Freedom of Information Act to possibly be gutted?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diablos

Member
http://www.usatoday.com/news/Washington/2006-07-05-foia-research_x.htm

Tax dollars to fund study on restricting public data
Updated 7/5/2006 11:27 PM ET
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom-of-information requests.

Beginning this month, St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio will analyze recent state laws that place previously available information, such as site plans of power plants, beyond the reach of public inquiries.

Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at the law school, said he will use that research to produce a national "model statute" that state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that potentially dangerous information "stays out of the hands of the bad guys."

"There's the public's right to know, but how much?" said Addicott, a former legal adviser in the Army's Special Forces.

"There's a strong feeling that the law needs to balance that with the need to protect the well-being of the nation. ... There's too much stuff that's easy to get that shouldn't be," he said.

The federal Freedom of Information Act, which became law 40 years ago this week, has long been a source of tension between the government and the public and news media.

Critics say the research plan overstates the need for secrecy and is likely to give state and federal governments too much discretion to withhold material. "Restricting information (for) security and efficiency and comfort level, that's the good story," says Paul McMasters, a specialist in public information law at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. "The bad story is that it can also be a great instrument of control. ... To automatically believe that the less known the better is really not rational."

Congress added the grant to this year's Defense Department budget. It is being administered through the Air Force Research Laboratory, Addicott said. The laboratory in Rome, N.Y., specializes in information technology, according to its website.

The Freedom of Information Act was signed July 4, 1966. All 50 states and the federal government have "sunshine laws" that allow reporters and citizens access to many government meetings and to government records through freedom-of-information requests.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:Signed documents by President Johnson (.pdf files)

In the past four years, Congress, the District of Columbia and 41 of the 50 states have moved to close some meetings and restrict records for fear of making information available to terrorists, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va.

Under a 2002 law, for instance, information submitted to the federal government by private industry that concerns "critical infrastructure programs" is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests or use in lawsuits.

Since 2004, Virginia has withheld terrorism response plans, as well as engineering and architectural drawings of government buildings that are deemed to be possible terrorist targets. Since 2004, Ohio has required formal requests and fees to access formerly open birth and death records.

Addicott says the various state plans should "take a more uniform approach" so that neighboring states and the federal government are "on the same page."

In 2003, he said, a simulated cyberattack on San Antonio's water and government information systems showed that computer security data that was protected under federal law could have been accessed by terrorists under Texas legislation.

Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, says the research program is in keeping with a recent federal trend to use "homeland security" as an excuse to restrict unrelated material.

"Decisions (on requests for public information) are being handled in progressively less friendly ways," she said.

Addicott said he knows of no cases in this country in which public records or a public meeting were used for a terrorist act. In 2002, a hacker in Australia breached the data control system of a water treatment plant and caused 260,000 gallons of sewage to be discharged.

"We're leaning forward in the saddle (and) thinking about this before it happens," he said.

A lot of things that you simply want to "keep out of the hands of the bad guys" is also kept out of the public's eye, I would think. I fear they'll get way too much control over what we do and don't have a right to be informed of.
 
Study my ass, it seems they've already made up their minds. Christ talk about total horse shit and what really pisses me off is this "Tax dollars to fund study on restricting public data"
 
Their examples are weak too. Comparing an intrusion into a closed network vs. access to public records by layman. Hardly the same thing.
 
Good thing we fought the American Revolution 230 years ago. This way, when we reenact all these British laws, it looks like we came up with them on our own.
 
Diablos said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/Washington/2006-07-05-foia-research_x.htm
A lot of things that you simply want to "keep out of the hands of the bad guys" is also kept out of the public's eye, I would think. I fear they'll get way too much control over what we do and don't have a right to be informed of.

Apart from the outrageous price, I see nothing wrong with this study. There are certain things that really shouldn't be public knowledge, and as long as the group is accountable for their decisions perhaps what they plan to do is a good thing.
 
whytemyke said:
Good thing we fought the American Revolution 230 years ago. This way, when we reenact all these British laws, it looks like we came up with them on our own.
:lol
 
Javaman said:
Apart from the outrageous price, I see nothing wrong with this study. There are certain things that really shouldn't be public knowledge, and as long as the group is accountable for their decisions perhaps what they plan to do is a good thing.
In a government built by and for the people, if not of them necessarily, why should we not have full disclosure of things that go on? How can the public accept that they don't deserve to know certain things and then turn around and call themselves citizens? I don't need to know every military strategy but outside of direct warfare operations I should know EVERYTHING that the government does. I should even know how much yesterday's lunch cost if I want to. I'm paying for this shit with my taxes and I'm choosing who gets to do what and who gets this job. If I, as a citizen, am to make an informed decision about my representation then I should know everything that is going to be on that persons job.

I'm sorry that it makes things a little bit harder for the representatives in Washington, I really am. But I think that as long as I'm paying taxes I should get to know exactly what I'm paying for. That's how the public maintains accountability and when you start hiding things like that from the public, for their own good, then the public loses accountability to the politicians and becomes impotent to make change. Afterall, what changes can be made when people never even realize that a change needs to be made?
 
Freedom of Information Act hates Freedom.


Seriously, this is ****ed up. As if the US government needs more power to cover up its actions.


Mind you they seem to keep doing all these shitty things and no one does anything to punish or stop them, so what does it matter if we find out or not.
 
whytemyke said:
In a government built by and for the people, if not of them necessarily, why should we not have full disclosure of things that go on? How can the public accept that they don't deserve to know certain things and then turn around and call themselves citizens?

Full disclosure? There does have to be a line drawn somewhere. I hate to ratchet this up to absurd levels, but stuff like military base layouts, nuclear missile locations and stuff are all paid for by tax dollars but that doesn't mean we need to have casual access to them. Studies like this "can" help set this line without going too far.
 
Javaman said:
Full disclosure? There does have to be a line drawn somewhere. I hate to ratchet this up to absurd levels, but stuff like military base layouts, nuclear missile locations and stuff are all paid for by tax dollars but that doesn't mean we need to have casual access to them. Studies like this "can" help set this line without going too far.
I agree on this completely, and if tihs study is intended as a way to help draw this line, then fine. But if this study is used to support the insane comments spouted by the President last week about the NYT/WSJ/LAT pieces on the terrorist bank account monitoring, then color me enraged.
 
whytemyke said:
I agree on this completely, and if tihs study is intended as a way to help draw this line, then fine. But if this study is used to support the insane comments spouted by the President last week about the NYT/WSJ/LAT pieces on the terrorist bank account monitoring, then color me enraged.
Uh, what do those stories have to do with the FoIA?
 
Guileless said:
Get your v for vendetta masks ready GAF!

GAF should wear these masks instead:

mcconaughey_mbp_0707_300.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom