Killer Apps: Vanishing Messages, Encrypted Communications, and Challenges to Freedom of Information Laws When Public Officials Go Dark

Government officials such as White House staffers and the Missouri governor have been communicating among themselves and leaking to journalists using apps such as Signal and Confide, which allow users to encrypt messages or to make them vanish after they are received. By using these apps, government officials are going dark by avoiding detection of their communications in a way that undercuts freedom of information laws. This article explores the challenges presented by government employee use of encrypted and ephemeral messaging apps by examining three policy approaches: (1) banning use of the apps, (2) enhancing existing archiving and record-keeping practices, or (3) legislatively expanding quasi-government body definitions. Each of these approaches will be analyzed as potential ways to manage the threat presented by “killer apps” to open records laws

Evaluating Public Access Ombuds Programs: An Analysis of the Experiences of Virginia, Iowa and Arizona in Creating and Implementing Ombuds Offices to Handle Disputes Arising under Open Government Laws

The article begins with a review of literature regarding ombuds, public access laws, and dispute systems design. It follows with case studies of the development of public access ombuds offices in Virginia, Iowa, and Arizona. Finally, this article draws conclusions from those experiences, offering guidance to aid other jurisdictions in designing their own ombuds programs

“Truthiness” and Second-Level Agenda Setting: Satire News and Its Influence on Perceptions of Television News Credibility

This study examined the impact of satire news programs on perceptions of media credibility. Using second-level agenda setting as a theoretical framework, the results of this mixed-methods study show that negative portrayals of television news on these satire news shows makes salient certain negative attributes that match viewers’ perceptions of credibility. A survey (n=650) found that Daily Show/Colbert Report viewers had less positive views about the credibility of television news programs, while content analysis (N=401) of four weeks of episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report reflected the results of the survey, showing that television news programs, particularly those on cable, were more frequently portrayed negatively and made the target of jokes. The analysis shows television news is a frequent target of these satire shows’ criticisms and these shows’ negative attributes are made salient, which is reflected in the survey respondents’ low credibility scores for this medium

Up, Periscope: Mobile Streaming Video Technologies, Privacy in Public, and the Right to Record

Mobile streaming video technologies (MSVTs) such as Meerkat and Periscope, which allow users an easily accessible way to stream live video to followers, have the potential to reshape the way people think about any right to privacy they may have in public places, as well as the rights of people to record video in public places. Using legal research methodology, this article examines the privacy law implications of MSVTs, finding that the intrusion upon seclusion tort is unequipped to provide remedies for potential privacy harms and that the First Amendment likely protects live streaming activities of users

Constructively managing conflict about open government : use of ombuds and other dispute resolution systems in state and federal sunshine laws

Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on Feb 16, 2010).The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file.Dissertation advisor: Dr. Charles N. Davis.Vita.Ph. D. University of Missouri--Columbia 2009 .People seeking access to public records and meetings under state and federal open government laws have the right to sue in court to enforce them. But several jurisdictions also have alternative systems to handle disputes arising under public access laws. This study applied principles of Conflict Theory and Dispute Systems Design to examine the systems in place in each jurisdiction. First, formal dispute resolution systems in each jurisdiction were examined, and a typology of systems was developed that identified five models: Multiple Process, Administrative Facilitation, Administrative Adjudication, Advisory, and Litigation. Second, ten experts in the freedom of information field were interviewed to examine any informal dispute resolution systems that may be in place. While few informal systems were found, the sources affirmed the necessity for formal alternative dispute resolution systems. Finally, case studies were conducted of three ombuds programs to examine the effectiveness of these kinds of offices in handling open government disputes. The study concluded that ombuds programs, if established following the tenets of Dispute Systems Design by using a stakeholder process and building trust for providing independent, impartial and credible oversight, have great potential for constructive conflict management. .Includes bibliographical reference

The Mayhew-Hite Report: Volume 9, Issue 2 (May 2011)

Created by the Program on Dispute Resolution and the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution at the Moritz College of Law and made possible by a deferred gift from Harold E. and Betty W. Hite in honor of Kimberly Hite Mayhew