The areas of agreement include the belief that intelligence and investigative files are extremely sensitive and should be subject to stricter access controls than conviction records. Areas of sharp disagreement include the debate over whether records of noncurrent arrests under active prosecution should be available to the media. The rationale for media access covered, among others, the first amendment, open records laws and the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, the public's right to be informed was discussed in terms of the legitimate public interest in criminal proceedings, and the forfeiture of privacy rights by those who participate in crime. Moreover, media access protects both the public and individual interests by preventing corruption and uneven justice. The rationale for confidentiality includes concerns for individual and public interests. Discussion covered the availability of the past criminal history of an arrested person, as well as current investigations of actual or suspected offenses, correctional and release information (such as bail reports, sentence, medical, and psychiatric reports), and information about victims and witnesses. The media'a right to know about investigations of public officials and candidates, and dangerous offenders was discussed. Determining who should decide what investigative information is released to the public, the media, or criminal justice officials is a crucial issue, as is determining the grounds justifying nondisclosure of both investigative and intelligence information. A discussion outline, criminal justice information definitions, and applicable Federal statutes are appended. A table of contents, footnotes, and a list of participants are provided.