Secrecy Inc.

D. Stewart, A. Sanders
{"title":"Secrecy Inc.","authors":"D. Stewart, A. Sanders","doi":"10.32473/joci.v1i1.115657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As governments engage in public-private partnerships, they have devised ways to shield the public’s business from the traditional level scrutiny offered by citizens and journalists, watchdogs of the public trust. The authors propose rethinking public oversight of private vendors doing government business. First, the authors explore the historical and legal background of open records laws. This core purpose is undermined by overly broad interpretations of trade secrets and competitive harm exceptions, a trend exacerbated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2019 ruling. The authors demonstrate why public-private collusion to sabotage transparency demands a reinvigorated approach to the quasi-government body doctrine, which has been sharply limited for decades. The authors conclude with recommendations on reversing the trend.","PeriodicalId":165927,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Civic Information","volume":"326 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Civic Information","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32473/joci.v1i1.115657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As governments engage in public-private partnerships, they have devised ways to shield the public’s business from the traditional level scrutiny offered by citizens and journalists, watchdogs of the public trust. The authors propose rethinking public oversight of private vendors doing government business. First, the authors explore the historical and legal background of open records laws. This core purpose is undermined by overly broad interpretations of trade secrets and competitive harm exceptions, a trend exacerbated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2019 ruling. The authors demonstrate why public-private collusion to sabotage transparency demands a reinvigorated approach to the quasi-government body doctrine, which has been sharply limited for decades. The authors conclude with recommendations on reversing the trend.
保密公司。
在政府参与公私合作的过程中,他们想出了一些办法,使公共企业免受公民和记者(公众信任的监督者)提供的传统层面的审查。两位作者建议重新考虑对私营供应商从事政府业务的公共监督。首先,作者探讨了公开案卷法的历史和法律背景。这一核心目的被对商业秘密和竞争损害例外的过于宽泛的解释所破坏,美国最高法院在2019年的一项裁决中加剧了这一趋势。作者证明了为什么公私勾结破坏透明度需要对准政府机构原则重新采取措施,而准政府机构原则几十年来一直受到严格限制。作者最后提出了扭转这一趋势的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信