scholarly journals The last forum of accountability? State secrecy, intelligence and freedom of information in the United Kingdom

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina J. Dobson

The official mechanisms of intelligence oversight and accountability in the United Kingdom are arguably disjointed and ineffective. Thus, informal actors such as journalists, have played a more significant role. In addition, a rise of whistleblowers and leakers, such as Chelsea Manning, have highlighted the importance of online archives as an avenue for accountability. The United Kingdom is legally bound to place official documents on the public record at the National Archives. Sensitive material on intelligence and other security subjects majorly impedes the bulk release of documents. Inevitably, the inclination to ‘weed’ sensitive material from mundane documents has resulted in a costly declassification process. Evidence suggests that historians successfully investigated these subjects through the use of archives, despite the efforts of officials to obfuscate. This article argues that historians increasingly constitute the last forum of accountability and that routine declassification is an important, but neglected aspect of our machinery of intelligence oversight.

2011 ◽  
pp. 1977-1990
Author(s):  
Philip Leith

Public information presumes that the information is somehow public and, presumably, that this can be utilized by members of the public. Unfortunately, things are more complex than this simple definition suggests, and we therefore need to look at various issues relating to public information which limit access and usage, for example, the nature of privacy, sharing information within government, court records, ownership of public information, and freedom of information. The exemplars dealt with later in the article will demonstrate the legal constraints upon the usage of public information in a digital environment and help raise awareness of such limitations. Public information cannot be formally defined (as a list of items, say) except to indicate it is that information which has historically been available to the public in print form and/or through some generally open process. No formal definition is possible because this depends to a very large extent upon cultural differences. For example, tax returns are viewed as private documents in the United Kingdom open only to the tax authorities (unless otherwise authorized, e.g., in criminal proceedings) whereas in Sweden they can be accessed by any member of the public. Furthermore, the source of public information may also vary: what information is produced by a public authority in one country may not be so carried out in another. The legal constraints upon access and use of public information include the following: • Privacy/confidentiality of public data • Sharing and processing of public data collected for divergent purposes • Freedom of information rights to public data • Copyright and database rights in public data Access to public information may be enabled through a formal public register, through statutory mechanism, or other less formal means. Note that being accessible does not necessarily mean that users are free to use this information in any way they wish: copyright licenses in particular are not always passed along with access rights, so that the public may inspect a document but may not use it in other ways (such as republishing). Reasons for this are obvious: the collection of data by government can be expensive and there can be opposition to subsidising commercial activity from the public purse. In the United States, federal materials are explicitly excluded from copyright protection, but this is rarely the case in Europe (see www.hmso.gov.uk for the UK situation). Another example is that it is possible in most countries to attend local criminal courts or peruse local newspapers and draw up a database of prosecutions in the local area. The database could include information on drunk drivers, sexual offenders, and burglars, and it would be possible to include a wide variety of information—all of it, clearly, of a public nature. Indeed, such activities have been common for many years where credit agencies have collected information from courts on debtors and made this available on a commercial basis. But there are questions: Is all court-based information public? What limitations might be found in some countries and not in others to the dissemination of this information? See Elkin-Koren and Weinstock Netanel (2002) for the general tendency toward commodification of information and Pattenden (2003) for professional confidentiality where it impinges upon public service. On a more mundane level, judgments from most European courts are copyright of the relevant government or agency. In the United Kingdom, differing again, there is some dispute over whether the judge or Court Service owns the judgment, and frequently the only text version of a judgment is copyright of the privately employed court stenographer. Thus the publicly available information which is being discussed here is that which emanates from a public authority and can be accessed by members of the public, but will usually have some constraint and limitation on how it can be reused by the public. We are interested in outlining these constraints.


Chapter 7 examines the relationship between the freedom of information regime established by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the pre-existing statutory regime governing the keeping of public records under the Public Records Act 1958. It describes the processes by which public records are transferred to the Public Record Office and opened to public access, and the progressive replacement of the ‘30-year rule’ with a ‘20-year rule’. It explains the separate, but related, concept of ‘historical records’ introduced by the 2000 Act, and the removal of certain exemptions by reference to the age of documents. The special procedures applicable to requests for information in transferred public records that have not been opened to the public are set out. The chapter then summarizes the guidance given to relevant authorities about the above matters by the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice and the National Archives.


1947 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Somerville

Two hundred and fifty years ago a record-keeper sat amid the boxes, the cupboards and the shelves which housed his charges, compiling ‘an account of all or most of the records in the Duchy office and how to find them’. The result was invaluable for searchers in the Duchy of Lancaster records, but lacking order and arrangement, as its author was the first to admit, it is not a systematic description of these records and it says very little about their history. There is therefore some justification for attempting a comprehensive view of these records. The rich diversity of interest which the Duchy bears is fully reflected in the range of its records. It has indeed been said that ‘what the records of the United Kingdom are at large, these records of the Duchy are in miniature’. That is a bold assertion, difficult to sustain. For one thing, the Duchy never knew the complicated processes of the royal exchequer, and it must be obvious that the Duchy could not repeat in parvo the whole pattern of the nation's life. Yet the analogy gives a hint of the records' scope, and it becomes closer if we take the Duchy records to include those of the Palatinate of Lancaster. It is true that in the Public Record Office, which contains most of the records under discussion, the two series are treated separately, and the Guide, repeating a distinction drawn in 1868 in the Deputy Keeper's Report, says that the Duchy records ‘are entirely distinct from the records of the County palatine, which, although public, are purely local, whilst the Duchy Records, though private, concern the government and jurisdiction of the entire dominion of the Duchy and embrace the County Palatine as a subordinate regality’. This statement, which the grammarian finds imperfect as an example of the chiastic construction, is equally unsatisfactory to the archivist or historian if we understand it to refer to the palatinate, and not to the administration of the modern county council. We ought no more to segregate the palatinate simply because it was an organ of public administration than we should, say, a private hundred, and the description itself recognises the county palatine as a component part of the Duchy. How the judicial records of the court of Duchy chamber were any less public than those of the chancery court in Lancashire, is not explained. The distinction, in fine, is fallacious.


