Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DEA Hands MuckRock a $1.4 Million Estimate For Responsive Documents

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-the-man dept.

An anonymous reader writes with news about what might be the largest Freedom of Information Act fee yet. "The EFF recently kicked off a contest for the 'most outrageous response to a Freedom of Information Act request' and we already have a frontrunner for the first inaugural 'Foilie.' MuckRock's loose confederation of FOIA rabblerousers has been hit with a $1.4 million price tag for John Dyer's request for documents related to the 'localization and capture' of Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo.'"

91 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, well by necro81 · · Score: 1

    [turn snark amplifier up to 11...]

    Yeah, well, freedom isn't free.

    [dial snark amplifier back down to 5]

  2. Well, It's Been Said... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    ...Freedom is not free.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Well, It's Been Said... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Security is not freedom.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Consider the denominator by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to even appear to be defending a government agency, but the request was for over 13K case files. $1.4mln divided by 13K comes to about $107 per case. If a lawyer has to (carefully) review each one — such as to black-out parts affecting privacy of innocent or other government secrets — the requested fee may even appear too small.

    As TFA aknowledges:

    This request will have to be narrowed considerably if MuckRock hopes to obtain anything on this subject from the DEA.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Consider the denominator by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i would mod this insightful. props

    2. Re:Consider the denominator by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Swagging it, 1.4 million implies at least 14 staff attorneys would have to work 12 months.

      At the least, I'd like to see a breakout of the labor estimates. It seems double to quadruple what I would expect.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:Consider the denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seems like instead of having to sort through and process everything afterwards, the government should start just releasing everything as it goes, keeping only things that really have to be secret redacted in the first place. Sounds a lot better than a government created problem letting the government off the hook for transparency.

    4. Re:Consider the denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "WE THE PEOPLE" are "the government"... and WE THE PEOPLE want ANSWERS. there are no secrets other than the secret of "the government" betraying their trust to serve "WE THE PEOPLE"... obviously this is what the EFF wants to demonstrate, and what "the government" wants to hide.

      blow it all up.

    5. Re:Consider the denominator by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      . If a lawyer has to (carefully) review each one â" such as to black-out parts affecting privacy of innocent or other government secrets

      Those documents belong to us, they should be redacted when filed so that we can see them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Consider the denominator by necro81 · · Score: 2

      Swagging it, 1.4 million implies at least 14 staff attorneys would have to work 12 months

      At the least, I'd like to see a breakout of the labor estimates. It seems double to quadruple what I would expect.

      You think the going rate for a staff attorney is $50/hour ($1.4mil, 14 persons, 2000 hrs/12 mo)? You haven't been around many attorneys, have you? The salary may work out to that (about $100k/yr), but with benefits and overhead, it could easily be double that. Just be lucky that an outside firm doesn't need to be involved - considering DC's rates, it could easily work out to $300/hr.

    7. Re:Consider the denominator by mi · · Score: 2

      Swagging it, 1.4 million implies at least 14 staff attorneys would have to work 12 months.

      A federal government's staff attorney makes $126K per year on average. (Plus bonuses, benefits, office space and supplies, and a manager.) That's about $1.8 million at least, more likely well over $2million.

      Now, to be able to go through 13000 cases (each with multiple documents), each member of this hypothetical team will need to process 928 cases. How many can they process per day? To finish in the 12 months allotted (250 business days, less 20 vacation days per person), it would have to be more than 4 cases per day per attorney.

      Possible, but on the optimistic side. As I said, if there is anything wrong with the requested fee, it is too low.

      Now, maybe, as the AC below suggests, the entire government has to keep all of its documents ready for publishing from the moment they are created (with the necessary black-outs specified by each document's very author or his boss) — and publish them automatically after certain number of years. But that would require an actual dramatic change in how the government bureaucracy operates — a change well beyond the ability (perhaps, even imagination) of not only the community organizer we've got, but even of a seasoned CEO, who almost replaced him the last time...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Consider the denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I think the prudent thing to do would be redact the documents and then make them freely available to the public to download. Regardless of whether a request has come in for them.

    9. Re:Consider the denominator by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      If if was quadruple the what you expect then you expect a lawyer to work for $12.50 an hour. That is less than minimum wage in many places. So on average they are charging $107 for each case that needs review. Each case could have hundreds of pages. That seems cheap to me. Maybe the EFF should narrow their request to something more reasonable.

