Slashdot Mirror
Using the FOIA
mgaiman writes "Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, spoke at my school today. She discussed the state of journalism in the post-9/11 world. She said, among other things, that this administration is the most closed she has seen since Nixon. The organization itself is a non-profit journalist rights group. Their site features such things as Homefront Confidential, a chronicling of changes to the openness of information since 9/11, and a guide to using the Federal FOI Act to get access to information. While most /.ers aren't journalists, I thought it would be of interest nonetheless."
there is no doubt that things have tightened up since 9-11,
Absolutely. But I think the argument is valid that much of the tightening up of information has been done rapidly in a knee-jerk fashion (which, albeit, is the way the government typically operates).
I'd like to see some rational analysis applied to those policies because I believe that open sources of information are vital to the functioning of a well-informed citizenry as a democracy.
The alternative is to migrate completely to the model used in the People's Republic of China, where various bits of information on AIDS cases, suicide rates, stock ownership by the Red Army commanders, etc. are considered "state secrets".
"Provided by the management for your protection."
"We're technically at war with Al Qaeda "
Really?
I don't remember Congress saying we were at war.... I guess I must have missed it. Please supply your proof of this statement
From replies, I can see that almost nobody understands the concept of freedom of information. It's actually quite simple, altough mind-boggling for some.
What it means, in short, is that all information generates or kept by the government is public, to be supplied to anyone who asks. No ifs or ands, (altough a single but).
The "but" is: The governmente can refuse to supply some information on several grounds, all of which are clearly stated in the law.
In other words, the burden of proof is on them to show that they can't give you the information because it's forbidden by law. Not the other way around. You are entitled to the information, and you don't even have to say why you want it.
Of course, the basic flaw is that the law presumes that the governmente should be willing to give the info. In an ideal world, that would be the case. Alas, this will never be an ideal case.
By the way, to all you jingoist idiots talking about the "war on Al-Qaeda", a few basic facts:
- You cannot be at "war with Al-Qaeda" anymore that you can be at war with the Red Cross. Al-Qaeda is not a country. Now, go read the Constitution (or at least a dictionary).
- Two buildings destroyed and a few thousand dead. And you want to give a blank check to your president to bypass Congress and violate your basic right. You are not only stupid, you are pathetic.
- I am not flaming. I'm describing as objectively as possible.