Library and Information Service >
Multinational Comparative Study on Security Censorship of Government Information Disclosure
Received date: 2014-09-30
Revised date: 2014-11-20
Online published: 2014-12-05
By analyzing the characteristics of security censorship of government information disclosure in Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and other European countries, this paper makes a comparative analysis on coordinating the relationship between Information Act and Privacy Act, defining the scope of confidentiality, standardizing the process of secret review and improving the supervision and relief system. Measures are made to improve China's security censorship on government information disclosure based on the above practice, which include enhancing the legislative level of government information disclosure and making a law on government information disclosure, making the personal data protection law to protect personal data, defining the exceptions scope by listing to limit the discretion effectively, using tested elements method to distinct and handle exception information, and establishing an independent specialized body to deal with disputes between openness and secrecy.
Huang Weiqun , Cao Yujia . Multinational Comparative Study on Security Censorship of Government Information Disclosure[J]. Library and Information Service, 2014 , 58(23) : 47 -53,68 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2014.23.007
[1] McCamus J D. The delicate balance: Reconciling privacy protection with the freedom of information principle[J]. Government Information Quarterly,1986,3(1): 49-61.
[2] Samuels L B. Protecting confidential business information supplied to state governments-exempting trade secrets from state open records law[J]. American Business Law Journal,1989,27(3):467-489.
[3] Feinberg L E. FOIA, federal information policy, and information availability in a post-9/11 world[J].Government Information Quarterly,2004,21(4):439–460.
[4] Strickland L S. The information gulag: Rethinking openness in times of national danger[J].Government Information Quarterly,2005,22(4):546–572.
[5] Aftergood S. National security secrecy: How the limits change[J].Social Research,2010,77(3):839-852.
[6] Birkinshaw P. Freedom of information and its impact in the United Kingdom[J]. Government Information Quarterly,2010,27(4): 312-321.
[7] George T J. Information censorship: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage of the jyllands-posten editorial caricatures in cross-cultural settings[D].Denton:University of North Texas,2010.
[8] 本书编写组.信息公开保密审查工作手册[M].北京:金城出版社, 2011.
[9] 黄伟群.政府信息公开保密审查制度研究[M].北京:人民出版社, 2014.
[10] 李延枫.政府信息公开保密审查机制研究[D].北京:中国社会科学院, 2010.
[11] 周庆山,谢丽娜.政府信息公开的分类管理与完善策略初探[J].图书情报研究,2013,6(4):1-5.
[12] 赵需要.政府信息公开保密审查标准问题初探[J].图书情报研究,2013,6(4):6-12.
[13] 姚亚楠.信息公开视野下保守国家秘密法律制度的研究[D].北京:中央民族大学, 2009.
[14] 李晶.对我国政府信息公开制度的思考:基于不完全信息动态博弈模型[J].图书情报工作,2011,55(21):115-119.
[15] 黄伟群.政府信息公开过程中的保密审查制度完善策略[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013, 58(S1):15-21.
[16] 周毅.政府信息公开的模式选择:主体结构分析[J].图书情报工作,2005,49(6):75-80.
[17] 周汉华.外国政府信息公开制度比较[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2003:512.
[18] 黄伟群.中英政府信息公开保密审查制度比较分析[J].特区实践与理论, 2014, 28(17):57-60.
[19] 山文岑.《政府信息公开条例》的缺陷及其完善[J].图书情报工作,2010,54(11):119-122.
[20] 黄伟群.政府信息公开中的可分割性原则[J].中共中央党校学报, 2013, 16(5):84-87.
[21] Mendel T. Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey [M].Paris:UNESCO,2008:20-44.
[22] Information Commissioner of the Republic of Slovenia. Centre for Freedom of Information: First international survey of information commissioners shows concern over increased appeals and reduced resources[EB/OL].[2014-05-25].http://info-commissioners.org/index.php/blank-menu/279-first-international-survey-of-information-commissioners-shows-concern-over-increased-appeals-and-reduced-resources.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
