4 ms·

I'm vetting FIOA-like request emails right now and yes each email is vetted for sensitive information. And not just secret info, there are a bunch of exemptions

I'm vetting FIOA-like request emails right now and yes each email is vetted for sensitive information. And not just secret info, there are a bunch of exemptions you have to watch out for. If anything the list of exemptions is too short. A lot of stuff that seems like it's private isn't exempted. It's incredibly time consuming and very very expensive. I'm working one person's emails from a 4 month span and we have ~dozen people working on it for a week. The more specific request the easier it is. The ones asking for "everything" are just hard as hell.

Zigurd 10y ago
Cry me a river. It's hard only because there is too much utterly worthless, indeed counterproductive, secrecy. A more open government could not do some things. Good. It shouldn't.
- cm2012 10y ago
  The constitution of the United States + the Bill of Rights were all designed and argued about in secrecy. This was so the politicians in the room could actually be honest and negotiate rather than pander to their states short sighted interests.
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    How much that's exempt from FOIA is so high minded? It is 99.999% ass-coverage through secrecy and you know it.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Surprisingly, most people in government, as elsewhere, spend a majority of their time simply trying to get their work done. Is there malfeasance and corruption? Certainly. Is the solution to go to 100% open records in a hyper-politicized environment? I'm less sure. I know I wouldn't want Fox News / MSNBC combing over every email I've ever sent in the course of doing my job.
      - Zigurd 10y ago
        I'm not talking about malfeasance and corruption. I'm talking about embarrassment and enablement of dubious practices. FOIA should rightly make that painful.
        ethbro 10y ago
        On one hand you have dubious practices. On the other hand you have political football / back-stabbing. My point is that I believe the public interest is best served by a balance between "the public knows how this business was conducted" vs "any rival who wants my job can dig through everything I've done to find some dirt of me." Politicians, functionaries, and executive staff are people too. And I think HN can be a bit schizophrenic decrying "people in government are so ineffectual and unwilling to take risks" while simultaneously designing a purity litmus test where only the most boring, unadventurous apparatchiks are able to keep their jobs.
        Zigurd 10y ago
        > My point is that I believe the public interest is best served by a balance between "the public knows how this business was conducted" vs "any rival who wants my job can dig through everything I've done to find some dirt of me." Was that ever a standard for exemption from FOIA? Much less the intent of anyone writing any part of FOIA? Stupidity should hurt.
        ethbro 10y ago
        Your original point was that "99.999% [of FOIA exemptions are] ass-coverage through secrecy" and that's a bad thing. I disagree for the reasons I specified. If stupidity were cause for dismissal, we'd have a hard time staffing most of the jobs in the world.
      - srtjstjsj 10y ago
        Why not?
      - vertex-four 10y ago
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    No, the framer published articles and books putting forth there arguments, then briefly privately discussed a proposal to vote on. You may recall something called the Three-Fifths compromise, which pandered to the states' short-sighted interests.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      "Briefly" is an interesting way to describe four months.
- brownbat 10y ago
  So if someone asks for emails, no one should care if some of them are employees asking for medical leave? HIPAA just shouldn't apply to government employees? Emails containing complaints about harassment or assaults, the victims who complained should be just named to anyone who asks the government? Employees have to provide SSNs and banking info to HR, should that be publicized for scammers? "The Government" is also a workplace, and deals with all sorts of personal information on a daily basis. Their privacy is hardly "worthless," their emails deserve at least a quick sanity check before being released potentially to the entire world.

Zigurd 10y ago

Cry me a river. It's hard only because there is too much utterly worthless, indeed counterproductive, secrecy. A more open government could not do some things. Good. It shouldn't.

cm2012 10y ago
The constitution of the United States + the Bill of Rights were all designed and argued about in secrecy. This was so the politicians in the room could actually be honest and negotiate rather than pander to their states short sighted interests.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  How much that's exempt from FOIA is so high minded? It is 99.999% ass-coverage through secrecy and you know it.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Surprisingly, most people in government, as elsewhere, spend a majority of their time simply trying to get their work done. Is there malfeasance and corruption? Certainly. Is the solution to go to 100% open records in a hyper-politicized environment? I'm less sure. I know I wouldn't want Fox News / MSNBC combing over every email I've ever sent in the course of doing my job.
    - Zigurd 10y ago
      I'm not talking about malfeasance and corruption. I'm talking about embarrassment and enablement of dubious practices. FOIA should rightly make that painful.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        On one hand you have dubious practices. On the other hand you have political football / back-stabbing. My point is that I believe the public interest is best served by a balance between "the public knows how this business was conducted" vs "any rival who wants my job can dig through everything I've done to find some dirt of me." Politicians, functionaries, and executive staff are people too. And I think HN can be a bit schizophrenic decrying "people in government are so ineffectual and unwilling to take risks" while simultaneously designing a purity litmus test where only the most boring, unadventurous apparatchiks are able to keep their jobs.
        Zigurd 10y ago
        > My point is that I believe the public interest is best served by a balance between "the public knows how this business was conducted" vs "any rival who wants my job can dig through everything I've done to find some dirt of me." Was that ever a standard for exemption from FOIA? Much less the intent of anyone writing any part of FOIA? Stupidity should hurt.
        ethbro 10y ago
        Your original point was that "99.999% [of FOIA exemptions are] ass-coverage through secrecy" and that's a bad thing. I disagree for the reasons I specified. If stupidity were cause for dismissal, we'd have a hard time staffing most of the jobs in the world.
    - srtjstjsj 10y ago
      Why not?
    - vertex-four 10y ago
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  No, the framer published articles and books putting forth there arguments, then briefly privately discussed a proposal to vote on. You may recall something called the Three-Fifths compromise, which pandered to the states' short-sighted interests.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    "Briefly" is an interesting way to describe four months.
brownbat 10y ago
So if someone asks for emails, no one should care if some of them are employees asking for medical leave? HIPAA just shouldn't apply to government employees? Emails containing complaints about harassment or assaults, the victims who complained should be just named to anyone who asks the government? Employees have to provide SSNs and banking info to HR, should that be publicized for scammers? "The Government" is also a workplace, and deals with all sorts of personal information on a daily basis. Their privacy is hardly "worthless," their emails deserve at least a quick sanity check before being released potentially to the entire world.