Slashdot Mirror
Variably Sunny: SCOTUS Allows Local FOIA Restrictions
v3rgEz writes "The Supreme Court ruled Monday morning that states have the right to restrict public records access to locals, meaning one more hurdle to would-be muckrakers everywhere. Even in-state requesters are harmed: It means one more bureaucratic hurdle and another excuse for agencies to respond in paper rather than electronically. MuckRock has helped file requests in all 50 states — important for projects like the Drone Census — and we're looking for more volunteers to help ensure transparency from sea to shining sea. States impacted: Alabama; Arkansas; Delaware; Georgia; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Tennessee; and Virginia. If you live in one of the above, fill out a simple form and we can help ensure that sunshine isn't restricted depending on where you live."
The obvious workaround is hire a citizen to make the request for you.
This is so obvious, I'm not sure why they think limiting it to citizens is reasonable.
While it took much longer for the UK to get a freedom of information act., it does seem much more powerful than that available in the US.
There's no cost for most inquiries (where the cost to the government body to respond is less than £600. It covers the bulk of public bodies. Anyone, anywhere on the world can use it. Replies are expected within 20 business days.
Combined with the Data Protection Act, and it seems UK citizens have far greater rights and protections when it comes to personal and public data than who live in the United States.
That's not to say the UK FOIA is perfect, far from it. Exceptions are too wide, and some government bodies can be obstructive. Still it has delivered useful information that would likely not have been discovered otherwise.
If with all the Internet at your disposal you can't find one single person in the state willing to submit the FOIA request and pass you back the results, it's a good sign you're wasting everybody's time and *shouldn't* have access to the information you seek.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The SCOTUS loves to ignore the 9th amendment. They seem to find all these restrictions on civil liberties all over the place, because things aren't explicitly enumerated. Oh wait. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And they ignore the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments too. But they worship the 2nd amendment!
And why is that?
Because the 2nd Amendment has the most devoted (or rabid depending on your views) defenders.
The NRA is one of the most effective lobbying organization ever. Think about it: they say the stupidest shit in the media - so stupid even the Reps behind them say it's stupid - and yet, all those bans on assault rifles and AR-15s quietly disappeared.
It was also a wonderful coincidence that some Muslims used pressure cookers to cause all the mayhem they did. It's kind of hard to point fingers at a AR-15 when a couple of kids did much more damage with something readily available from any department store.
Maybe if folks who were really intent on limiting government power (like use of drones) were just as rabid, these politicians would be a little less bold? ( And maybe cluing the NRA on that these drones will enable the Government to "take their guns" would help too.)
Or if they do, the Supreme Court will fix them so they don't. Too many chances of real corruption being exposed if people can get information on what the state does.
The summary seems to state that this is a good thing as it means information is less publicly available to people trying to spread misinformation about others. (being a muckraker is a bad thing, right? Doesn't it mean stirring up dirt to unfairly discredit a person or agency?) But the site itself seems to be in favor of increased transparency.
Perhaps it's just the wording, do they mean "restrict access to locals" as in locals have a harder time accessing records or that only locals can access the information?
Who the fuck is MuckRock and why is there a link to create an account in the goddamn summary?
That's downright shady. Now any passing interest I had has been converted instantly to mistrust and skepticism. Good job. Now I have to go out of my way to do some research. Oh, look, they're some sort of transparency organization, but they don't even have a wikipedia page and their own website's about us page is sorely lacking. Yeah, no thanks.
ever more legitimized wikileaks.
Good people go to bed earlier.
FTFA.....
Summing up what the court had to say:
1. The government of a state works for the citizens of that state - who pay their salary. Not for non-state residents.
2. Information that is freely available online or at a clerk's office does not need to be provided through a FOIA request.
3. You do not have the right to treat the government of another state like a slave.
I admit, I haven't read the full thing, but as soon as I made it 1/2 a page in, I had to respond ...
First off, this doesn't seem to be about the federal FOIA, it's about a state's act. And the limit here is that states don't have to respond to people who aren't citizens of their states. The 2006 Lee v. Minner decision (458 F.3d 194) found that Delaware wasn't allowed to have such a clause in their FOIA, so this isn't even going to affect all states.
That being said, I'm an elected municipal official in Maryland (which falls under the Lee vs. Minner ruling, as I understand it) ... and it's possible that we'd get sued under the equivalent Maryland law, as someone recently tried to demand from us *EVERY* *LAST* business transaction that we made for the last 7 years. (I can't remember the exact wording; it's possible that we claim that the report requested was a 'new record' and thus something that didn't exist) Mind you, we have 8 employees, 3 of whom are police officers, and 3 of whom are public works. So that'd mean that we'd have to tie up our accountant or town clerk for weeks to go through all of the records, properly sanitize everything to keep from leaking restricted information (like PII, as we're so small that we have a single system that also handles payroll), which would mean that we couldn't actually serve our citizens in the process.
Why did the person want this it? Because they were starting a website to charge businesses for access to this information.
If a person has a legitimate need for the information, they should be able to get a citizen of the state to file the request on their behalf. How much time has been wasted in Hawaii by responding to birth certificate requests over the last few years?
(note; I have a full time job and don't participate in the day-to-day operations of our town; I have no idea how the request ended up playing out (or if it's finished playing out yet); I believe it was sent to our attorney to deal with)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It seems that State held information is a State matter and not a federal one.
It is interesting that people look upon the US as a monolithic country when it was formed more as a confederation of independent States. The states guard their sovereignty very strongly. The SCOTUS appears to see FOI requests from different states the same as FOI requests from different countries and, as it is the way the US is set up, it should. If a State does not want to respond to FOI requests from different States or countries there is no Federal power that requires them to.
Here is a quote from the decision;
The state FOIA essentially represents a mechanism by which those who ultimately hold sovereign power (i.e., the citizens of the Commonwealth) may obtain an accounting from the public officials to whom they delegate the exercise of that power.
"And in a rare double-whammy decision, the right wing of the court declared the Confederate States of America legal and instructed the Northern Aggressors to cough up war reparations. Most reporters present agreed Justice Thomas hadn't quite thought his vote completely through."
It was a UNANIMOUS decision. Whatever you may think of Sarah Palin's politics, she was forced to step down as the governor of Alaska because of the cost of out-of-state FOIA requests to such a small state. If this has a cost so prohibitive that the corporations without any employees in a state can actually undermine the will of the voters of the state, then stopping such a practice is a Good Thing(TM).
No, the USA's healthcare for the VERY WEALTHY is excellent. If expensive.
UK's healthcare for the very wealthy sometimes means "Go to the USA (or Cuba)".
But the healthcare for the poor in the USA is practically nonexistent, and the UK's healthcare for the poor is very good (if slow).
The successive neo-libertarian governments of all wings of the political spectrum have been doing their damndest to screw up the national health service in the UK, so the cover isn't as good (partly because there are now so many "managers" and so few nurses, whilst the doctors make so much more privately they spend most of their time and effort there).
Indeed the first one. The Magna Carta.
Just because it isn't *called* "the constitution" doesn't mean it isn't.
Lots of people going over the leaks and saying "there's nothing there! just politicians talking smack about foreign politicians! EVERYONE knows that happens!!!", well they were classified too.