Study reviews post 9-11 laws
By: Ariel Zirulnick, Staff Writer
Issue date: 11/28/07 Section: State & National
More than six years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted a rash of legislation limiting access to government information, authors of a congressionally funded study on those restrictions hope their findings will restore transparency.
All states except South Dakota revised their open government laws after Sept. 11 because of fear that terrorists could use the information, said Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in Texas.
He said he hopes the study will prompt the review of laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, which were passed hastily in the panic following the attacks.
"I think we're going to see some revisions, some refinement and some retrenchment," he said. "The trend will reverse to some degree."
According to the center's study, North Carolina has a moderate record of restricting information access. State information pertaining to critical infrastructure, cyber security and first response is restricted.
The three other categories of information examined in the study - political structure, public health and terror investigations - have been left open to the N.C. public.
An amendment to the state Public Records Act in 2001 removed information with details on public security plans and drawings of infrastructure facilities from public records.
And in 2003, state Senate Bill 692 was passed to prevent information concerning response plans for terrorist activity from being included in public records or open meetings laws.
The information is restricted to prevent terrorists from using public records laws to obtain information that might help them orchestrate an attack in the state, said Danny Lineberry, spokesman for the N.C. Office of Information Technology Services.
Some experts believe there already is a sentiment among the American public that questions whether governments have gone too far in restricting access to information.
Pete Weitzel, coordinator of the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, said this is partly because post-Sept. 11 hysteria has calmed.
"That's the natural reaction when, after a couple years, the immediate concerns are off," he said. "Now you step back and look at it: Did we do all the right things?"
He said politicians tend to be conservative in protecting sensitive information.
"I think there's always a tendency to err on the side of being a little too restrictive - that's the safe thing to do if you're a public official."
Another concern is the public's ability to govern itself effectively without access to information that has been caught in sweeping restrictions, Addicott said.
"You're making it harder for citizens to know what the government is doing," he said. "Knowledge of government is the hallmark of our system."
Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.
All states except South Dakota revised their open government laws after Sept. 11 because of fear that terrorists could use the information, said Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in Texas.
He said he hopes the study will prompt the review of laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, which were passed hastily in the panic following the attacks.
"I think we're going to see some revisions, some refinement and some retrenchment," he said. "The trend will reverse to some degree."
According to the center's study, North Carolina has a moderate record of restricting information access. State information pertaining to critical infrastructure, cyber security and first response is restricted.
The three other categories of information examined in the study - political structure, public health and terror investigations - have been left open to the N.C. public.
An amendment to the state Public Records Act in 2001 removed information with details on public security plans and drawings of infrastructure facilities from public records.
And in 2003, state Senate Bill 692 was passed to prevent information concerning response plans for terrorist activity from being included in public records or open meetings laws.
The information is restricted to prevent terrorists from using public records laws to obtain information that might help them orchestrate an attack in the state, said Danny Lineberry, spokesman for the N.C. Office of Information Technology Services.
Some experts believe there already is a sentiment among the American public that questions whether governments have gone too far in restricting access to information.
Pete Weitzel, coordinator of the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, said this is partly because post-Sept. 11 hysteria has calmed.
"That's the natural reaction when, after a couple years, the immediate concerns are off," he said. "Now you step back and look at it: Did we do all the right things?"
He said politicians tend to be conservative in protecting sensitive information.
"I think there's always a tendency to err on the side of being a little too restrictive - that's the safe thing to do if you're a public official."
Another concern is the public's ability to govern itself effectively without access to information that has been caught in sweeping restrictions, Addicott said.
"You're making it harder for citizens to know what the government is doing," he said. "Knowledge of government is the hallmark of our system."
Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.
Be the first to comment on this story