This Blog Is Republishing All the Animal Welfare Records the USDA Deleted (vice.com) 91
Last year, thousands of animal welfare records were removed from the web by the Department of Agriculture. Now, a government transparency blog is on a mission to recover and republish as many of these records as possible. From a report on Motherboard: "Whenever there are documents that were online, but got pulled offline, they're automatically important," said Russ Kick, who runs the blog The Memory Hole 2, where many of the documents have already been re-published. "Nobody's going to go through the trouble to delete something that doesn't matter." The documents, which were removed by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) late last week, included inspection records and annual reports made under the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. The USDA indicated that removing the documents was in response to a court decision, but a spokesperson contacted by Motherboard would not specify what court case. The records were typically used by animal welfare groups to keep tabs on how well these laws were being enforced, but were also used by the general public to research the inspection records of everything from dog breeders to circuses and zoos. "I've learned that if I see something and think 'I'm really surprised the government posted this,' I need to download it," Kick told me. "So when I found these reports, I thought 'this is surprising,' and I downloaded them."
Fahrenheit 451 (Score:2, Insightful)
First, disappear all the records. History is for losers. Information is sad.
Re:Fahrenheit 451 (Score:5, Funny)
"Trump's raid on Yemen was actually a great success, but the left-wing media doesn't want you to know that."
Re:Signal to Noise Ratio? (Score:4, Interesting)
BS, the reason most offices implement the shred everything rule is so that the employees don't have to make a decision about whether or not something meets the "Shred This" criteria. Better safe than sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
I worked one place where a manager said it's a good idea to keep everything because it might need to be subpoenaed someday. I worked a different place where a manager said to purge old stuff because it might need to be subpoenaed someday.
Re: (Score:2)
The places I work at all say, "Please follow the data retention policy" and get their lawyers involved in defining that.
Re: (Score:2)
So they don't want you to understand what the data retention policy is?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Same for encryption. Encrypt EVERYTHING. Including the grocery list you used last week. More noise!
Re: (Score:2)
Shredding though is different than deleting. As you say, you're introducing noise into the data (aka useless shredded documents mixed in to the valuable shreds)
Deleting though doesn't leave a publicly accessible trace - delete the valuable stuff from your website, it's gone. There are no "shreds" left behind that people can download and attempt to reconstruct.
In fact, the process works the other way around - it's the stuff that doesn't matter that you *haven't* deleted that is acting as noise, obscuring th
Re: (Score:2)
Good answer.
Shock of all shocks (Score:4, Informative)
Trump did not order the files taken down, having been done under the not-so-watchful eye of Barack "Government should be transparent" Obama.
Re: (Score:1)
Great! So this is something that both democrats and republicans can get upset about.
Re:Shock of all shocks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
May I ask why it matters? What matters is that these files were taken down. Why the FUCK should I care what side of The Party wanted to screw us over this time?
Re: (Score:2)
May I ask why it matters?
Because this action is being used to make political hay, and for political purposes knowing who did what matters.
Why the FUCK should I care
Nobody was saying you should. If you don't care whether it was done under Obama or Trump, that's fine. But obviously you care enough to post a comment that amounts to "I don't care". That's an interesting contradiction between words and deeds.
Re: (Score:2)
I do care that the files were taken down. I don't care who did it. I do care who puts them back.
I don't care who makes mistakes or who drops the ball. I care for who fixes them and gets the system back in order.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite like that. The typical patten is that the Democrats set up a potentially abusive program for good social reasons, and the Republicans then make use of it for abusive purposes. Then when the Democrats get in again "that's just the way the law works", and they set up another.....
There are also occasional instances where the Republicans set up something potentially abusive "for good market reasons" and then the Democrats get in and make use of it for abusive purposes. Then when the Republican
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
People will take you more seriously if you don't lead with idiotic nonsense like Animals should be treated as a separate nation.
Not posting as an AC would also help.
It's possible to make a strong moral case against meat-eating, but you're not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Lions and Tigers shouldn't eat our friends either! And kitties, they shouldn't have any animal protein either*!!!!
