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."
Basically, whenever you try to get information, you have to fill out paperwork. They can reject the application if the paperwork is filled incorrectly. Then, you have to get past secretaries, whose primary job seems to be annoying people until they give up.
Once you've actually got your paperwork into the system, you have to wait for it to be processed. Usually, at this point, they'll decide that more paper is required, and you have to start again from the beginning.
Once you get the information you asked for, you'll usually find out that it isn't the information you want. Unless you're very specific when specifying what you want to know, they can get out of it by simply playing stupid. (eg only get partial documents because you asked for Form A, but to actually use the information you also need Form A-2, which you didn't ask for).
I'm sure it's possible to get information, but don't expect to get it in any reasonable time frame.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
One of the interesting uses of FOIA that I have seen has been the release of VistA, the software that runs the hospitals for the department of Veterans Affairs.
VistA is a huge suite of programs, and something that would not normally otherwise make it into the public domain. Billions of dollars of investment have gone into this, and there is hope that it can be used more widely.
VistA is written in "M" (sometimes called "Mumps" and with the GPL of the Linux version of GT.M, a compiler and database server for "M" by Sanchez, the whole shooting match is doable on an open-source platform.
More information about VistA hardhats.org and sourceforge and VistA Documentation Library
The level of functionality available from this project is incredible, and in some areas is unmatched by commercial offerings costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
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."
There were 3000 Americans killed on American soil...
Really? We haven't heard. That makes all the difference in the world! It just doesn't compare to any other event in American history.
This time it's a whole new ball game. Who needs freedom of anything? My God! The enemy is everywhere!
I'm just so sick of this. How long will be have to use 911 to be the justification for everything? Yeah. 3000 people. A lot more than that die every day from all kinds of things nobody gives a shit about. Big deal. 16 acres in a big city. It was a crime, not an act of war.
Wrap yourself around a flag and you're untouchable, divine. And when that doesn't work, you can always fall back on that old favorite, "It's for the children!"
All we get from DC are more "Freedom from Information Acts". Loose lips sink ships, my ass.
We're turning into a nation of sheep, led by a moron.
Love you all,
AC
"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
In fact, the government seems to be very much against the idea that we're actually at war with Al Qaeda. If we were actually at war with them, then those prisoners we have down in Cuba might actually be entitled to some rights. Can't have that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What about Pearl Harbor?
Did those who died not count? Still in that case Congress had to declare war... or have we forgotten that as well.
What happened on 9/11 was horrendous. No... I have not forgotten. Nor have I forgotten the countless civilians and military personnel killed in other struggles and conflicts. It doesn't change the fact that for us to be "Technically at war" we have to declare war.
I suggest you read this site
http://www.pearlharbor.org/
quote
"On December 8, the nation was gathered around its radios to hear President Roosevelt deliver his Day of Infamy speech. That same day, Congress declared war on Japan. On December 11, Congress declared war on Germany"
We were attacked. Japan declared war on us. Yet..... Yet congress saw it necessary to declare war. Now. I ask you. Spin aside are we "technically at war"?
I'm not saying "were we attacked".
I'm not saying "was it horrible".
I'm not saying "forget those who have died".
I'm saying "ARE WE AT WAR"?
The answer is no. The President ( who I voted for BTW ) has said we are at "war" but congress hasn't declared war. If you read the constitution it is Congresses duty to declare war. Not the Executive branch.
If you're going to repeat the "spin" be prepared to answer for it.
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.