    10. Re:Consider the denominator by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of out of work lawyers out there right now. Considering that it could employ up to 14 lawyers to just fulfill the FOIA request it could be considered a jobs program but even at $100K/per it's still cheap wages for NOVA. They may have to offshore the work to China and hire about 10 middle managers and a couple of senior lawyers to oversee the project. Then the DEA can put in a funding request for FY2016 to include additional staff to deal with the FOIA request ultimately costing the taxpayers millions more than the original request cost.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    11. Re:Consider the denominator by mi · · Score: 1

      confusing the "new" Slashdot's uninformed and not particularly bright libertarian-esque hivemind with things it doesn't like: facts and cogent analysis

      Actually, I find the Libertarian approach to life and government to be the most self-consistent and coherent — with the lowest number of "yes buts", that is.

      If you don't mind descending further off-topic, please, explain, what lead you to believe, Maxo-Texas is in any way "libertarian-eqsue"?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Consider the denominator by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Now, maybe, as the AC below suggests, the entire government has to keep all of its documents ready for publishing from the moment they are created (with the necessary black-outs specified by each document's very author or his boss) â" and publish them automatically after certain number of years. But that would require an actual dramatic change in how the government bureaucracy operates â" a change well beyond the ability (perhaps, even imagination) of not only the community organizer we've got, but even of a seasoned CEO, who almost replaced him the last time...

      Just to go farther out there 'where no bureaucrat has gone before' so to speak, how about government not collecting and storing so much data of such personal and sensitive nature in the first damned place? Maybe if the government were not involved as deeply and in as many areas as they currently are, this would not be as much of a problem to begin with.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Consider the denominator by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      The HR rule of thumb for most large companies is an employee cost twice what his salary would be. I.E. it would cost the government $200k/year for each $100k/year salaried employee.

    14. Re:Consider the denominator by mi · · Score: 1

      Just to go farther out there 'where no bureaucrat has gone before' so to speak, how about government not collecting and storing so much data of such personal and sensitive nature in the first damned place?

      Though I agree with you about the government in general, this particular case is about records of criminal prosecution (the "localization and capture" of Mexican drug lord "El Chapo."). Something — one of the very few things, in fact — the government really should be doing.

      A Libertarian like myself would point out, the government has no business banning drugs, because a free citizen ought to remain free to kill/harm himself in any fashion he chooses.

      But if it does ban them and prosecutes people for selling them against the ban, it better keep all records of such prosecutions.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Consider the denominator by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Now, to be able to go through 13000 cases (each with multiple documents), each member of this hypothetical team will need to process 928 cases. How many can they process per day?

      The relevant metric here is number of documents per case. On average, a trained reviewer is going to do about 2 docs a minute, or 120 docs an hour. Keep in mind, that is for a typical privilege review. They may be able to do it even faster if all they are doing is verifying redactions.

    16. Re:Consider the denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These would be non-litigating government lawyers, who are paid MUCH less than DC BigLaw lawyers. They are probably GS-12 ($76k - 99k), but maybe GS-13 ($91k - $118k).

    17. Re:Consider the denominator by penix1 · · Score: 1

      A Libertarian like myself would point out, the government has no business banning drugs, because a free citizen ought to remain free to kill/harm himself in any fashion he chooses.

      The problem with that line of thinking is when the drug user crosses the line into the rights of others like they so often do. When the drug user commits other crimes to get the drugs up to and including killing innocent people.

      We have a great experiment in Colorado not just economically but socially. I have seen that the legalization of recreational pot they have a very large surplus in taxes but the figures on crime have not been widely published. I am most interested in the drugged driving stats.But I doubt they will separate that from the drunk driver stats.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    18. Re:Consider the denominator by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      A Libertarian like myself would point out, the government has no business banning drugs, because a free citizen ought to remain free to kill/harm himself in any fashion he chooses.

      I'm quite sure that there were numerous reasons to prosecute 'El Chapo' for things other than illegal drug dealing. Browsing the wiki page we have murder, torture, bribery, and everything else you'd expect from a drug cartel leader.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:Consider the denominator by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      A Libertarian like myself would point out, the government has no business banning drugs, because a free citizen ought to remain free to kill/harm himself in any fashion he chooses.

      I'm quite sure that there were numerous reasons to prosecute 'El Chapo' [wikipedia.org] for things other than illegal drug dealing. Browsing the wiki page we have murder, torture, bribery, and everything else you'd expect from a drug cartel leader.

