in the absence
of additional grounds — for example, his or her interest in
the information being sought — the information will not be
disclosed. If the applicant fulfills the authority’s request and
presents additional grounds, which the authority did not
consider during the second stage, the authority proceeds to
the third stage to reconsider its position. The fourth stage is
not part of the judgment model, but it does have an important
consequence: if the applicant believes that the authority erred
viii
in its decision, he or she is entitled to submit an appeal to the
court, which will consider the balance of interests de novo,
from the beginning, as opposed to conducting an exceptional
assessment of the reasoning of the authority's decision.
There are no uniform criteria in Israel to ascertain whether
an authority possesses certain information. We propose
adopting the Australian approach to test the possession of
information by an authority, which is limited to the physical
possession of information, unlike other models in the world,
particularly in America. Our recommendation is based on the
fact that Israel’s Freedom of Information Act stipulates a series
of balances in relation to the rights and privacy of third parties
so as to not allow them to be unduly harmed. On the other hand,
we argue that the creation of barriers to entry for information by
establishing tests of the authority’s possession of information
is liable to materially harm the Act’s effectiveness.
In addition, we recommend abolishing the present
distinction between the permission to disclose information
and the obligation to refrain from doing so. In practice, this
distinction does not exist and only complicates the enforcement
of the Act, as well as causes material harm to the right to
freedom of information.
In our opinion, the courts have the authority to conduct
a de novo review of the public authority’s decisions. We
recommend that they adopt this approach in their rulings —
which is of central importance to the manner in which judicial
review of the public authority’s actions is conducted — and
that they not accept the prevailing view that judicial review is
a form of standard administrative review.
Among the recurring issues in the application of the Freedom
of Information Act is the exemption from disclosure regarding
the publication of the “internal discussions” of a public body.
After studying various cases, and being careful to respect the
fundamental values on which this exemption is based, we
ix
recommend that the public authority's point of departure be
that internal discussions be publicized without revealing
the names of the speakers. It must be emphasized that this
recommendation applies to cases in which the discussion relates
to an individual per se, and not to a general issue concerning
the authority. Regarding the method of defining information
as internal, we propose adopting the main points of American
deliberative criteria, which examines the information in the
context of the authority’s deliberation process.
With regard to trade and professional secrets, our primary
conclusion is to adopt the approach expressed in the rulings
on the concept of “implied waiver,” according to which a
body that enters into a commercial agreement with a public
authority is deemed as having consented to waive its privileges
of confidentiality with respect to the agreement.
A key recommendation involves requiring the authority
to proactively publicize information of public importance.
The publication of information at the authority’s initiative,
like the potential obligation to produce information in certain
contexts, will uphold the spirit of the Freedom of Information
Act and will lead to the fullest exercise of the right to freedom
of information. This recommendation is made in the context
of our more general proposal concerning the interpretation of
the concept of an unreasonable allocation of resources. We
propose that this concept be interpreted on three levels: On
the first level, the reasonableness of the allocation of resources
should be assessed on the basis of the weight of the right
that is infringed upon: in the case of the complete denial of a
fundamental right, the authority should be required to divert
substantial resources (and vice versa). As for the second level,
it is important to recognize that the authority is required to
periodically publicize certain documents, and if it does so,
it cannot claim unreasonable allocation of resources when a
request is submitted for the same documents. With respect to
x
the third level, the courts must set a high standard of factual
proof for claims of this type. The authority will be required
to present a status report on the availability of information
with which they are charged. If limited accessibility of
information stems from negligence on the part of the authority,
it is reasonable to require the latter to supply the information
despite the difficulty entailed.
Implementing the study’s conclusions will require a
comprehensive legislative, organizational and public shift
as well as a change in the approach of the courts. We believe
that such changes are justified and important, and that the
benefits will outweigh the costs. They will serve to implement
the principles of transparency and civil involvement, and will
help enhance the oversight of government bodies in the State
of Israel.