8 ms·

DHS scrambles to cover up FOIA scandal

58 points by tshtf 16y ago

zeteo 16y ago
Original AP article about the "FOIA scandal": http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz_vYVn2EGBVVmj9Pg6AllECgh9wD9H3O8OO2 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz_vYVn2EG... Basically, out of 103,000 FoIA requests last year, DHS delayed about 500 more than the customary 3 days, because Janet Napolitano's staff wanted to find out more about the people making those requests.
- fleitz 16y ago
  Doesn't DHS answer to the people and not vice versa?
  - jbooth 16y ago
    I've never worked there, but I bet most of them answer to "cover your ass" before anything else.
    - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
      That would be the case at any bureaucracy, public or private.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Yeah, plus with DHS we have a bureaucracy that deals in skirting the line with people's rights by its very nature, and for kicks it's a hastily assembled bureaucracy of bureacracies. If we figure double for each of those factors, that's 4x.
- roboneal 16y ago
  The scandal is really about the policy put in place by the Obama administration. From the article you cited: "Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican." That's a dangerous politicization of DHS and the FOIA process and certainly goes against the spirit of "transparency" the Obama administration was voted in on.
  - dantheman 16y ago
    Yeah I can't believe anyone thinks that gathering that type of information is ok. You should be able to get any information through FOIA anonymously.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Ok, sure, it's against the spirit of transparency but I'd be willing to bet that in 90% of the cases that got sent upstairs, it actually was quite transparent scandal-fishing. Still, agree on the principle, you're right there. But as for policy put in place by a given administration.. citation? Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this? Remember that whole "Department of Justice actually frickin prosecuting people on poltiical grounds" thing?
    - jdminhbg 16y ago
      "Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this?" I just reread his post, and it doesn't look like it.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        "Put in place" kinda implies that it wasn't happening before, no? And if both administrations that have presided over a DHS practiced similar policies, then it's still a scandal but it's not about only one of them.
        roboneal 16y ago
        From the article: "But in July 2009, Homeland Security introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees for "awareness purposes," no matter who requested it." So yes - the Obama administration "PUT IN PLACE" this policy. It's not a long article. Read it.
        16y ago
duffbeer703 16y ago
This isn't political, they are just making sure that the terrorists don't FOIA bureaucratic minutae. If the terrorists can read bid proposals from competing vendors after DHS buys 50 million paperclips, they win.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  The terrorist have won
- loewenskind 16y ago
  oh ffs, take your scary boogy man bullshit elsewhere. Unless of course you'd like to cite some proof of this army of scary "terrorists" (stupid word btw) that is so large they have time to probe every possible vulnerability. And while you're looking that up, please bring with you research on why they haven't managed to do anything with the countless holes we have everywhere [1]. [1] One glaring example is the ocean ports. Did you know something like 1 out of every 100 containers is actually checked? I believe that was at the request of Walmart, among others. They must be working with the "terrorists"!!!
  - BCM43 16y ago
    I think that was sarcasm. The last part suggests it.
torpor 16y ago
You know who the biggest FOIA player is, who the government (and private corporations) hate more than anything else? I'll give you a hint: you probably hate them too. But guess what, they've been using FOIA to keep government in check for decades.

58 points by tshtf 16y ago

zeteo 16y ago

Original AP article about the "FOIA scandal": http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz_vYVn2EGBVVmj9Pg6AllECgh9wD9H3O8OO2 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz_vYVn2EG... Basically, out of 103,000 FoIA requests last year, DHS delayed about 500 more than the customary 3 days, because Janet Napolitano's staff wanted to find out more about the people making those requests.

fleitz 16y ago
Doesn't DHS answer to the people and not vice versa?
- jbooth 16y ago
  I've never worked there, but I bet most of them answer to "cover your ass" before anything else.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    That would be the case at any bureaucracy, public or private.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Yeah, plus with DHS we have a bureaucracy that deals in skirting the line with people's rights by its very nature, and for kicks it's a hastily assembled bureaucracy of bureacracies. If we figure double for each of those factors, that's 4x.
roboneal 16y ago
The scandal is really about the policy put in place by the Obama administration. From the article you cited: "Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican." That's a dangerous politicization of DHS and the FOIA process and certainly goes against the spirit of "transparency" the Obama administration was voted in on.
- dantheman 16y ago
  Yeah I can't believe anyone thinks that gathering that type of information is ok. You should be able to get any information through FOIA anonymously.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jbooth 16y ago
  Ok, sure, it's against the spirit of transparency but I'd be willing to bet that in 90% of the cases that got sent upstairs, it actually was quite transparent scandal-fishing. Still, agree on the principle, you're right there. But as for policy put in place by a given administration.. citation? Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this? Remember that whole "Department of Justice actually frickin prosecuting people on poltiical grounds" thing?
  - jdminhbg 16y ago
    "Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this?" I just reread his post, and it doesn't look like it.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      "Put in place" kinda implies that it wasn't happening before, no? And if both administrations that have presided over a DHS practiced similar policies, then it's still a scandal but it's not about only one of them.
      - roboneal 16y ago
        From the article: "But in July 2009, Homeland Security introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees for "awareness purposes," no matter who requested it." So yes - the Obama administration "PUT IN PLACE" this policy. It's not a long article. Read it.
      - 16y ago

duffbeer703 16y ago

This isn't political, they are just making sure that the terrorists don't FOIA bureaucratic minutae. If the terrorists can read bid proposals from competing vendors after DHS buys 50 million paperclips, they win.

Devilboy 16y ago
The terrorist have won
loewenskind 16y ago
oh ffs, take your scary boogy man bullshit elsewhere. Unless of course you'd like to cite some proof of this army of scary "terrorists" (stupid word btw) that is so large they have time to probe every possible vulnerability. And while you're looking that up, please bring with you research on why they haven't managed to do anything with the countless holes we have everywhere [1]. [1] One glaring example is the ocean ports. Did you know something like 1 out of every 100 containers is actually checked? I believe that was at the request of Walmart, among others. They must be working with the "terrorists"!!!
- BCM43 16y ago
  I think that was sarcasm. The last part suggests it.

torpor 16y ago

You know who the biggest FOIA player is, who the government (and private corporations) hate more than anything else? I'll give you a hint: you probably hate them too. But guess what, they've been using FOIA to keep government in check for decades.