      The point being that there would be no illegal drug cartels if there were no illegal drug markets to exploit. "El Chapo" would be just another petty street hoodlum. The US experiment with Prohibition and the rise & fall of the numerous alcohol-smuggling-related gangs during that period and after would seem to bear this out.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    20. Re:Consider the denominator by mi · · Score: 1

      Those documents belong to us

      They certainly do. And we requested a reasonable fee from somebody, who wanted them.

      they should be redacted when filed so that we can see them

      Yes, I agree with that — and discussed that very idea in a subsequent follow-up. Unfortunately, you helped elect the guy, who is the least likely to affect the, dare I say it, change in the federal bureaucracy, that's required to achieve, what you ask for.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    21. Re:Consider the denominator by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      I hate to even appear to be defending a government agency, but the request was for over 13K case files. $1.4mln divided by 13K comes to about $107 per case. If a lawyer has to (carefully) review each one — such as to black-out parts affecting privacy of innocent or other government secrets — the requested fee may even appear too small.

      As TFA aknowledges:

      This request will have to be narrowed considerably if MuckRock hopes to obtain anything on this subject from the DEA.

      I'd rather have my tax money being spent on providing information freely upon request than some of the other ways it is being used.

      If the government is allowed to charge for information, information is not being provided freely.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    22. Re:Consider the denominator by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I think your information is good. As I said, I was just swagging it. One follow up question...

      Whatever happened to paralegals? I.e. is there no one that any of this work could be farmed out to that is less expensive. I.e. Once the attorney determines references to "Jim Davis" need to be blotted out-- it can be done automatically from there. Once the attorney determines references to personal names should be blotted out- other less expensive government employees could do the work.

      Also consider this:

      Attorneyâ(TM)s Offices

      Title 28 of the U.S. Codes authorizes attorney salaries for the U.S. Attorneyâ(TM)s Office. Because salaries vary by position, no general tables are published. However, job postings give some idea of the pay. As of Sept. 24, 2012, an assistant U.S. attorney working for the agency in the Eastern district of California was recruited at a pay range of $54,478 to $144,189 per year. The position presumed graduating from an accredited law school, licensing in the state of California, a membership in good standing of the bar from any jurisdiction, and at least three to five years of litigation experience after law school.

      Other Agencies

      For attorneys hired under the GS pay scale, those with a law degree received a basic annual salary of $50,287 as of 2012. One year of post-law school judicial clerkship experience brought in $60,274 per year, and at two to three years of experience, the yearly salary was $71,674. Because costs of living vary by city, lawyers also receive locality adjustments, which are increases to the basic salary. For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033.

      ---

      This kind of drudge work seems ideal to farm out to new candidates with two to three years experience. (salaries of $62,500 to $89,000).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    23. Re:Consider the denominator by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      $100,000 a year is not "$12.50" an hour. I think you need to check your math.

      Besides legal clerks and junior goverment attorneys make much less than $100,000 per year.

      http://work.chron.com/much-fed...

      "Attorneyâ(TM)s Offices ...as of 2012, an assistant U.S. attorney working for the agency in the Eastern district of California was recruited at a pay range of $54,478 to $144,189 per year.

      Other Agencies
      For attorneys hired under the GS pay scale, those with a law degree received a basic annual salary of $50,287 as of 2012. One year of post-law school judicial clerkship experience brought in $60,274 per year, and at two to three years of experience, the yearly salary was $71,674. Because costs of living vary by city, lawyers also receive locality adjustments, which are increases to the basic salary. For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033."

      And this presumes no automation of redaction of any kind. As if the most highly paid and experienced lawyers must manually find and redact every occurrence of "Jim Davis" in the documents. What's more likely is that they assigned the work to a highly paid and experienced lawyer who assigned it to a clerk or sub attorney to work, then the expensive attorney spot checked a few cases and signed off on the work and the entire body of work was billed as if the expensive attorney actually did the tedius and mind numbing work.

      So the cases could have been reviewed by legal clerks and lawyers with two to three years experience first.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re:Consider the denominator by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You didn't read what I was replying to.

      Here is the math. If $1.4 divided by 14 lawyers would be $100k. The poster does not stop there and makes the following statement;

      It seems double to quadruple what I would expect.

      If $100,000 is quadruple what he would expect then he expects $100k/4 or $25k per lawyer to be expected. The $25k/year would work out to about $12.50/hr.

      You also have no idea how lawyers charge out as they need to cover expenses such as insurance, office expenses, staff, etc. Taxes, and medical/retirement benefits and HR costs can double a new lawyer's costs. A lawyer's pay rate is only a small part of the cost.

    25. Re: Consider the denominator by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Suprisingly, apparently even with a cost of living differential, not so much.

      http://work.chron.com/much-fed...
      As of 2012...
      "For example, new lawyers working in Washington, D.C., earned $62,467 annually, a locality increase of over 24 percent. For candidates with two to three years of experience, the locality increases for the same area amounted to a yearly salary of $89,033."

