Slashdot Mirror


DoJ - Making Data Public Would 'Crash System'

orthogonal writes "The Justice Department today denied Freedom of Information Act requests to make public data on foreign lobbyists, claiming that '[i]mplementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating'. The requestor responded that '[t]his was a new one on us. We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them,' Bob Williams of the Center for Public Integrity said Tuesday. Maybe we should tell John Ashcroft about open source database and copying solutions?"

25 of 879 comments (clear)

  1. Ahhh... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Funny

    And that's why you shouldn't use Access for your Enterprise Solutions.

    1. Re:Ahhh... by Niet3sche · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obligatory Simpsons quote follows:

      Mr. Burns: Lets see, social security number. Nought nought nought nought nought nought nought nought two. Damn Roosevelt!

    2. Re:Ahhh... by tunabomber · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, c'mon. If our government can build cruise missiles that can reliably fly through the goalposts of a football field after being launched from hundreds of miles away, I don't think they'd be using Bronze age technology for storing our vital public records.
      I'm sure that they designed a new high-density storage medium that encodes bits of information as the polarizations of photons bouncing around in nanoscale optical cavities.
      After storing all that data, the government realized that thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, if we now attempt to read the information, we will destroy its quantum state, thus destroying the data in the process.
      I'm sure that's it- they're just dumbing down the details so that us SlashDotters can understand it... *snicker*

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    3. Re:Ahhh... by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard it was one huge tank full of colored, irregularly shaped rocks tied to notes. You just tell the tank's dolphin to pick up the teal-tinted green-sparkling mauve rock shaped like a triangle with a hook at one end, and you've got the record for AIPAC's 4813rd lobbyist to enter the US.... ... Whoops, my mistake. I just checked it out, and I was confusing the DoJ's lobbying database system with the Pentagon's accounting system. Sorry!

      --
      I'm an owl exterminator!
    4. Re:Ahhh... by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's still a darn sight better than http colon slash slash slash dot dot org...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:Ahhh... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      thanks to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

      We can't know what the data is because somebody wanted to know how fast they were entering it?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  2. A New Low by JaxGator75 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Must... Resist... Urge... to Kill...

    In other news, I won't be paying my taxes this year as I firmly believe the influx of cash will "Break the Bank".

    --
    Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    1. Re:A New Low by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Don't pay taxes - simply donate to a non-profit that you support and take the tax credit.

      Tax credit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but donations to non-profits result in taxable income deductions, not tax credits, don't they? If they are tax credits then if you have a $1000 tax bill you can pay zero by donating $1000 to a non-profit. If it's a deduction then if you have a $1000 tax bill on $10,000 taxable income, a $1000 deduction makes your taxable income $9000 on which you still have to pay $900.

      Unfortunately, I don't think you can get out of paying taxes by giving it to a non-profit instead. If you could I think most of us would opt out of paying taxes and just give it all to some local charity we approve of.

  3. Backups by KaSkA101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm, so I guess they don't keep backups of their own data, if making copies of it would cause the data to be lost. I guess we just have to hope (or not) that their computers or hard drives never fail.

  4. Already suffered "major loss of data" by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Funny

    What this REALLY means is that they have already suffered a "major loss of data" but never made any backups and have been trying to hide the fact that the database has been GONE for weeks, months, or even years under grade school-level excuses.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  5. I wonder by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Many Justice Department computer systems, especially at the FBI, are considered outdated. The FBI is spending nearly $600 million to modernize its antiquated systems.

    How will the FBI put all that old information on these new systems then?

  6. How Conveeeenient by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then.

    Not available until after the November election, eh? How conveeeenient.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  7. This deserves a prize! by eamacnaghten · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My congratulations to the Justice Department - this excuse deserves a prize! Although it is common for people to make excuses that bare no relation to reality, but rarely they show such imagination as this!

    This paces the Justice Department on par with Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the recently retired Iraqi Information Minister in it's inovation of repartee in the face of fact!

    I hope they do not copyright this reason as it is so good I think I will use it (if I can) when the circumstances arise.

    --

    Web Sig: Eddy Currents

  8. Take a page from adult websites by maddugan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am sure there are pr0n websites with backend databases more relieable than what the government is using.

  9. The Patriot Act by The_Real_Nire · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe we should tell John Ashcroft about open source database and copying solutions?"

    With the Patriot Act in effect, and all of your lines tapped, I'd say John Ashcroft already knows.

  10. Response Conflicts with the Law? by Jtheletter · · Score: 5, Informative
    I don't pretend to have a full understanding of the Freedom of Information Act, but isn't there a whole section detailing reasons that a request can be turned down? I know the obvious ones such as endangering national security (as if that weren't an excuse they could stretch a mile anyway), or the like, but I seriously doubt that a request could legally be denied on the basis of GROSS INCOMPETANCE and LACK OF JOB SKILLS on the part of the person fulfilling the request.

    That's like a request being denied because the clerk was too tired to go down in the basement to find the files.

    If fulfilling the request somehow breaks something, then the response should be to fix the damn thing and then fulfill the request.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  11. Quick, someone notify the RIAA by Derekloffin · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the MPAA for that matter. The Government has found a truly uncopyable storage media and I'm certain both of these organizations will be overjoyed to put it to good use.

