4 ms·

Information generated with public funds should be public. Law enforcement has two big caveats to that. Information obtained with a warrant should remain protect

by jfoutz 10y ago

Information generated with public funds should be public. Law enforcement has two big caveats to that. Information obtained with a warrant should remain protected until trial, and only information used in the case should be made public. Second, Ongoing investigations clearly should stay secret. I'm sure there are sensible exceptions for tax, military and intelligence services. But seriously, what the hell. We're paying for it, why can't we see it? The general policy needs to be openness. Historically, i understand finding that stuff was a pain in the neck, shuffling around papers in filing cabinets. This is the information age. Read only access to everything is achievable and, i think, desirable.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Imagine if every email and report that you wrote at work was broadcast to the whole world and subject the vicious (yet shallow and unfair) scrutiny of the 24-hour news cycle. Can you see how that would hamper your ability to your job effectively?
- geggam 10y ago
  I can see how it would cause a problem if you weren't doing you job right or had no intention to. Outside of that... not really.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    "weren't doing your job right" and "had no intention to" are hugely subjective. Anyone with an axe to grind could go through your information and find whatever they need to twist the apparent meaning to prove that you weren't doing your job "right" and had no intention to. It's really easy to take information out of context and make it appear to mean something it doesn't.
    - geggam 10y ago
      I guess that means you don't want to be a public servant exposed to public scrutiny ? That is part of the job.
    - jfoutz 10y ago
      Eh, maybe. Everyone with facebook has unfollowed that crazy relative that posts their political rants. I think the vast majority of people don't care about axe grinders. When something does come up, people can go see for themselves. There's also the issue of volume. Something like 1/3 of the us workforce is employed by government. Sure, there are crazy people out there. But they're going to be crazy anyway. I think this would make people take the crazy people even less seriously.
    - jflatow 10y ago
      Considering the government currently has the same power over citizens, I can't see how this argument holds up. Especially when the government is granted powers of total surveillance and mass hacking[1], there needs to be some accountability and balance of power. [1] https://medium.com/@RonWyden/shaking-my-head-5c1b60db9086#.hd5m52yso https://medium.com/@RonWyden/shaking-my-head-5c1b60db9086#.h...
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    Serious question; have you never written an inappropriate-for-publishing-in-a-newspaper email? I'm genuinely curious how many people filter 100% of their emails for printability (I know I've done the "ctrl+R wtf ctrl+enter" before). Also, keep in mind that you won't see emails from a given person which don't match the FOIA search criteria. The likelihood of getting a nonrepresentative sample is therefore proportionally increased.
- gpm 10y ago
  Doesn't sound too different from how gitlab or Mozilla share their 'internal' issue trackers publicly to me...
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Anecdotally, I've heard Feds talk about how it's the actually spoken and posted (but never emailed, obviously) policy that you should never send an email that can't be printed on the front page of the Washington Post. Do we really want our public servants spending all of their time thinking about whether using "whom" incorrectly will get them crucified by some blogger?
- jfoutz 10y ago
  So wait a year or five before release. I understand that access to intermediate versions of documents while things are being hashed out can be a problem. Being able to reconstruct why a budget looks the way it does is really helpful. There's also a volume issue.
- nxzero 10y ago
  There will always be loopholes, but given there's been countless examples of abuse and times where what happened will never been known because data was intentionally deleted, this needs to stop. In fact, currently, it's standard operating procedure to delete information; once deleted, it's impossible to know what the information was, why it was deleted, etc.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
caseysoftware 10y ago
Add protections for victim's information and identity and this has some appeal. But based on the volume of prosecutor misbehavior that we know about, I'm justifiably doubtful of all of them.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  I have no problems with delaying release of information. 1, 5, 20 or even 100 years after the event. But it should all be public. I doubt there's some human activity that's so heinous that simply reading about it will corrupt a culture. But fine, i'll even give up that. That information should be immediately destroyed. I've done things i'm embarrassed by, i've done things i'm ashamed of. So have you. We're just human. Realistically, is there any other way to fix prosecutor misbehavior than simply, eventually, making it all public? The only way to resolve errors in a system is to analyze past errors and establish rules to correct those errors. Public by default solves a lot of problems. Public errors can be forgiven. Private errors can be repeated. So, sure. Make it easy to delay release. Perhaps delay release for a long time. Actually destroying information is, IMHO, bad. In any case with public funds generating information, the default should be 'opt in' to secrecy. Make it very easy to delay release. Actually destroying the information is bad. Destroying information can hide sins. You do whatever you want with your money. I want to see, in exquisite detail what is done with my money. I accept that it's not used optimally, but i should have the option to improve the system that squanders my money.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Unless by law all data collected has to be written to a public blockchain that's able to be reconciled to data collected and released -- the FBI, DEA, etc. will always be deleting information; number of reasons why they would be deleting information, but the point is that this is not okay.