      It's extremely unlikely that the legal documents were personally vetted by even $100 an hour attorneys.

      Many attorneys who "bill" $300 an hour do not bill 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That's more typical of rainmakers at large legal firms.

      And only a small amount of attorneys with top grades and/or from top schools get top compensation.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    26. Re:Consider the denominator by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yes, I assumed it wasn't 14 man years of work for senior government attorneys as part of the swag. Research since then shows plenty of government attorneys making under to well under $100,000 per year.

      That said, I think the counterpoints are good and agreed with some of them on some of the other subthreads. It was a swag intended to elicit conversation and analysis- not simple argument.

      I still think the swag is highly bloated and an "end run" around the freedom of information act. An update on the "if you can't bullshit them, bury them with paper work" to "And if you can't bury them with paperwork, set the price so high they can't afford to request the free informnation".

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    27. Re:Consider the denominator by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      "And if you can't bury them with paperwork, set the price so high they can't afford to request the free information"

      The other side of that is "make unreasonable FOIA requests so that when they require reasonable payments publicize it and make the government look bad". I do not believe $1.4/13,000 = $108 per case file is unreasonable. Perhaps instead of asking for 13,000 case files they could narrow their criteria. I think it is funny that when the government does this to someone it is called a fishing expedition but when an organization doe is to the government it is considered valid.

  4. most of the cost is inherent by nimbius · · Score: 1

    the system is inherently asinine. No one wants paper documents, what they want are the PDF digital documents the DEA cross-reference, index, and search using OCR. But these cant be redacted as easily. Redaction is important in criminal FOIA requests because no government agency wants to get caught sitting on its balls with revelation of massive civil forfeiture and potential constitutional civil rights challenges to their water tight witch hu...er...delivery of justice.

    and its no surprise "the war on drugs" was the most bombastically expensive subject into which inquiry could be made. We're talking about a failed 50 year policy, menacingly intertwined with cold war politics, that packs prisons with nonviolent offenders, funds CIA coups against governments, and has a truce called every time a senator or congressman admits to having smoked a joint or snorted a rail of china white with a rolled up benjamin in a posh nightclub bathroom.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:most of the cost is inherent by dave562 · · Score: 1

      and search using OCR. But these cant be redacted as easily.

      There are plenty of systems out there that can perform keyword searches and redact accordingly once the originals have been OCR'd.

  5. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    At least they gave them a bill, rather than just saying "no". That's more transparent. If someone comes up with the money, then we can see what it bought. A multi-agency activity could have lots of cost in getting the documents together for a single response.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  6. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the only certifiably crazy people running are those who want to keep doing more of the same

    people voted for obama because he "wasnt bush" , well guess what, he is bush. What next? hillary? another war hawk??? no thanks

    Rand paul only seems crazy because he is talking about things others wont. REAL civil rights issues, prison reform, auditing the FED, ensuring our money is sound. I mean yeah, if you go on what we have done for the past 40 years it sounds crazy. but, maybe its time for crazy

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    yeah, that no-regulation-free-market-economics-will-save-us-all economic model that he espouses has worked so well....but only for the top 1%, who are concentrating the wealth at a rate not matched since the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th century.

    And telling people that the market will decide on civil rights is just stupid. In the hundred years after the Civil War, the market didn't seem to find civil rights a compelling interest, despite the fact that the market pool was arguably smaller due to discrimination.

  8. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rand paul only seems crazy because he is talking about things others wont. REAL civil rights issues, prison reform, auditing the FED, ensuring our money is sound. I mean yeah, if you go on what we have done for the past 40 years it sounds crazy. but, maybe its time for crazy

    Sorry, he lost me with his stance on vaccinations.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  9. FOIA DDOS? by larryjoe · · Score: 1

    Would it be possible to perpetrate what would effectively be a DDOS attack via the FOIA request mechanism? If the government were required to handle every single request without question, then could an anti-government group send a large number of requests that would waste human, machine, and dollar resources to an extent that was crippling? How should the good intent of the FOIA be balanced against potential misuse?

    1. Re:FOIA DDOS? by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like the system is already being DOSed, but from the inside. Locating and capturing one guy produced 13,000 separate case files?

      The lesson every government agency will take from this is that each action, investigation, or report, no matter how petty or inconsequential, should somehow involve generating enormous tomes worth of documentation. Attach a reference to the entire United States Code to every case file, for example; some part of it must be pertinent. Then anytime anyone files any FOIA request, no matter how narrow or mundane it is, the cost-satisfy burden will simply be too high to meet.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:FOIA DDOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering the request, it's insanely broad. Figure this guy's confiction is on the end of a lot of other cases to narrow him down. He didn't just want court documents but every report, communication, and document leading up to discovering Guzman and his arrest.