*Cats actually will die if they don't eat animal protein. Ever see what happens to a vegan cat? It is horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Pasta, carrot cake, pancakes, some breads, and any number of other things have eggs in them, and if they don't eat animal byproducts like milk then it's almost impossible to eat anything. Nothing like telling a vegan that their pancakes have undeveloped chicken embryos in them.
Protein deficiency causes all kinds of problem for humans also muscle weakness, fatigue, hair loss, apathy, lower blood pressure, etc...
Re: (Score:1)
More to the point, it isn't like veganism is some ancient religious dietary restriction or even an anti-polonium-210 diet where if you let a few micrograms pass your lips for any reason you've "lost". People make the decision to eat vegan for many, many reasons, almost none of which are somehow completely undone by the occasional need to make accomodations.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd agree if we were talking of vegetarians - many of which doesn't really disagree with eating meat but doesn't want or can eat it themselves. Vegans though? Ideology and really bad understanding of nutrition is almost a requirement, there are often other ideological (and completely unfounded) ideas of humans place in the world, the values of a life (a human baby being worth the same as a dumb animal that lives in squalor for a few years) etc.
I wrote almost above as there may be a vegan somewhere that is s
Re: (Score:2)
If you need to tell a "vegan" that, then your so-called vegan has been seriously failing to do their homework.
When I decided to become a vegan, I knew perfectly well that I was going to have to read every word of the contents list of everything that I ate. And ruthlessly put it back on the shelf if it had the slightest hint of animal product in it. No "if", no "but" ; if it has any animal produce in it, it is out of t
Re: (Score:2)
My youngest son is allergic to dairy products [not lactose intolerant] just that alone is really hard to avoid.
I'm not sure I could imagine a world without cake, muffins, cookies, donuts, pancakes, pasta, cheese, yogurt, mashed potatoes, ice cream, sherbet, chocolate, cookies, butter, salad dressing, chewing gum, and the list goes on and on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure. It was hard enough being a vegan in the UK in the 80s and 90s.
Your son.
Put that way, isn't the choice simpler?
The world doesn't guarantee that all your choices will have a nice option. I didn't particularly want to spend a decade as a vegan, but I felt that it was unavoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
A fine example of an idiotic argument against vegetarianism, but... what was the point here, again?
Re: (Score:2)
I've read a lot of batshit insane crap on /. throughout the years, but I guess this is the current leader in the "bullshit of the year" award race.
Fewer animals (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What is your basis for preferring animals not even existing as they won't be bred to be eaten, to having a life where they eventually get killed for food?
I make no bones (well, I make some bones) about being an omnivore, but that's still a perfectly logically consistent position if you don't believe in souls, but are still opposed to suffering. "Not even existing" isn't a problem, because it's not like they are in the queue, waiting to be born as a cow.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe that cows, chicken, etc. should be made extinct? They sure can't survive on their own anymore...not if predation isn't controlled. Modern sheep can't even defend themselves against parrots.
Re: (Score:2)
The reasons people still eat meat in the developed world are habit, taste, and convenience, and none of these reasons are sufficient to justify killing an animal to satisfy some type of primal urge.
Sure they are. They're great reasons and plenty sufficient. If they weren't sufficient nobody would do it.
like rain on your wedding day (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what happened to the first two, and why aren't they still around?
follow Gamergate on 8chan
Really? Shit, I wouldn't suggest that to someone that expressed deep misgivings regarding the integrity of online evaluators of modern digital entertainment.
Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Because privacy is a basic human right, unless it's records about others.
Re: (Score:3)
And a company is not a human.
Re: (Score:2)
It said they're legal persons, it didn't claim they're human.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does that work out when the government keeps (and I'm including via proxy here) records of all your communications? Think about that position a bit more carefully.
That said, certainly THESE records shouldn't be secret and should be retained. I'm willing to accept that perhaps it would be better if they weren't public, but if they aren't, how to you guarantee their retention, and how do you make them available for use in deciding between vendors, or filing a lawsuit? Those are certainly valid uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have been promoted from people to humans now?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's information about businesses and corporations, which exist only as legal fictions tolerated by the population because of their supposed economic benefits. If you cloak yourself from legal liability for your crimes behind a legal fiction, don't be surprised that the fiction has fewer rights than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge that has been "in the wild" can never be quarantined, no more than a ritual gesture can revert virginity. Doesn't matter how ethical you feeeeel about it. Pee's in the pool. Cat's outta the bag. One way valve, barring time travel.
