"Case-by-case" is the key to access to electronic information and other records in Hawaii. Agencies are granted leeway to decide whether a computer record should be released under the Uniform Information Practices Act. If confidential information is contained in a record, the agency should determine whether the information is "reasonably segregable" from the rest of the information. The Office of Information Practices has found that computer records of voters and water system users should be released in electronic format. The UIPA has an extensive list of how fees may be assessed for various records. The fee structure changes based on the type of record and sometimes on a case-by-case basis.

The law. The Uniform Information Practices Act defines a "government record" as "information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-3 (1993). Unless information is readily retrievable by an agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency does not have to prepare a compilation or summary of its records." § 92F-11(c). Agencies must "assure reasonable access to facilities for duplicating records and for making memoranda or abstracts." § 92F-11(d). According to the Office of Information Practices, the appropriate format is determined on a case-by-case basis. A separate statute makes legislative information and services available to the public through online networks. § 21D-1 to -4. A special fund has been established to improve computer access to legislative materials. § 21D-5(b), §92F-42.

When information in a requested record is not required to be disclosed under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13 or any other law, an agency shall assess whether the information is reasonably segregable from the requested record. If the record is reasonably segregable, the agency shall: (1) Provide access to the portions of the record that are required to be disclosed under chapter 92F; and (2) Provide a notice to the requester in accordance with § 2-71-14(b) regarding information that is not disclosed.(b) An agency shall segregate information from a requested record in such a way so that it is reasonably apparent that information has been removed from the record. An agency shall not replace information that has been segregated with information or text that did not appear in the original record. Haw. Rev. Stat. §92F-42; §92F-11.

Cases & opinions. Regarding powers and duties of the office of information practices: The director of the office of information practices: "(13) Shall adopt rules that set forth the fees and other charges that may be imposed for searching, reviewing, or segregating disclosable records, as well as to provide for a waiver of such fees when the public interest would be served. The public apparently has a right to inspect and copy computer tapes containing data in voter registration records, but the attorney general has the authority to definitely determine whether conflicting municipal ordinances preclude the inspection of the voter records." OIP Op. Ltr. 90-22 (June 21, 1990).

Although an agency is not required to create a new record, an electronic mailing list of people who declared water use with the Commission of Water Resource Management was a "readily retrievable" open record. The opinion stated that an agency must treat commercial and noncommercial requesters the same. OIP Op. Ltr. 90-35 (Dec. 17, 1990).

An electronically stored mailing list of registered lobbyists must be made available for public inspection and copying. An agency must provide a copy of the record in the format requested, such as on a computer diskette, unless there is a risk of damage, loss or destruction of the original. OIP Op. Ltr. 92-12 (Aug. 13, 1992).

The disclosure of an individual licensee’s or license applicant’s home address, home telephone number, and date of birth, as contained in their license application, would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under section 92F-13(1), Hawaii Revised Statutes. Based upon previous OIP advisory opinions, individuals have a significant privacy interest in this information. Further, the disclosure of this information would say little, if anything, concerning "what the government is up to" or about the conduct of public officials. OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-10 (Feb. 26, 1990).

Under the UIPA, each agency "shall disclose . . . [g]overnment records which pursuant to . . . a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed." Haw. Rev. Stat. 92F-12(b)(2). Chapter 11, Hawaii Revised Statutes, expressly provides that voter registration affidavits, and records "appertaining to" the registry of voters or to elections, be available for public inspection and copying. Insofar as sections 11-15(d) and 11-14(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, permit the inspection and duplication of voter registration affidavits. "We do not believe that the Legislature intended section 11-14(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, be applied to restrict access to computer tapes containing similar data." OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-22 (June 21, 1990)

With respect to police blotter data concerning identifiable juvenile offenders, its disclosure is prohibited by section 571-84(e), Hawaii Revised Statutes, and under the UIPA, the county police departments should not make that information available for inspection or copying. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(4) (Supp. 1990). With respect to police blotter data concerning adult offenders, none of the UIPA’s statutory exceptions to public access set forth at section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, applies to this information. Accordingly, it must be made available for inspection and copying upon request by any person. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-11(b) (Supp. 1990). Although chapter 846, Hawaii Revised Statutes, prohibits the dissemination of "criminal history record information," including identifiable records and notations of arrest, this statutory prohibition on disclosure does not apply to police blotter data that is chronologically compiled. Similarly, police blotter data is not protected from disclosure by federal laws applicable to criminal history record information. OIP Op. Ltr. No. 91-4 (March 25, 1991)

Fees. Fees must be reasonable, but not more than 25 cents per page. However, the agency may include labor costs for locating and copying records in the fee. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-21. The law directs the Office of Information Practices to set rules for fees and "waiver of such fees when the public interest would be served." § 92F-42(13).

There are no fee provisions for the state’s legislative information service, Access/Legislative Information Service, but everything on the system is provided "as is." § 21D-3. Information acquired from private sources and contained in a state geographic information system database is exempt from disclosure as confidential commercial information if release would frustrate the state’s ability to obtain such information in the future and cause the private party to suffer competitive injury. Haw. OIP Op. Ltr. 97-9 (Dec. 17, 1997).

The OIP has an extensive list of how fees may be assessed. For more information, refer to the Office of Information Practices.

GIS. The State has made GIS information available to the public under the UIPA. However, because the Hawaii Natural Heritage Program ("HINHP") GIS database within the State GIS constitutes confidential commercial information exempt from disclosure, the Office of Planning may segregate the HINHP GIS database from the public information contained in the GIS before making the GIS available to the public. See OIP Op. Ltr. Nos. 89-5 (Nov. 20, 1989); 90-8 (Feb. 12, 1990); 90-31 (Oct. 25, 1990); 91-1 (Feb. 15, 1991); 94-17 (Sept. 12, 1994); 95-13 (May 8, 1995). OIP Op. Ltr. No. 97-9

The geographic information system digital data file is the only electronic record that is specifically mentioned in the section relating to the costs of copying government records. While the fees for those data files vary according to the agency having control of such data, the cost will include the labor cost for searching and reproducing the data and the material cost (including electricity and equipment). Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-21. Although not specifically provided for by statute, it is likely that the fees for the reproduction of any other electronic record will be assessed in a similar manner.

E-mail. E-mail is considered a public record on a case-by-case basis. In other words, accessibility depends on the substance of the communication and not its form. See Haw. Rev. Stat. Sec. 92F for analysis.

Software. Software is not a public record.

Resources. Hawaii Office of Information Practices