Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States Politics

America Expands Its Freedom of Information Act (washingtonpost.com) 95

Posted by EditorDavid from the Independence-Day dept.
An anonymous reader writes: As America headed into its "Independence Day weekend," the U.S. Congress passed -- and President Obama signed -- the "FOIA Improvements Act of 2016". It now establishes a "presumption of disclosure" by law, and will even allow the disclosure of "deliberative process" records after 25 years, meaning those records from the Reagan (and prior) administrations should now become open, according to the Washington Post. In addition, the law also creates a comprehensive new "online request portal" for requesting records from all agencies, and even requires those agencies to make digital copies available for any records requested three or more times.

"By updating FOIA for the digital age, our law puts more government information than ever before online in a format familiar and accessible to the American people," said Senator Leahy, who sponsored the legislation. On the 50th anniversary of America's original Freedom of Information Act, Leahy added that "a government of, by, and for the people cannot be one that is hidden from them... "
It's the law's 50th anniversary, and Leahy imagined a world 50 years in the future, when the next generation "will look back at this moment and gauge our commitment to the founding principles of our democracy. Let them see that we continued striving for a 'more perfect union' by strengthening the pillar of transparency that holds our government accountable to "We the People.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America Expands Its Freedom of Information Act More

America Expands Its Freedom of Information Act

Comments Filter:

  • Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2016 @07:42AM (#52442161)

    And the President signed the law on the same day that the State Department said they needed an additional 27 months to release emails between Department of State employees and the Clinton Foundation. Nothing to see here, move on....

    • Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Informative)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @07:49AM (#52442185)
      Nah, doesn't matter. The FOIA doesn't apply to Hillary in any case.

      • Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @11:10AM (#52442821) Homepage

        Never mind that the investigation started explicitly because of a FOIA request...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by godrik ( 1287354 )

        Well, even if it doesn't apply there, it is still fairly ironic.

      • I doubt this bill is just about targeting Hillary et al. The people who are going to get hit with FOIA requests will be climatologists at NASA and NOAA. They're already compelled to release the raw data (which they do anyway), but now they'll be forced to fork over every single email they ever sent so that the the Senate Environmental Committee can continue its climate conspiracy witch hunt.

      • Re: Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @02:35PM (#52443859) Journal

        The FOIA was the whole reason why Hillaty put up a private email server. She wanted her email traffic to not be on a government server and thus subject to the FOIA.

        This whole thing is attempt by Obama to salvage a legacy. The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistle blowers than any other in history.

        • I'm curious, have they prosecuted a higher percentage of whistleblowers?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TroII ( 4484479 )

          The FOIA was the whole reason why Hillaty put up a private email server. She wanted her email traffic to not be on a government server and thus subject to the FOIA.

          I wonder where in the world [wikipedia.org] she learned such a tactic?

          • You are totally right, she learned the tactic (which was illegal when she entered office) from the requirements placed on the Bush administration by the Democrats in order to separate out political party email traffic from the White House email traffic. Or did you somehow think that the Bush White House ran their own email server for the hell of it?

            http://insider.foxnews.com/201... [foxnews.com]

            But of course, running an official email, and a separate email for political party email is required by law, so I guess it tota

        • This whole thing is attempt by Obama to salvage a legacy. The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistle blowers than any other in history.

          Congress wrote and past this law, not Obama.

  • So... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @07:50AM (#52442191) Homepage Journal

    How's Kennedy Assassination documents declassification going? They were supposed to hit the public sometime this year, I heard.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2016 @08:20AM (#52442267)

      according to Section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Kennedy Act, all records in the Kennedy Collection will be opened by 2017 unless certified as justifiably closed by the President of the United States. (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html)

  • Obama. What a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by felrom ( 2923513 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @07:59AM (#52442215)

    The president with the worst history of blanket denial of FOIA requests, running the most opaque government in our lifetime, signs a law "improving" the FOIA system. What a joke! If he and his executive branch didn't respect it before, they wont respect it now.

    I was reading on a gun blog recently about a lawyer who sent the FBI an FOIA wanting to know what offenses would make a person a "domestic abuser" and disqualify them from buying a gun. The FBI said the list was secret and refused to answer. There's your most transparent administration ever!