This makes for some weird laws, which think they can control a concept, a mental abstract, everywhere in the universe. Simultaneously. Forever.
Data is a contagion. It's only yours to control if quarantined.
Probably not very exciting (Score:5, Interesting)
I work at a place that gets inspected by APHIS. APHIS also puts our material into quarantine.
We have permits for all kinds of things that sound icky and salacious. If someone read the reports they might think, "Wait, something bad is going on here- why are they doing this? Let's follow the trail and find out what they are doing!"
They would be very disappointed to find out what is really going on- that it is all part of 'normal' business. That the icky sounding stuff would be absolutely pedestrian if you understood it.
APHIS is a prettyboring place once you get over the idea of 'quarantine'. My guess is that these records would be boring at first glance, andpretty much just spreadsheet data regardingregular inspections once you have an understanding of what they are doing.
But...maybe that's all just a conspiracy...
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they were pulled down is because the records contain home addresses, and animal rights groups use 'em to find targets to harass and destroy. I guess if you're all up for doxxing people you don't like, the records should stay public.
Alternative facts (Score:2, Insightful)
Other records need protection too (Score:2)
Like this one [bloomberg.com] for example...
People should be more careful who they vote for
More information (Score:3, Informative)
*Update, 7 February, 12:15 p.m.: The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a statement this morning regarding the removal of animal welfare reports from its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) website:
“The review of APHIS’ website has been ongoing, and the agency is striving to balance the need for transparency with rules protecting individual privacy. In 2016, well before the change of Administration, APHIS decided to make adjustments to the posting of regulatory records. In addition, APHIS is currently involved in litigation concerning, among other issues, information posted on the agency’s website. While the agency is vigorously defending against this litigation, in an abundance of caution, the agency is taking additional measures to protect individual privacy. These decisions are not final. Adjustments may be made regarding information appropriate for release and posting.” [sciencemag.org]
Except that USDA statement is a LIE. (Score:5, Informative)
"The review of APHIS' website has been ongoing, and the agency is striving to balance the need for transparency with rules protecting individual privacy.
In 2016, well before the change of Administration, APHIS decided to make adjustments to the posting of regulatory records.
In addition, APHIS is currently involved in litigation concerning, among other issues, information posted on the agency's website.
While the agency is vigorously defending against this litigation, in an abundance of caution, the agency is taking additional measures to protect individual privacy.
These decisions are not final. Adjustments may be made regarding information appropriate for release and posting."
A blatant and stupid lie.
Trump administration forgets that people from the Obama administration are still alive and around.
Matt Herrick, [usda.gov] director of Communications of USDA under Obama, tweeted this [twitter.com] regarding the disappearing of animal abuse reports:
Decision by @usda 2 remove animal abuse reports not required.
Totally subjective. Same option given 2 past admin. We refused. #transparency
And it's not the first (and probably not the last) time that Trump administration, once caught doing something they shouldn't be doing, tries to blame it on Obama.
Like the Muslim ban, Yemen raid fiasco (BTW, that was "winning" [independent.co.uk]), Trump's disastrous calls to Mexican and Australian heads of state... [foxnews.com] and now this.
More here. [msnbc.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Like the Muslim ban,
Is there a ban on being muslim? I know of none. I suspect you are talking about the suspension of immigration from seven specific countries, using the incorrect language the mass media has attached to it.
Have you read the "Muslim ban"? I have. See no reference to muslims or Islam anywhere in it. You can read it [whitehouse.gov] for yourself and point out the places I missed, perhaps? I do see references to refugee status for religious persecution, but the religion is not specified any further than "must be a minority reli
LOOK AT THAT STRAWMAN RUN!!! RUN STRAWMAN! RUN! (Score:2)
Is there a ban on being muslim? I know of none. I suspect you are talking about the suspension of immigration from seven specific countries, using the incorrect language the mass media has attached to it.
