(410 ILCS 705/55-30)     Sec. 55-30. Confidentiality.     (a) Information provided by the cannabis business establishment licensees or applicants to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, or other agency shall be limited to information necessary for the purposes of administering this Act. The information is subject to the provisions and limitations contained in the Freedom of Information Act and may be disclosed in accordance with Section 55-65.    (b) The following information received and records kept by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Public Health, the Department of State Police, and the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation for purposes of administering this Article are subject to all applicable federal privacy laws, are confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, except as provided in this Act, and not subject to disclosure to any individual or public or private entity, except to the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Public Health, and the Department of State Police as necessary to perform official duties under this Article and to the Attorney General as necessary to enforce the provisions of this Act. The following information received and kept by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation or the Department of Agriculture may be disclosed to the Department of Public Health, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Revenue, the Department of State Police, or the Attorney General upon proper request:        (1) Applications and renewals, their contents, and     supporting information submitted by or on behalf of dispensing organizations in compliance with this Article, including their physical addresses;        (2) Any plans, procedures, policies, or other records     relating to dispensing organization security; and        (3) Information otherwise exempt from disclosure by     State or federal law.    Illinois or national criminal history record information, or the nonexistence or lack of such information, may not be disclosed by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation or the Department of Agriculture, except as necessary to the Attorney General to enforce this Act.     (c) The name and address of a dispensing organization licensed under this Act shall be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The name and cannabis business establishment address of the person or entity holding each cannabis business establishment license shall be subject to disclosure.    (d) All information collected by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation in the course of an examination, inspection, or investigation of a licensee or applicant, including, but not limited to, any complaint against a licensee or applicant filed with the Department and information collected to investigate any such complaint, shall be maintained for the confidential use of the Department and shall not be disclosed, except as otherwise provided in this Act. A formal complaint against a licensee by the Department or any disciplinary order issued by the Department against a licensee or applicant shall be a public record, except as otherwise provided by law. Complaints from consumers or members of the general public received regarding a specific, named licensee or complaints regarding conduct by unlicensed entities shall be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.     (e) The Department of Agriculture, the Department of State Police, and the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall not share or disclose any Illinois or national criminal history record information, or the nonexistence or lack of such information, to any person or entity not expressly authorized by this Act.     (f) Each Department responsible for licensure under this Act shall publish on the Department's website a list of the ownership information of cannabis business establishment licensees under the Department's jurisdiction. The list shall include, but is not limited to: the name of the person or entity holding each cannabis business establishment license; and the address at which the entity is operating under this Act. This list shall be published and updated monthly. (Source: P.A. 101-27, eff. 6-25-19; 101-593, eff. 12-4-19.)

Howard points out that USCIS has been under congressional mandate since 2007 to create an electronic reading room and could have used the government’s FOIAOnline portal. He also cited privacy issues that have arisen in the past.

First, FOIA provided accessible tools to put abstract ideas into practice. Everyday citizens started to attach various political notions to these activities. Second, information flowed into a journalistic ecosystem that was prepared to process and interpret it for everyday citizens. Information obtained through FOIA was being interpreted in stories that changed public opinion (Leff etal., 1986). Third, ability for individuals to request information led to alternate uses for activ-ists, public interest groups, and non-profit organizations.

FOIA was only strengthened after Nixon’s resignation in 1974 when it was amended over Ford’s veto. Even afterward, it didn’t match with the complete vision of ASNE. At times requests to comply stretched well beyond 10days and requests are still frequently denied. Despite claiming to embrace openness, Obama’s presidency has been notoriously secretive, with record numbers of whistle-blower cases and FOIA requests being denied or censored.

Harold L. Cross to write The People’s Right to Know. Cross concluded that “there is no enforceable legal right in public or press to inspect any federal non-judicial record.” This text was published in 1953 and circulated mostly at the federal level, promoting the idea of freedom of infor-mation within and outside of journalist circles as being beneficial to the public good. Congressman John Moss’ commission then garnered the attention for President Johnson to sign FOIA into law on 4 July 1966.

The replacement of FOIA requests by open data is still touted by data platforms such as Socrata as a savings of labor and money (Quigg, 2014). Participants in civic data hackathons conceptually connect open data with accountability, to “keep city hall honest” as one participant put it.

in the full bid book, which was only exposed to the public eye after a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Boston magazine,