    The BATFE has stopped responding to FOIAs completely. If you want anything from them, you have to sue, pay for counsel, and wait for the lethargic court system to sort it out for a few years. They've even claimed they're not subject to FOIA requests AT ALL!

    http://www.guns.com/2015/08/12... [guns.com]

    • Re:Obama. What a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2016 @08:29AM (#52442293)

      The president with the worst history of blanket denial of FOIA requests, running the most opaque government in our lifetime, signs a law "improving" the FOIA system. What a joke! If he and his executive branch didn't respect it before, they wont respect it now.

      I didn't like Obama either time he ran for president and I still don't like him. I felt like his worldview was completely wrong, and would cause overall harm to the country. However, his promise of transparency was the one thing about him that made me say, "if he actually follows through on this, we as the people will stand a decent chance of fixing our government for the first time in modern history because we'll know what they are really doing." Of course, I also thought, "we'll see how long it lasts if he gets elected." One key element of Obama's promise was that every piece of legislation would be posted to the Congress' website after passage by both houses before he would sign it in order allow for public comment. I believe it was supposed to be a minimum of five days. As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened once even going back to the first piece of legislation he signed. It certainly didn't happen with the Affordable Care Act, and the way he has been using Executive Orders (some of them secret) to get around Congress one could reasonably conclude that Obama never intended to be transparent, but only said that to appeal to the younger libertarian and classical liberal crowd.

      In fact, I would say the best description of Obama is, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." There are plenty of things I dislike about Trump in this election cycle, but whatever you think of him, he certainly won't be "same as the old boss." Hillary, on the other hand, well...

      • All of the bills introduced in congress are posted same-day on https://www.congress.gov/ [congress.gov]. I don't know about the 5 days thing, but I think it is quite rare for bills to be introduced, passed and signed that quick. I looked at a few of the bills on there and none of them were passed in less than a month after they were introduced, and none of them were signed in fewer than a few weeks after they were passed.

        • All of the bills introduced in congress are posted same-day on https://www.congress.gov/ [congress.gov]. I don't know about the 5 days thing, but I think it is quite rare for bills to be introduced, passed and signed that quick. I looked at a few of the bills on there and none of them were passed in less than a month after they were introduced, and none of them were signed in fewer than a few weeks after they were passed.

          If they weren't signed within 10 days, they become law automatically. So, no, I doubt they were all posted for a few weeks before being signed.

          • I don't know how it works but sometimes it shows that a bill was passed by both the house and senate but not presented to the president for another few days or a week. So some of them have 2-3 weeks between passing and being signed. But anyway my point was that none of them (that I could see) were passed and signed within 5 days.

      • Been there, done that. (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        he certainly won't be "same as the old boss."

        Aside from aesthetics (eg, actually yelling at people who may or may not need to be yelled at), Trump won't change shit.

        Not even the horrific tyranny that is 'signing statements' don't even give the office of the president the power people seem to attribute to that office.

        Trump won't change shit. Sanders wouldn't have changed shit. Hillary loves bathing in the current shit. So, we're stuck with a shitshow, no matter who gets in.

        Because nobody is going to vote to replace the Gentleman from Pork For My St

  • And the very last paragraph? (Score:5, Informative)

    by RCourtney ( 973307 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @08:03AM (#52442225)
    "This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

    Am I reading that right? A presumption of disclosure is what they claim...but don't hold them to it?

  • The nine exceptions: (Score:5, Informative)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @08:19AM (#52442265) Journal
    Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security. Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged. Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including: Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney-Work Product Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy. Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions. Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

    • So... roll a d10 to determine excuse why it cannot be published, on a 10 you win a free reroll?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bahumat ( 213955 )

      Why exemption #9? Is that to avoid someone having an unfair advantage in mining scouting, or what?

  • No additional funds authorized? (Score:5, Informative)

    by fl_litig8r ( 904972 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @08:20AM (#52442269)

    The law itself specifies that no additional funds are authorized to comply with the new requirements, so we'll see how these changes will actually be implemented. The Washington Post article cited in the summary already notes "Federal agencies have often starved their FOIA departments for resources; the new law will not change that. Backlogs stretch for years."