      I don't doubt that recording ever 'communication', field report, court case of someone down the food chain from Guzman and the like produced that many documents. I'm suprized it wasn't more.

      To quote the request: "I request any and all reports, communications and documents on the role the United States Drug Enforcement Administration agents had in the localization and capture of Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman on February 2014 in the Mexican seaside city of Mazatlan. Please include any and all documents pertaining the assistance provided by US agents to Mexican security forces leading up to Mr. Guzman localization and arrest." (source: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/records-on-us-involvement-in-joaquin-guzmans-detention-in-mexico-10733/#)

  10. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    im not a fan of his stance on vax either. but you need to look at the bigger picture. his personal beliefs on vax? or his stance on larger issues at had?

    I dont agree wit him personally on vax, abortion and a few other things, but in the end he is STILL better than the alternatives.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  11. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who said anything about the market and civil rights? rand is talking about ending the war on drugs and restoring rights to those convicted of non violent drug charges. That Is what I mean when im talking about civil rights because everyone knows the system is stacked against black people. ending the war on drugs would be the single biggest civil rights gain for many americans out there

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  12. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Triklyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    his stance on the rights of the business owner and the rights of the public is also troubling. the whole snafu with him being a bit ambivalent on the enforcing of desegregation of public businesses during the civil rights era.

  13. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    so your problem is that he is taking a constitutional stance on something that happened when he was a child??? something he had nothing to do with?

    I guess thats your right but you are ignoring the fact that he is the only one who is actually talking about doing anything for civil rights today. not even obama is doing anything for civil rights today.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  14. There's a larger issue than vaccination? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    I mean, seriously, is there a larger issue than vaccination? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think disease has the potential of killing a lot more Americans than a foreign invasion does even if we cut our defense spending 90%.

    We lose between 3k and 60k of people every year to the flu, and the flu is considered a "mild" contagious illness. Imagine if we had polio, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, diptheria, tetanus, and that supreme horror of horrors, smallpox, back in full force.

    Is there *really* a larger issue than vaccination, other than perhaps maintaining good sanitation? (Which protects us from cholera and a lot of other waterborne diseases.)

    --PeterM

    1. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      im not sure the issue. in the long short of it he is saying that he doesnt want to change anything when it comes to vaxes, he is saying that vaxes are better than the low level risks out there, but there doesnt need to be a new law and the old laws shouldnt be struck down

      The more i look into it, the more i see a manufactured "problem"

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by ganjadude · · Score: 1
      here is what he said

      This week, politicians on both sides of the aisle weighed in. Sen. Rand Paul was criticized for saying in an interview, “I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” He added that he’d vaccinated his own kids, and said, “I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they’re a good thing. But I think parents should have some input.”

      i just dont see the issue. I think parents SHOULD have some input on what is put into their kids bodies, dont you?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      i just dont see the issue. I think parents SHOULD have some input on what is put into their kids bodies, dont you?

      A kid has diabetes. But because his parents have recently converted to Christian Science, they insist that PRAYOR!!! will work better than insulin, and if it doesn't it means that God wanted to take the child into his embrace.

      Do you let them say no to the insulin?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Measles outbreak is almost entirely tied to either people who just got Vaccinated (read the literature on it, it causes Measles), and people coming in from out of the country (undocumented, illegally). BUT you're too fucking PC to actually acknowledge the problem.

      Citation on that literature? I just visited the CDC and 'measles' is not listed as a side effect of the MMR vaccine.

      And Autism is linked to Vaccinations (See Italy's court rulings),

      After seeing Italy's rulings over the Knox case, I trust them less than the US. Besides, plenty of studies over in Europe disproving the Autism thing. You do realize that it was proven that the doctor fabricated his findings in order to further a lawsuit hoping for a payout from the vaccine makers, right?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      thats apples and oranges.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Be careful when you advocate mandatory medical procedures. It can be very dangerous. In 1945 there were about 10 vaccinations recommended for children before age 6. Today, when you count all the booster shots, it's about 200. The benefits of flu vaccines is very questionable (they didn't even include the most prevalent strain in this year's vaccine), and with the pace of medical research it will only grow. There is a long list of FDA-approved drugs that have been withdrawn once it was discovered how dangerous they were in the general population. Perhaps worst of all is the total immunity from liability afforded to all the pharmaceutical companies for approved vaccines. They are not even held accountable if something goes wrong.

