An Updated Lexicon of Government Information Policy
The specialized language of government information policy is itself a reflection of the intricacies and convolutions of that policy.
A newly updated and substantially expanded lexicon (pdf) of information-related terms, prepared by Susan L. Maret, provides a valuable map to the language and the terrain of U.S. government information policy.
Hundreds of entries, ranging from the well-known or obvious (“classified”) to the obscure and recondite (e.g., EPITS), are presented with lucid definitions and pointers to official source documents.
“These terms represent a virtual seed catalog to federal informationally-driven procedures, policies, and practices involving, among other matters, the information life cycle, record keeping, ownership over information, collection and analysis of intelligence information, security classification categories and markings, censorship, citizen right-to-know, deception, propaganda, secrecy, technology, surveillance, threat, and warfare,” Dr. Maret writes.
“The terms reported here — which have often been interpreted widely from one federal agency to another — play a significant role in shaping social and political reality, and furthering government policy.”
See “On Their Own Terms: A Lexicon with an Emphasis on Information-Related Terms Produced by the U.S. Federal Government” by Susan Maret, Ph.D., updated October 2006. (An MS Word version is here.)
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.