    So, yeah. In theory, it gives broader and easier access to records. In practice, expect to wait forever to have your records request processed, just as before.

    • A rider to the bill demanding a speedy retrieval of requested information would've doomed it to a quick death by bureaucratic groan.

      Even despite the limitations, a law that demands government answer its citizens is a good one, and another useful tool to keep the beast reined in.

      It is not only useful at a federal level. Even Civically, our local paper has successfully retrieved entrenched information from (often reluctant) Municipal employees.

    • So, yeah. In theory, it gives broader and easier access to records. In practice, expect to wait forever to have your records request processed, just as before.

      A cynic would note that if they have more requests but the same output, it means they have that much more options as to which requests to ignore.

  • There is a cynicism upgrade available which will restart the modules.

  • As usual, if there is something positive coming from Washington and it involves a Democrat, slashdot cannot identify that person as one. I'm surprised this story even made the front page.

    • Well, something positive coming from Washington usually takes us SO by surprise that we forget to ask who did it, fearing that they might reconsider if we talk too much.

    • I'm with you that they should always label the party that a politician belongs to. (And with Senators they should also give the state.)

      However, the problems with FOIA's execution are of the executive branch, which is currently run by a Democrat. Leaving out the party ID helps Democrats, because if someone isn't paying attention, they'll assume the story is "Republican Senator criticizes Democrat President," which happens all the time. "Democrat criticizes Democrat" is more likely to be interesting.

    • If you read the whole thing with all the exemptions, you will find it's hardly positive, which is indeed very typical of the democrats. Heavy on the rhetoric, very light on the action. ACA, anyone?

      The republicans freed the slaves and desegregated the schools, and helped pass civil rights legislation (It couldn't have happened without them). What do the democrats do? Lock 'em up! [cnn.com]

      You should quit while you're behind...

  • It's the law's 50th anniversary, and Leahy imagined a world 50 years in the future, when the next generation "will look back at this moment and gauge our commitment to the founding principles of our democracy.

    Indeed they will. And they'll look back at the DHS, TSA, and the Patriot act and laugh at his quote. Or the DHS may have outlawed laughter by they and those who laugh will be executed because, terrorists.

  • See gselinks.com for what Obama thinks about the freedom of information. His administration wants to keep an unprecedented 10k documents from seeing the light of day.

  • How about we finally get every bit of information about the JFK assassination with no redacted portions and from all investigations by all government agencies into the JFK, Bobby K. and Dr. King's murders. Everybody hold their breath and wait !

  • but from a regular human perspective it's hogwash!

    Where is the majority of information concerning regular individuals kept?

    Try to get an insurance, high chances are that you are asked for your SS-#, for what purpose?

    In the US, there is one great feature: The whole population is indexed on one key - SS-# where there was one original purpose and its use has subsequently expanded to what it is now - the ultimate exploitation tool.

    Try getting a company to disclose what data it has about you, something similar

  • Leahy imagined a world 50 years in the future, when the next generation "will look back at this moment and gauge our commitment to the founding principles of our democracy."

    Nothing against Patrick Leahy, but - I imagine when the next generation looks back at this era in American history, they'll see it as the moment when the government attempted to flush the "founding principles of our democracy" down the toilet.

  • The requirement to provide the materials in an electronic format gets rid of the "send crates of printed pages" response to a FOIA request for government software, but I did not see a requirement or standard method to indicate where material had been redacted from the middle of information presented in electronic format.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      ...I did not see a requirement or standard method to indicate where material had been redacted from the middle of information presented in electronic format.

      They can just scan the pages after redacting them and make a PDF of page images available. It would technically be an electronic version of the document, but the redaction would be non-reversible and the page would still not be super-easy to search, being an image still.

  • Meanwhile here in the UK. Ex-PM Tony Blair reckons that the watered down FOIA he implemented was the worst decision he made - and that includes the Iraq war - and the current incumbents are doing their best to water it down even further. They'd scrap it completely if they could but even the Daily Fascist^Mail would complain if they did.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close