Author(s):  
Philip Leith

Public information presumes that the information is somehow public and, presumably, that this can be utilized by members of the public. Unfortunately, things are more complex than this simple definition suggests, and we therefore need to look at various issues relating to public information which limit access and usage, for example, the nature of privacy, sharing information within government, court records, ownership of public information, and freedom of information. The exemplars dealt with later in the article will demonstrate the legal constraints upon the usage of public information in a digital environment and help raise awareness of such limitations. Public information cannot be formally defined (as a list of items, say) except to indicate it is that information which has historically been available to the public in print form and/or through some generally open process. No formal definition is possible because this depends to a very large extent upon cultural differences. For example, tax returns are viewed as private documents in the United Kingdom open only to the tax authorities (unless otherwise authorized, e.g., in criminal proceedings) whereas in Sweden they can be accessed by any member of the public. Furthermore, the source of public information may also vary: what information is produced by a public authority in one country may not be so carried out in another. The legal constraints upon access and use of public information include the following: • Privacy/confidentiality of public data • Sharing and processing of public data collected for divergent purposes • Freedom of information rights to public data • Copyright and database rights in public data Access to public information may be enabled through a formal public register, through statutory mechanism, or other less formal means. Note that being accessible does not necessarily mean that users are free to use this information in any way they wish: copyright licenses in particular are not always passed along with access rights, so that the public may inspect a document but may not use it in other ways (such as republishing). Reasons for this are obvious: the collection of data by government can be expensive and there can be opposition to subsidising commercial activity from the public purse. In the United States, federal materials are explicitly excluded from copyright protection, but this is rarely the case in Europe (see www.hmso.gov.uk for the UK situation). Another example is that it is possible in most countries to attend local criminal courts or peruse local newspapers and draw up a database of prosecutions in the local area. The database could include information on drunk drivers, sexual offenders, and burglars, and it would be possible to include a wide variety of information—all of it, clearly, of a public nature. Indeed, such activities have been common for many years where credit agencies have collected information from courts on debtors and made this available on a commercial basis. But there are questions: Is all court-based information public? What limitations might be found in some countries and not in others to the dissemination of this information? See Elkin-Koren and Weinstock Netanel (2002) for the general tendency toward commodification of information and Pattenden (2003) for professional confidentiality where it impinges upon public service. On a more mundane level, judgments from most European courts are copyright of the relevant government or agency. In the United Kingdom, differing again, there is some dispute over whether the judge or Court Service owns the judgment, and frequently the only text version of a judgment is copyright of the privately employed court stenographer. Thus the publicly available information which is being discussed here is that which emanates from a public authority and can be accessed by members of the public, but will usually have some constraint and limitation on how it can be reused by the public. We are interested in outlining these constraints.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Taylor

AbstractThe National Archives has an important role in providing access to records of crime because of its role as the national archive for the records of the higher law courts and central government departments. Because of its status as the national archives for the United Kingdom, it has a pivotal role in shaping and influencing the developing freedom of information and data protection issues concerning records of crime. As Nigel Taylor describes in this short article, it has also created internal structures to cope with the increasing workload, complexity and need for transparency when dealing with these matters.


Author(s):  
Bernardo Bátiz-Lazo

Chapter 3 (‘The British Are Coming!’) explains the origins of the technology in the United Kingdom. It is widely assumed that the operation of a machine in the Enfield branch of Barclays was the ‘prime mover’ in this industry. However, the historical record fails to identify a hero inventor; rather multiple independent versions of the cash machine were launched at more or less the same time in different countries. Yet in spite of the great fanfare, there was no real race to market. There is no evidence the engineers responsible for them knew of each other’s existence before this launch (but many bankers did). Four years later, very few members of the public knew the cash machine existed, even less had used them and only a handful found them convenient.


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diarmuid McDonnell ◽  
Alasdair C. Rutherford

Charities in the United Kingdom have been the subject of intense media, political, and public scrutiny in recent times; however, our understanding of the nature, extent, and determinants of charity misconduct is weak. Drawing upon a novel administrative dataset of 25,611 charities for the period 2006-2014 in Scotland, we develop models to predict two dimensions of charity misconduct: regulatory investigation and subsequent action. There have been 2,109 regulatory investigations of 1,566 Scottish charities over the study period, of which 31% resulted in regulatory action being taken. Complaints from members of the public are most likely to trigger an investigation, whereas the most common concerns relate to general governance and misappropriation of assets. Our multivariate analysis reveals a disconnect between the types of charities that are suspected of misconduct and those that are subject to subsequent regulatory action.


Author(s):  
Ratnaria Wahid ◽  
Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi

While education is considered a basic human right, the copyright system however seems to hamper public access to information and knowledge. This is especially so when information that largely comes from developed countries are used as commodities that have to be bought by developing countries. This paper compares the international and national laws in Malaysia, United Kingdom and Australia on the copyright exceptions to materials used for teaching purposes. It analyzes the different ways countries manage and balance between copyright owners and copyright users’ interest and shows that in many circumstances, copyright owners are over-protected by national copyright systems although this is not required by international copyright law. This paper also shows that international treaties governing copyright law do allow some flexibility for member countries to implement copyright systems based on their own needs and circumstances but such opportunity is not fully utilized by member countries for the benefit of the public.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document