      I am not anti-vax. Most vaccines are important, and I think it's good that most schools require children to get the important vaccines before they are allowed into the schools. But it can certainly go too far, and the Gardasil requirement mandated by Rick Perry for Texan 12 and 13 year-old girls is a perfect example (note the executive order was NOT approved by the legislature, and Perry received large donations from Merk, the company with the patent for Gardasil).

      I have to agree with Rand that there should be ways for individuals and parents to opt out, especially for the less critical vaccines.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    7. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I think he should give details of the many tragic cases he's heard about.

      Well that would be morally and legally (because of HIPAA rules) wrong. But you can check out all the statistics yourself.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    8. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      insulin is also not a vax.

      if you are diabetic and dont take insulin, you will die. like in hours or days. If you dont get a vax, you might get something, you might not.

      apples and oranges

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Do you let them say no to the insulin?

      Is it, in the end, the outcomes that really matter? That we should have a government force them to act because the outcome would be better?

      The idea of putting governments in charge killed 350 million people in just the last century alone, most of the deaths not being from war but governments killing their own people. Parents of Type I diabetics give their kids insulin > 99.9% of the time - there's not much a regime of forced medication can do in comparison to the damage just allowing governments is demonstrated to do.

      Do you still say yes to their existence?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:There's a larger issue than vaccination? by peccary · · Score: 1

      Yes, God says that parents should have absolute rights over the lives of their children - it's right there in Deuteronomy or Leviticus or something. I mean, absolute rights over their lives *after* they're born, of course. Before that, if they die it's murder...

  15. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Triklyn · · Score: 1

    it speaks to his mindset if something similar were to come up again.

    For example, something that i'm almost entirely sure you would have a conflict with rand paul over.

    The rights of the employer to enforce drug policy of their choosing. I'm almost entirely sure that Rand paul would say that a business owner is free to hire and fire whomever he wants. you're free to find employment with someone else after all.

    If his stance is so pro-business rights that he's wishy washy over enforced desegregation IN THIS DAY AND AGE, then basically he would be no obstacle to mandatory drug tests. You're free to smoke your weed, and your boss is free to fire you for it. or fire you for being catholic, or gay or black or a republican or a democrat or, or, or.

    In a rand paul presidency, forget about privacy, your employer owns you. it's their money after all.

    I once spoke to someone who voted for ron paul, i actually asked him about some of ron paul's most extreme libertarian ideas. His response was to shrug and say his crazier ideas would be checked by congress. I don't think i'm comfortable with my president needing to be reigned in by that madhouse.

  16. KickStarter? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    That article was - eh - short. I'm not sure I learned anything from it, maybe I'm having a TL;TR day.

    But if the requestor really wants 13k documents - let'em crowd fund it and make the case to the public.

    I'd be humored to find out if the gov't would even do the work if $1.4m showed up in their bank account. Hah - pay them in cash with amounts under $10,000 to trigger the IRS monitoring of drug crimes.

  17. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    well for one, I do not have a problem with a business drug testing its employees. I dont personally like the idea, but i think as a business owner, I want employees i wont worry about getting arrested on their way to work when I need them here.

    Its already that way now so why would you hold this against him when its how its been for decades in america already???

    I think you are buying into the fear instead of actually looking at what he wants to do. Try looking at his page and seeing what he stands for rather than listening to talking heads and other people who are only talking about what talking heads have said about him

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  18. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I dont personally like the idea, but i think as a business owner, I want employees i wont worry about getting arrested on their way to work when I need them here.

    What about drinking? Much more likely that your employees are going to be drinking than doing drugs, so what about mandatory breathalyzer tests? How about Every morning as they walk into the front door? Are you going to do background checks too? Ex-convicts are probably more likely to get re-arrested, don't hire those guys. You shouldn't hire minorities while you are at it, because they are more likely than white people to get pulled over and arrested by the police. That would really ruin your day, if your employees where being hassled by the police because they weren't born with the right skin color and they couldn't make their shift.

    Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  19. I realize this isn't really what we're discussing by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    But why do they want these documents? It seems like an extraordinarily large ask without some similarly large rationale behind it.

  20. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.

    and you know what, Rand paul is for that as well. its not an either or thing here.

    Plain and simple if I own a business, I should be able to hire anyone I want , for any reason I want. the same goes for firing a person.

    I know as an employee it sucks, but if i owned a business, I would not want anyone telling me "oh, you only have X working there? thats no good, you need to hire Y, if you dont hire Y you are racist/sexist etc."

