The purpose is to enable government transparency, and since the taxpayers paid for that information to be gathered, they deserve to see what their government servants did in their name.
The Freedom of Information Act does not release any and all documents, there are plenty of privacy restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(Uni...
While I'm generally in favor of FOI, the public interest of disclosure needs to be weighed against the impact on both privacy and the integrity of the security vetting process (strong privacy encourages frank comments). In this case the benefit of disclosure is almost entirely to help us gossip about a celebrity so I feel the disclosure is not warranted.
You haven't read his biography yet, have you?
You use the phrase "muck raking" like it's a bad thing.
Seen any of the coverage of the leveson inquiry have we
It depends on whether the muckraking is exposing or reframing. Most of the supermarket tabloids do more of the latter kind of muckraking.
Voted down Jesus H Crist! From the information this isn't how much some litte town in some fly over state spent of running the dog catching service.
Its the results of a TS Clearance Vetting FFS. Do you think people are going to be open about some one if potentialy its going to be vomited over the internets whilst they are still alive.
Would you like to read a recently deceased loved ones warts and all developed vetting report - what public interest is served by this.
It is also open to abuse by muck raking hacks I sure Guido Fawlks would love to see the files on Polly Toynbees (Guardian journalist) dad (who was best mates with Burgess - one of the cambridge spy ring)