Do you think that the anticipated use of public information should determine whether or not it's given out under the Freedom of Information Act?

Let’s think about it this way. Should driver’s license holders lists be published, including where they live? I wonder why not? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Gun holding is a privilege, not a right (although some would disagree with that). Society has an interest in knowing who can drive legally and who can own guns legally. People have an interest in knowing how safe their neighborhood is.

What is the right to privacy? I think it is a right to have your private transactions remain private. Private transactions are anything the public has not taken a legislative interest in. If the public is interested in the books you read, and our legislators give public officials the right to know this information, then all of us have an interest and those lists should be published. Let’s find out who is reading what. And if we think that should be private, then we should force our legislators to privatize this information, and take away the right of public officials to access that information.

I think it makes sense that anything our public officials can see, we, the public, should have access to, as well. If we don’t want the public to have access to it, then we shouldn’t allow public officials to have access to it, either.

By the way, I’m just thinking about this for the first time and this is what I came up with. After hearing what others have to say, I may not continue to hold this opinion. I’m just saying that to say that if you come after me really harshly, that’ll be more likely to make me defensive. But if you come after me in a reasonable or even friendly way with a good argument, there is every expectation I might change my mind on this.

I think that @wundayatta ‘s statement “I think it makes sense that anything our public officials can see, we, the public, should have access to, as well. If we don’t want the public to have access to it, then we shouldn’t allow public officials to have access to it, either.” pretty much sums up my feelings about this. (nice going! 2 thumbs up!)

I agree with @rojo, who agrees with @wundayatta, which means I think we should all know who is packing heat.

I don’t think the use matters just what the information is.

There are already restrictions to this information based on intent. For instance, Telemarketers are prohibited from attaining this information. We’ve just given the telemarketers the list. It’s difficult to analyze all the possible misuses of this data and I can’t help but wonder how many would feel differently if we were not talking about gun ownership on the heels of Newtown.

There are legitimate reasons for a permit that would be less than beneficial if the information was made public. I’ll give just one that seems disturbing. If you carry large sums of cash, a permit to carry a gun would seem appropriate. If then you publicize whether or not that person has a permit to carry, you have put them in physical danger. Many small retail businesses may have relatively large cash deposits on a regular basis. Just because the government knows this doesn’t mean everyone needs to know.

I have a problem with newspapers (or anyone else) being able to use personal information for the purpose of intimidation.

Information is information. How can you anticipate the use to which it will be put? If information is to be free then it must be free without restriction.

No, you can’t know someone’s intent for sure. And putting FOIA requests through a filter like that would be discrimination. Everybody gets equal access to the available information.

I write a lot of FOIA requests and I am very familiar with the Illinois FOIA. There are plenty of restrictions, based on content, and they apply to all requests.

If I asked for the addresses of gun owners (or even automobile owners), the state would say “no”.

I could get aggregate figures for counties and cities. But not individuals’ records.

Here is the pertinent language in the Illinois FOIA statute:

Private information [is exempt from disclosure], unless disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law or a court order.

’“Private information” means unique identifiers, including a person’s social security number, driver’s license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses. Private information also includes home address and personal license plates, except as otherwise provided by law or when compiled without possibility of attribution to any person.”