by Marty Adkns

Created on: January 20, 2009

The availability of public information is generally seen, as it should be, as a public good. In a free society the public requires information in order to make informed decisions on issues that impact them. This need has always been subject to some limitation. Making the information availableonlineis simply a different means of distribution.

Information made available via theinternetis capable of vastly broader distribution than any means previously available. The reality of this amplifies some privacy concerns when it comes to information publicly available that is specific to individuals. Those forms of information, such as court documentation, that contain information such as social security account number information, should have the specifically identifiable information removed before publication. While the public has the right to know, the same public has the right to be protected from identity theft.

Information that is broader in scope and character is clearly not subject to such limitations. Information on the amount of money collected in taxes and other revenue to a government ought to bepubliclyavailable. In addition, it ought to be available in a form relatively easily digestible by the general public.

Even more importantly, full disclosure on how thepublic'smoney was spent needs to beavailable. How money was allocated and for what purpose ought to be easily determined. This allows for decisions on the effectiveness of both legislations and legislators to be judged adequately. It is clear that in a democratic republic the tax payers have the right to demand to know how their money is spent.Theabilityto do this in a far more efficient and easier manner is of great value to our democratic institutions.

Somelimitation, even in this area is necessary. Information regarding intelligence matters, particularly those involving methods and sources, must be protected. This derives from the balance of thepublic'sright to know and thepublic'sright to an effective defense. This limitation must however be monitored stringently. There is, unfortunately a need even inthesesensitiveareas to ensure that inefficiency and fraud are found and those responsible dealt with.

Debates about the need for public disclosure and the need for government secrecy predate the existence of the computer or likely even stone tablets. There is a balance to be obtained between protecting citizens either individually or as a nation. The innovation of what we refer to as beingonlinedoes not particularly modify the debate. Theissueis more about message than medium. The
internet, in all of its various distributive methods, is merely a medium. The debate remains the same.

Learn more about this author, Marty Adkns.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.