Slashdot Mirror
The FCC Is Refusing To Release Emails About Ajit Pai's 'Harlem Shake' Video (vice.com)
bumblebaetuna writes from a report via Motherboard: On the eve of the net neutrality repeal, just as tensions and public debate over the issue were reaching a fever pitch, someone in the FCC decided it would be a good idea to have chair Ajit Pai ridicule legitimate concerns of internet users with a video featuring an outdated meme and a pizzagate conspiracy theorist. Now, citing the infamous b5 FOIA exemption, the Federal Communications Commission is refusing to release emails related to the planning of the video. The b5 exemption is supposed to protect "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would be privileged in civil litigation," but each agency interprets that meaning differently.
Just a guess here, but maybe the reason for declining this isn't solely down to the identity of the current FCC Chair.
If the FCC were to agree to this request and provide the details, they also set a precedent - a legal precedent - in which they have turned over materials in this way. Once they do this, anyone who in future might want to get access to other FCC materials would then be able to cite this case in support of their argument for disclosure.
I do not agree with this as grounds for refusing the request.
Everything our governments do for us, is paid for by us. There will necessarily be certain aspects of security for which a government would have no choice but to decline a request on the grounds of national security. However, the conditions for claiming these grounds should be clearly and explicitly defined and kept under constant review. There should be an independent "insider" with the authority to review any documents that a sitting government of the day refused to disclose. There should be robust appeals mechanisms.
At the end of the day, governments exist to serve the people that elect them. When a government - or a branch of government - refuses a request like this, they make an implied statement of "we are more important than you", or "we are superior to you". At it's mildest, this is how corruption in office starts. At the worst, this is how dictatorships form.
There need to be limits on this, of course. The public have a right to understand anything that any FCC Chair has said or done in their capacity as a member of the FCC, paid for by the public dime. There is a right for transparency in decision-making and government to help ensure that government remains fair and free from corruption and outside influence.
In hindsight, perhaps this was the wrong request to make. It has allowed the FCC to decline a request for something that would most likely have been merely embarrassing to the current FCC Chair, but in so doing creates the precedent that I mention above. Perhaps this powder should have been kept dry for something a little more egregious, and/or something that could not have been "reasonably refused".