Public information policies have a defining influence on the use of information and technology in both government and society. Some policies affect societal values such as intellectual property rights, rights of free expression, personal privacy, and access to information and to the infrastructure that delivers it. Other policies set forth the principles of information and technology use and management within government.

Policies related to the free flow of information in society were reflected in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, designed in part to foster a National Information Infrastructure (NII) as a necessary condition for universal access and continued economic growth. Intellectual property rights were updated by the passage of the Electronic Intellectual Property Act of 1998. The NII has its problems, however. A 1995 Harris & Associates public opinion poll showed a majority of people (51 percent) were very concerned about threats to their personal privacy — a figure that has increased every year since 1977. The Internet Alliance recently reported that state legislatures considered more than 700 bills related to the Internet last year, on topics such as protecting children, controlling unwanted commercial e-mail, and protecting consumer privacy online. This year, they expect the number of bills to double. These growing concerns over the effects of the Internet on personal privacy, free expression, and electronic commerce have led to Federal and state statutes and a series of court cases, all concerned with the challenges that new technologies present for personal, political, and economic values.

Polices about access to government information have also been evolving. The U.S. Federal government is the largest producer of information and publications, worldwide, a distinction unlikely to change given the current emphasis being placed on extending its reach through use of the Internet and World Wide Web. The creation, analysis, dissemination, storage, and disposal of Federal government information is guided by a plethora of policy guides, including the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act, and the Electronic Records Management rules of the National Archives and Records Administration (see Table 1), all designed to manage these information resources while insuring their accessibility and availability to the American public. These laws and guidelines have paved the way for the current information-aware legislative environment.

Federal and state information policies increasingly address the acquisition, management, and use of information technologies. This fast-paced major reorientation to government's use of information and information technologies is attested to by a spate of Federal and state policies enacted to better manage information resources and better capture the results from their use.

The Clinton administration recognized the value of information and information technologies in reports and recommendations, such as those from The National Performance Review, making clear the high status of information on the national agenda. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is designed to improve the confidence of the American people in the activities of the Federal government by holding Federal agencies accountable for meeting performance objectives and program missions. GPRA mandates long-range strategic planning, annual performance planning, and performance-based budgeting. Agency information technology plans must be aligned with the agency program goals, and must indicate specifically how information technology will contribute to mission attainment. The Clinger-Cohen Act redirects Federal agencies' attention from IT acquisition management to IT investment management. It also creates a chief information officer position in the agencies, reporting directly to the agency head, whose primary responsibilities are information management and development of an information architecture. GPRA, Clinger-Cohen, and a variety of other Federal statutes and rules clearly elevate IT to a top level function in Federal agencies. What this means and how it will be accomplished in the long run remain to be seen.

Table 1. Federal Laws and Policies Governing Information Resources
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (PL 104-106)
Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996 (HR 3802)
Electronic Intellectual Property Act of 1998
Executive Order No. 12864, President's Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure
Executive Order No. 13011, "Federal Information Technology"
Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (5 USC 552)
Government Performance & Results Act of 1993 (PL 103-62)
GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 (PL 103-40)
Improvement of Information Access Act of 1991
OMB Circular A-130
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended (PL 104-13)
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 522a)
"Raines Rules" October 25, 1996 OMB Memorandum Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PL 104-104)

States have developed information policies that often mirror, but sometimes differ from, Federal principles. Most states have adopted Freedom of Information Laws, for example, but some have outlined the conditions under which fees may be charged beyond the marginal cost of reproduction — a departure from a key tenet of the Federal policy. Minnesota, Florida, and Kentucky have long histories of attention to data content and public access issues. Most state policies, however, focus on the management of information resources and technology. Florida's CIO Council, for example, has recently issued policies that focus on government data as a statewide asset, and that treat security issues under the rubric of risk management. California has also paid close attention to policies and practical guidelines that evaluate risk in IT development. Massachusetts presents a portfolio of IT initiatives to its legislature each year, focusing on total costs and benefits rather than one idea at a time. Similarly, New York's policies rest on principles that favor interagency cooperation and statewide benefits over the needs of individual agencies.Texas is a leader in policies and activities related to electronic commerce.

Local governments are also information policy makers, with authority over cable TV franchises, as well as responsibility for the use of information and technology to support local government functions. New York City, for example, has recently issued an executive order creating a Technology Steering Committee with wide ranging responsibility for coordination and oversight of technology strategies and investments. Philadelphia is credited with using IT investment strategies to help accomplish a major economic turnaround.

Viewed in its totality, American government is an organism of structural and functional complexity in which Federal, state, and local levels all play critical, intertwined roles. In addition, government and the private and nonprofit sectors often share responsibility for public programs and resources. Moreover, public institutions and services, and the policies which guide them, are evolving to account for these changing relationships and for the effects of rapidly advancing technology. Information technology, already deeply embedded in most government operations, will continue to be vitally important to administration, decision making, and direct service delivery. It will also be a critical factor in the evolving relationships between government and other kinds of organizations, and between government and citizens. All of these elements, and their intricate dynamics, represent rich areas for new research.