NOPE! Comrade.
I am talking about Trump and his cohorts trying to blame Obama for their own unconstitutional actions - for which they just got their asses handed to them the federal appeals court. Sad.
CONGRATULATIONS COMRADE! TRUMP WON! ENJOY!
But do feel free to put up any strawman you like. After all... there's already a strawhead puppet put up in the White House.
Or a tu quoque fallacy.
Trump is not unique in something like this.
Which, AGAIN, manages to also be a false equivalence fallacy.
Cause not since King George the Third ruled in today's US part
Someone who cannot answer a simple question? (Score:2)
NOPE!
Glad you admit there is no "Muslim ban".
I am talking about Trump and his cohorts trying to blame Obama for their own unconstitutional actions
No, actually, you were providing a list of why you hate Trump. The first one, your "Muslim ban", doesn't exist. The others were specious hyperbole.
RIIIIIGHT! OK... So that's the new standard?
Well, your new standard for "disaster" seems to be "did something I don't like." I'm just trying to bring us back to a more reasonable standard. You claimed the calls were "disastrous", I'm just trying to figure out exactly what that disaster was. Do you have anything at all, or just more flummery and insult?
IT ain't 1960's bro. Nobody's putting up missiles.
Right. North
AHAHHAAHA! What a pathetic loser you are... (Score:2)
Truly... Pathetic. Such a loser. Sad.
You just keep banging them red herrings kiddo, pushing them irrelevant conclusions...
None of those are arguments. Nor are they addressing the facts I stated. You know... Facts. As in reality.
But you just keep on keeping on! Enjoy! Trump won! Don't be such a loser son! Go on!
Run naked through the streets yelling "WE WON! WE WON! WE WAAHAHAAAHAAN!!!"
Instead of being such a pathetic, sad, little loser that you have to keep resorting to fallacies.
At least you could LIE... It
Re: (Score:2)
"Adjustments may be made ..."
Kinda hard to adjust a bulk deletion, ne?
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda hard to adjust a bulk deletion, ne?
Not when the "deletion" is a takedown from a website.
I take things off my websites (I run five) all the time. Does that make all that stuff "automatically important"? That's what Russ Kick thinks:
So every time I update my personal website with a new "editorial" on some issue and take down the previous one, my opinion suddenly becomes important to him?
And does the fact that you don't have a link to the d
Re: (Score:2)
Umnh.... when the president is known to believe in denying facts, and trying to hinder their spread, and is believed to be a liar, then you shouldn't be surprised if people don't trust what his spokesmen say, especially if it apparently furthers his stated agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the previous presidents didn't go around blatantly lying on national television even before they were elected. (OTOH, I wouldn't deny that you would be justified in doubting the word of every prior spokesman, just that most people didn't. Currently my feeling is that anyone who doesn't doubt every official pronouncement is an idiot...or REALLY ignores politics.)
"Nobody's going to go through the trouble ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody's going to go through the trouble to delete something that doesn't matter."
What ???!!!???
I do that all the time.
You are also not a government where every decision is a culmination of hundreds of man-hours of meetings, discovery, reports and more meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Technically you're just participating in the bitching section below a Washington Post story.
Politician Jeopardy! (Score:2)
I'll take "Things you'll never hear from a Clinton" for $500 Alex.
And the answer is: "Nobody's going to go through the trouble to delete something that doesn't matter."
Re: (Score:2)
What difference does it make?
Going through the trouble? (Score:2)
Nobody's going to go through the trouble to delete something that doesn't matter
What the hell is he talking about. Clearly he's never run out of disk space before.
I run Unix (Score:2)
And I irrecoverably delete the wrong files all the time.
Sloppy thinking (Score:2)
Nobody's going to go through the trouble to delete something that doesn't matter
While I sympathize with Mr. Kick, and remain skeptical of the new administration, this statement is just stupid.
Things get deleted all the time, especially by people who later decide they would prefer the information were still up. Every time a website gets refreshed, they may preserve the data from before the refresh, but the data from two refreshes or more gets mangled. In any organization, there will be data rot.
Now, the fact that this is a government organization makes the problem even worse, because n