In City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 588, the court acknowledged that section 6254, subdivision (f)(2) allows the public to have access to certain limited kinds of "information" extracted from such records and files, and that the term "information" can arguably be reasonably construed broadly and generally. "The statutory language alone does not conclusively eliminate an interpretation which would authorize the release at a later time of information which was 'current' when compiled. We therefore conclude the language is ambiguous and it is necessary to look at additional factors to determine the purpose and intent of the statute." (Kusar, supra, at p. 596.) In Kusar, the mandate of section 6254, subdivision (f)(1) and (2) was deemed to be "limited to contemporaneous information," in light of related statutes regulating "the maintenance and disclosure of historical arrest information" being sought (e.g., Pen. Code, 832.5, 832.7, 832.8 or Evid. Code, 1043-1046, all of which impose "rather careful restrictions upon the disclosure of information from records of citizen complaints against police officers"). (Kusar, supra, at p. 599.)