  12. uk perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know quite how these things tend to play in the states, but over here I would read this as "that database on which we spent X millions of your money is in fact total crap and we couldn't find our arses with both hands"

    While most readers will [probably correctly] take this to be a rather poor government whitewash, it could equally be a sign that the government's IT strategy has been fragmented and piecemeal for ages.
    This tends to happen in democratic nations because big IT contracts, like other government contracts, tend to go to companies favoured by the extant administration (despite all the charming fiction about open tendering).
    When a new administration is eventually voted in, it's time for them to pay back various favours to certain friendly companies, and so new expenditure will be announced.

    The end result of this is government departments and organisations each with their own mishmash of systems with no thought at all given to interoperability.
    The chances of them ever getting their shit together enough to collate everything into a massive uber-database with every record on every citizen in the UK is nil, so I'm not that worried.

    Like I said, I don't know the situation in the States vis-a-vis government records, but everywhere in the world, governments all share the same founding principles of confusion and inertia.
    That, and there's waaay more people in the USA. 5x population = at least 5x records = a lot more than 5x complexity.

    All that being said, this remains a transparent and contemptible display of ass-covering by Ashcroft..

  13. Administration marked by lack of transparency by tehanu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the scariest things about this administration is the sheer lack of transparency. While all governments like hiding things, this one seems to think that the public has no right to know anything, of course for their own good. Even Congress seems to be out of the info loop! Everytime someone tries to ask them for transparency or information they stonewall them sometimes with ridiculous reasons like this (or by swearing at them aka. our vice-president). Combine this with laws that reduce rights of ordinary citizens (aka. Patriot Act) and how they are trying to increasingly concentrate power in the hands of the President (who seems to think that Congressional and Judicial oversight of his activities is a bad thing) who professes the theory that a President is legally allowed to do anything to foreign and US citizens eg. torture, infinitely holding them, invading a country etc. and the only reason he doesn't do it is because he's nice (rather than because it's say illegal to torture someone) and America is heading towards dangerous waters.

    1. Re:Administration marked by lack of transparency by CoitusRex · · Score: 5, Interesting
      In this light the following quote from Bush, in response to Bob Woodward asking if the president explained his positions, is not surprising at all:
      Of course not. I'm the commander. See, I don't have to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.
  14. See? Code is Free Speech! by e.m.rainey · · Score: 5, Funny
    /* politcal-pseudeo-C */
    int ashcroft_test()
    {
    int error = ERROR_NONE;
    char *quote = "[i]mplementing such a request risks a crash that cannot " \
    "be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating";

    if (isTellingTruth(quote) == TRUE)
    {
    if (ashcroft.budget < ashcroft.expectedBudget)
    {
    ashcroft.requestLargerBudget();
    error = ERROR_BIG_GOVERNMENT;
    }
    else if (ashcroft.StaffIQ < IQ_SEA_TURTLE)
    {
    ashcroft.admitIncompetence();
    error = ERROR_INCOMPETENT_GOVERMENT;
    }
    else
    { /* developer note: I could never get
    * this condition to activate in
    * testing... oh well. */
    error = ERROR_UNKNOWN;
    }
    }
    else // less than honest answer
    {
    if (isTooDifficult(quote) == FALSE)
    {
    ashcroft.takeVacation();
    error = ERROR_LAZY_GOVERNMENT;
    }
    else if (dislikeFOIA(ashcroft) == TRUE)
    {
    ashcroft.evadeFOIA();
    error = ERROR_CLOSED_GOVERNMENT;
    }
    else
    { // some sinister plot I'm sure!
    crackpots.startDreaming();
    error = ERROR_UNKNOWN;
    }
    }
    return error;
    }
    --
    The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
  15. I don't think you understand .... by taniwha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when he said "will crash the system" he really ment "will crash The System" .... ie having the people know more about what the government is doing is inherently bad for having a well run govt. and besides if we find out who's paying off who it might be made to stop

  16. Re:Well, we could... by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oooooh, a flame war on a powder keg, I want some. I've been maxed Karma for years, I could use a -1 mod.

    Ex 21:22-25
    "When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning, But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foor, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

    The fetus is the property of the husband is merely worth a fine if destroyed. If the woman is killed, the person who killed her is to be killed.

    I'm pro-life, not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. The Christian Bible is silent on abortion and it can be inferred that at least one source writer of the Tanak saw a difference between the life of a fetus and the mother. Get your religion straight, it's embarassing.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  17. Re:Well, we could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wanting Bush gone doesn't make you a Democrat. It makes you sane. Frankly I think Kerry could become one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had to endure, but I'll vote for him enthusiastically because we are currently saddled with the very worst. Ever.

    Yes, I'm an independent. Yes, I've voted for Republicans. Just because you are against one group doesn't mean you are a supporter of their largest competitors. I'd rather there were other viable competitors, but there aren't. Sorry Mr. Nader, the risk of Bush getting re-elected is so high that I can bear to swallow my pride and vote for a candidate that I despise.

    I'm not voting for Kerry--I'm voting against Bush.

  18. MOD PARENT UP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and then down. And then up a couple of times, then down one more by a stickler for on-topic posts. Then down to zero by one pissed off moderator using all his points at once. Slowly climb back to +3. Down again. Up again. Down. Up. Down. Finally, when the story is 13 days old and the editors have already posted a couple of duplicates, sneak in and mod it up to +5, Insightful.

    Hey, if they won't give me mod points, I can at least be a Back Seat Moderator!