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  21. Re:Measles is NOT a Problem by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    And a number of them were from children born outside of the country, but since it is politically incorrect to actually track that kind of statistic, lets blame ANTI VAXERS!!!!!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  22. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    nice straw man and all, but libertarians are not for no government. the republicans and democrats have done a good job of confusing libertarians with anarchists, and dolts seem to keep parroting the same lies over and over.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  23. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    i think you forgot the /s tag

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  24. Re:I realize this isn't really what we're discussi by mysidia · · Score: 1

    13000.... It's not that many documents... it should all fit on a single USB drive.

    The government should be required to modernize, not given the ability to charge outrageous fees just to get access to public records.

  25. Well, duh by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    Freedom Aint Free!

  26. Re:I realize this isn't really what we're discussi by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    13,000 documents is a lot of documents, when you are considering that they each will have to be viewed by a person. There is no way that a software solution could provide the necessary level of security while preserving enough of the documents to be useful to anyone... which brings me back to my original question: What are they looking for? If they are looking for public support then they should make it more clear why this is an issue of public concern. Right now, all I know is that the government captured a Mexican cartel leader, which doesn't seem like something I should be concerned about. For all we know about this the request is from his associates looking for people to retaliate against. (If that's the case, we may find out when they pay the fee)

  27. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yeah, that no-regulation-free-market-economics-will-save-us-all economic model that he espouses has worked so well

    FUCK YOU, AC, for perpetuating this asinine straw man bullshit. 87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever. The Federal IRS tax code ALONE is a whopping 73,954 pages, and is so complicated not even IRS tax attorneys can provide consistent answers to tax questions.

    But, sure, to you fucking I-love-dictatorial-and-abusive-central-government fucktards defend every ludicrous piece of shit regulation as if ANY rollback is OMG IT IS LIKE ANARCHY IN THE STREETS!

    Yea, well fuck you. And the horse you rode in on. And the entourage that rode with you. And the grooms that stabled your horses.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  28. I've also heard it can't kill true Scotsmen either by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    People with healthy immune systems don't die of flu.

    What about people without healthy immune systems? Is your immune system healthy, or is the way to check just to see if you die of the flu? Or maybe you get a type that kills you because you have a healthy immune system, like the 1918 pandemic, who knows.

    As for the MMR vaccine causing measles, what? Before vaccinations, 90%+ of children contracted measles. Now it's down to a few hundred a year. That's a very strong correlation, but not for your theory.

  29. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

    Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.

    And you know what? That's why it would work just fine without regulation. Because businesses that do that will be much more successful. What you do when you regulation anti-discrimination by law is you eliminate the market penalty for discrimination. I know that sounds backwards, but let me explain. I think it's easy to see what the public would do to a business that tried to discriminate against customers (just look what happened to Paula Deen). But there is a labor market penalty, too.

    If you're passing up good talent for superficial racial/gender/other reasons, then you're paying a premium for talent. Women and minorities are still behind in salary, so it is sometimes beneficial to hire them, because they are likely just as good as white male counterparts, but offer their services for less. Businesses that don't reject that discount will have an advantage over those that do.

    There is more to it, but Milton Friedman explains it much better than I can, describing how affirmative action and anti-discrimination in hiring policies actually harms the people it is intended to help.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  30. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    He's also plenty happy to wave the cross when it suits him. And I for one have had more than enough of the republican party pandering to the religious right.

  31. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    His rant against water-saving toilets was pretty cringe-worthy as well.

  32. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    but you dont have a problem with the democrats pandering to the blacks, or hispanics, or women or illegals????

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  33. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    do you remember the first batch of water saving toilets? they were a disaster and you would have to flush them 4 times to flush fully. While most of those kinks have been worked out there was a good 5 year period where you were mandated to buy low flow, but they didnt work. the work around was to cut the pipe in the back allowing the tank to fill fully, but its not something that should have even happened

    He is rightfully upset that the government would mandate the type of toilet one uses.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  34. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    everyone knows the system is stacked against black people

    The system is stacked against poor people.

  35. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    His stance was consistent with his position - that the government should not regulate what the free market can and should take care of.

    I'm not defending it.

    I'm saying that he has an ideology, and he is consistent.

    More importantly, people who agree with him, and later find out just how consistent he is, learn more about themselves than about him.

    Abolish the EPA, let black people, or white people, into your business, or not, cause an economic crisis, ignore all manner of shit, and it's all consistent with his platform. I believe he would have supported Hitler right up until the government mandated what color skin and/or eyes the people should have.

    It's only troubling if you don't understand him. If you do understand him, then everything about him should be troubling, and the whole segregation thing is par for the course.

    I'm full-on libertarian until it makes no sense any more, and he crossed that line a long time ago. Right to kill a dude? Too libertarian for me. Discriminate? Too far. Drop mercury in as fish bait? Too far. Understand where the person stands, and whether you can deal with it. Frequently, the sound bites sound better than the planks.

