Wikileaks Publishes $1B of Public Domain Research Reports 231
laird writes "Wikileaks has released
nearly a billion dollars worth of quasi-secret reports commissioned by the United States Congress. The 6,780 reports, current as of this month, comprise over 127,000 pages of material on some of the most contentious issues in the nation, from the U.S. relationship with Israel to abortion legislation. Nearly 2,300 of the reports were updated in the last 12 months, while the oldest report goes back to 1990. The release represents the total output of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) electronically available to Congressional offices. The CRS is Congress's analytical agency and has a budget in excess of $100M per year. Although all CRS reports are legally in the public domain, they are quasi-secret because the CRS, as a matter of policy, makes the reports available only to members of Congress, Congressional committees and select sister agencies such as the GAO. Members of Congress are free to selectively release CRS reports to the public but are only motivated to do so when they feel the results would assist them politically. Universally embarrassing reports are kept quiet."
McCain (Score:1, Interesting)
Open government lawmakers such as Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont) have fought for years to make the reports public, with bills being introduced--and rejected--almost every year since 1998.
Oops... maybe I should have voted for McCain.
Re:Saddening (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For the .01% of the people who would read it... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:For the .01% of the people who would read it... (Score:5, Interesting)
The original article states that politicians are only motivated to release information that potentially helps them politically. There is very likely to be information which would be politically dangerous. e.g. information lobby groups do not want know. Anyway what's to say it wasn't a politician who gave the information to Wikileaks?
Why not under FOIA? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why wouldn't these reports be available under FOIA? Considering that its "nominally public domain" already, what exemption would it fall under to bar a request?
So, what's so interesting? (Score:3, Interesting)
So now that these reports are "released", how many of you, slashdot readers that post in this thread, actually read at least 1 of them in its entirety? How many read 2? 5? Hands, anyone?
I did go to the site. I read 3 reports on a topic that interests me. What I found was a dry, relatively correct, summary of public and well known information. These reports are created so that each congressman (or whoever else may need them) does not have to read every single newspaper, web site or send his staff on a search of basic statistics. The information is not obtained in ways that are inaccessible to you and me, and reports do not seem to provide any particular insight not already available to those who follow the topic (for example I found nothing of interest in these reports, everything was well known to me, because I follow this topic on my own).
There are hundreds of thousands of reports like these prepared in each large (or small) organization on variety of themes. They are not specifically released because, frankly, it is pointless to do so. While some sort of a website with these reports would be a symbol of opennes, it would likely have very little practical applicability. The only people who need these reports are those who need information on topics that they don't personally care very much about (so they don't want to do their own research) but do need for whatever reason to know what's going on. That means: :) :)
1) politicians
2) students, in particular during midterms and finals
1st group has access anyway and 2nd could benefit from doing a bit of research on their own.
Feel free to rate this flamebait.
Re:Would Wikileaks publish a document about itself (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think publishing such a list would constitute staying true to their values.
Re:Saddening (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not so secret (Score:1, Interesting)
They used to be easier to get. A few years ago, like much else, changes were made in policy to be more restrictive.
However, the Federation of American Scientists have been collecting them and posting them on their website since the change in rules, so this isn't the first time they've been publicly "released." It's true that the only people who will actually read them are people sufficiently interested in the topic at hand to seek them out, but there's no reason for them to be hidden.
Re:So, what's so interesting? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now that you skimmed some reports, you can judge that they were harmless, and claim it's "pointless" to release them. Hindsight is 20/20, right?
I skimmed some too, and found them similarly dry, but had exactly the opposite reaction. I am upset that they have not been released earlier. $1,000,000,000 of taxpayers' money went to producing these reports. We paid for them and if they are not a matter of national security (in which case they should be classified), then we should have access to them.
If democracy is going to work, voters need as much information as possible when deciding whether or not to replace their leaders come election time. Therefore, open access to harmless material should be the rule, not the exception. Closed access should be used only when absolutely necessary. Anything else makes it too easy for bad leaders (incompetent or otherwise) to cover their tracks and maintain power undeservedly.
Re:So, what's so interesting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Already have read one in its entirety while I was eating lunch, and will probably go digging around for more of interest this evening.
While I agree with the supposition that the general populous is too stupid and/or lazy to bother educating themselves, and the release will not do them any good anyway, I'd argue on the side of, "Why not make the information available anyway?" It's a pretty good way for someone to bring themselves up to speed on some of the nuances of issues without doing a lot of research. Not like the government doesn't have plenty of bandwidth and a few servers...
Re:Strategy and Economic advantage (Score:3, Interesting)
Occupational hazard of a free society. I'll deal with it.
Re:For the .01% of the people who would read it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even from the perspective of a socialist who wants a large government that does a lot of things, McCain is admirable for trimming things that were actually wasteful. I don't particularly like the McCain that I saw in the election (Palin terrified me, and the xenophobic crowds he was forced to play to worry me), and still think Obama's a bit better on issues I care about, but I think McCain would've made a good president and hope he stays in politics (even as he's a bit old to run for the presidency again). I hope the future of the Republican party looks a lot more like John McCain and less like Rumsfeld, Ron Paul, or Sarah Palin (even as they represent different factions of the party).
DRm and Fair Use...interesting. (Score:1, Interesting)
http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL31827.txt