by jfoutz 10y ago

marcoperaza 10y ago

Imagine if every email and report that you wrote at work was broadcast to the whole world and subject the vicious (yet shallow and unfair) scrutiny of the 24-hour news cycle. Can you see how that would hamper your ability to your job effectively?

geggam 10y ago
I can see how it would cause a problem if you weren't doing you job right or had no intention to. Outside of that... not really.
- DougWebb 10y ago
  "weren't doing your job right" and "had no intention to" are hugely subjective. Anyone with an axe to grind could go through your information and find whatever they need to twist the apparent meaning to prove that you weren't doing your job "right" and had no intention to. It's really easy to take information out of context and make it appear to mean something it doesn't.
  - geggam 10y ago
    I guess that means you don't want to be a public servant exposed to public scrutiny ? That is part of the job.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    Eh, maybe. Everyone with facebook has unfollowed that crazy relative that posts their political rants. I think the vast majority of people don't care about axe grinders. When something does come up, people can go see for themselves. There's also the issue of volume. Something like 1/3 of the us workforce is employed by government. Sure, there are crazy people out there. But they're going to be crazy anyway. I think this would make people take the crazy people even less seriously.
  - jflatow 10y ago
    Considering the government currently has the same power over citizens, I can't see how this argument holds up. Especially when the government is granted powers of total surveillance and mass hacking[1], there needs to be some accountability and balance of power. [1] https://medium.com/@RonWyden/shaking-my-head-5c1b60db9086#.hd5m52yso https://medium.com/@RonWyden/shaking-my-head-5c1b60db9086#.h...
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Serious question; have you never written an inappropriate-for-publishing-in-a-newspaper email? I'm genuinely curious how many people filter 100% of their emails for printability (I know I've done the "ctrl+R wtf ctrl+enter" before). Also, keep in mind that you won't see emails from a given person which don't match the FOIA search criteria. The likelihood of getting a nonrepresentative sample is therefore proportionally increased.
gpm 10y ago
Doesn't sound too different from how gitlab or Mozilla share their 'internal' issue trackers publicly to me...
Godel_unicode 10y ago
Anecdotally, I've heard Feds talk about how it's the actually spoken and posted (but never emailed, obviously) policy that you should never send an email that can't be printed on the front page of the Washington Post. Do we really want our public servants spending all of their time thinking about whether using "whom" incorrectly will get them crucified by some blogger?
jfoutz 10y ago
So wait a year or five before release. I understand that access to intermediate versions of documents while things are being hashed out can be a problem. Being able to reconstruct why a budget looks the way it does is really helpful. There's also a volume issue.
nxzero 10y ago
There will always be loopholes, but given there's been countless examples of abuse and times where what happened will never been known because data was intentionally deleted, this needs to stop. In fact, currently, it's standard operating procedure to delete information; once deleted, it's impossible to know what the information was, why it was deleted, etc.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

caseysoftware 10y ago

Add protections for victim's information and identity and this has some appeal. But based on the volume of prosecutor misbehavior that we know about, I'm justifiably doubtful of all of them.

jfoutz 10y ago
I have no problems with delaying release of information. 1, 5, 20 or even 100 years after the event. But it should all be public. I doubt there's some human activity that's so heinous that simply reading about it will corrupt a culture. But fine, i'll even give up that. That information should be immediately destroyed. I've done things i'm embarrassed by, i've done things i'm ashamed of. So have you. We're just human. Realistically, is there any other way to fix prosecutor misbehavior than simply, eventually, making it all public? The only way to resolve errors in a system is to analyze past errors and establish rules to correct those errors. Public by default solves a lot of problems. Public errors can be forgiven. Private errors can be repeated. So, sure. Make it easy to delay release. Perhaps delay release for a long time. Actually destroying information is, IMHO, bad. In any case with public funds generating information, the default should be 'opt in' to secrecy. Make it very easy to delay release. Actually destroying the information is bad. Destroying information can hide sins. You do whatever you want with your money. I want to see, in exquisite detail what is done with my money. I accept that it's not used optimally, but i should have the option to improve the system that squanders my money.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Unless by law all data collected has to be written to a public blockchain that's able to be reconciled to data collected and released -- the FBI, DEA, etc. will always be deleting information; number of reasons why they would be deleting information, but the point is that this is not okay.