    Comprehension. It's difficult.

  36. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    we should also take into consideration his voting record. something you rarely ever hear anyone talking about is how people are actually voting on things. That would paint a clear picture of who someone is

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  37. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    you made a statement that you dont like him for pandering to X. I point out other people who pander to A,B,C, and D.

    explain to me how this is a false equivalence?

    If you were standing by your statement of i dont like him because he panders, you would have had no problem admitting that the other side panders to a large group of people as well.

    as for childish responses, Im not sure what else to call your non response

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  38. War on drugs and human rights by mi · · Score: 1

    When the drug user commits other crimes to get the drugs up to and including killing innocent people.

    Didn't we have a cool action movie recently denouncing preemptive prosecution? I think, Matt Damon was in it...

    When a drug user commits actual crimes, he ought to be prosecuted for them. Denying the right to pursue happiness to free citizens just in case, is totalitarian and evil.

    We have a great experiment in Colorado not just economically but socially.

    The arguments in Colorado went around cost/benefit analysis of taxes vs. law enforcement. That the ban on drugs violates those self-evident rights of human beings, given to use by our creators, was never considered.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  39. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I'll buy that anti-discrimination laws create economic drag in a healthy society, but recall that the reason most of these laws were created is because there were widespread attempts to keep large portions of the society down. If you refuse to hire a talented black man, and I then hire him, it will only give me an economic edge if I don't suffer a social backlash because half of the society refuses to do business with me, 'because I hired a nigger'. This is exactly the conditions that required legal addressing with laws.

    Now, while we aren't in the same place now, discrimination still exists, and nobody knows exactly where the tipping point lies, in terms of the laws changing from a social enabler to a net economic drag. Since the economic drag is relatively low (compared to say, 10% of the population being destitute and disenfranchised), it makes sense to keep the laws until such time that we can be sure that repealing them won't cause widespread social problems.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  40. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    do you recall the outrage over the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

    the outrage would be there if people discriminated on you for hiring a black person today as well

    its not the 50s no more

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  41. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    that the government should not regulate what the free market can and should take care of.

    The problem with reducing someone's opinions to this degree is that this is something that most politicians agree on. The disagreements come over how effective the free market is in certain cases and what the regulations should be. From the rest of your post, it sounds like he's on the side that believes the free market will eventually fix everything (in spite of evidence to the contrary). At the opposite extreme are people who believe the free market will not fix anything (in spite of evidence to the contrary). In the middle, there's far more ambiguity in the evidence, so it's far harder to see who is actually right (and then often only with the benefit of a lot of hindsight).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  42. Re:Measles is NOT a Problem by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Look at the same statistics from a country that doesn't have herd immunity from most of them being vaccinated and then say that measles isn't a problem and it would be fine for people not to be vaccinated.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  43. Re:Why not keep FOIA accessible info separately? by fafalone · · Score: 1

    I'd imagine it would depend on the circumstance. There's gotta be plenty of scenarios where TS/SCI information is removed so other government employees with only Secret, or below, clearance could still use the other information. Like the DEA scrubbing their illegal activities and NSA gifts before handing information to the DoJ for prosecution.

  44. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by tburkhol · · Score: 2

    87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.

    If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.

  45. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.

    If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.

    Right. Because we can't hold people responsible for their actions - if one person messes up, we need to make everyone pay. Typical government response.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  46. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by unity · · Score: 1

    "Sorry, he lost me with his stance on vaccinations"

    You mean the stance that vaccinations should be voluntary? Which is how they have pretty much always been?

    So you are for the position of forcibly strapping people down and injecting them with drugs against their will? Sickening.

  47. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Triklyn · · Score: 1

    :) well apparently we're at the point where we no longer need to screen the south for trying to disenfranchise black people... because you know, we got a black guy in the big seat, and the supreme court says racism is dead. I mean, MLK, that was sooooo long ago.

    And obviously the states haven't done anything to make us regret us keeping an eye on them.

  48. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by Triklyn · · Score: 1

    we got a merger every other day it seems, that are getting scrutinized for anti-trust implications. i'd say that the free market let loose, ends with monopolies. and the current state of our cable and telecomm could use a good strong dose of good strong regulation reform.

  49. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    if its within the rules written, its not misleading, cheating or defrauding, by definition.

    get the govt to write simple readable rules to everyone, and the issues would resolve themselves.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  50. Re:Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    look at my name... i agree with you

    having said that, if a company wants to be that way why work for them to begin with, you have choices on who you work with

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same