7 ms·

It's not true. The headline is clickbait. Read the legal filing. He's bitching about slow FOIA document production. Not sure whether that's a reasonable complai

It's not true. The headline is clickbait. Read the legal filing. He's bitching about slow FOIA document production. Not sure whether that's a reasonable complaint here or not, but he's asking for a fuckload of documents.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
There is a fuckload of government. What's wrong with the expectation to serve a fuckload of people fucking fast, for the fuckload of money those people pay it in a fuckload of ways?
perryizgr8 5y ago
Is it reasonable to take 50 years to release the documents he's asking for? He and other taxpayers paid for the studies, they deserve a look in a reasonable time frame, no matter his personal beliefs. Freedom of information needs to be modernized. Document creation should be in the open from the start. There shouldn't be a reason to "release" them later. At least for civilian stuff like vaccine studies.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Is it reasonable to take 50 years to release the documents he's asking for? Absent Congress appropriating funds specifically for it, yes. Should Congress do that? That's a separate issue, which is not the court’s job to address. > He and other taxpayers paid for the studies, Citizenship, not taxpaying, is relevant for public data, but citizens (through their representatives) didn't choose to pay for the segregation of public and nonpublic information for release on a schedule more expedited than general FOIA releases. > Document creation should be in the open from the start. Maybe, though for processes that can involve mixtures of personal private info, confidential commercial info, trade secrets, and public data that will significantly increase the upfront cost of operations. But neither the executive branch alone nor the courts are the venue for that.
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    > Absent Congress appropriating funds specifically for it, yes. I disagree with that. FDA was able to produce and analyze the documents in roughly a years time. They scrutinized the data enough that they felt comfortable in approving a novel vaccine. Surely releasing a USB stick with the documents on it shouldn't take 50x the time to analyze and produce the documents in the first place. > Citizenship, not taxpaying, is relevant for public dat Distinction without a difference in this case. > citizens (through their representatives) didn't choose to pay for the segregation of public and nonpublic information for release on a schedule more expedited than general FOIA releases. This is circular reasoning. When owning slaves was legal I could have said "citizens did not pay for law enforcement to catch slave owners". But that wouldn't be the end of the discussion. If a rule or law is wrong, we must fix it, not accept it as the eternal truth. > Maybe, though for processes that can involve It is hardly relevant what is involved. People paid for the research, subjected themselves to a vaccine you said is ok. They deserve to know the reasoning behind the conclusions.
    - smaudet 5y ago
      > Surely releasing a USB stick with the documents on it shouldn't take 50x the time to analyze and produce the documents in the first place. Absolutely disagree. If I have the following: "Joe blogs who is 89 and lives at 1400 West Rd, Los Angeles, CA 10921, today went to go obtain a vaccine and got the sniffles. His wife had eaten pizza, says Pfizer, and so precipitated a reaction via airborne cheese reactivity', it probably took you all of two seconds to read that. If you have to redact any of that, you first must confirm what to redact, whether talking about Joe's wife somehow constitutes a breach of personal information, etc. Maybe the address information is fine to leave in, maybe its not. But now instead of just regurgitating a couple sentences, you have to sit and deconstruct the sentence, match it to various classifications, etc., all by hand. Does that make FOIA requests somewhat useless? Perhaps, but we never mandated that the information going in had to be foia compliant. If you want it faster, sue for the public disclosure of all vaccine materials regardless of classification, and contact your senator, not your foia office. IMO the various vaccines should be public property anyways, not the property of any one corp, especially given we all are paying the price...
- azsrz 5y ago
  If every "reasonable" requests from taxpayer have to be answered exactly the way they are asked, the government will not function, or the taxpayer can expect to pay way more. This sounds like a DDoS attack.
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    Don't you think taxpayers are entitled to see the reasoning behind FDA's decisions? Especially such a high profile one where everything from the technology used to the timelines involved was novel? This sort of disclosure should be part of the FDA's job, if it isn't already. It is not a DDOS attack, it is just the job they were paid to do, on taxpayers' expense.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago

There is a fuckload of government. What's wrong with the expectation to serve a fuckload of people fucking fast, for the fuckload of money those people pay it in a fuckload of ways?

perryizgr8 5y ago

Is it reasonable to take 50 years to release the documents he's asking for? He and other taxpayers paid for the studies, they deserve a look in a reasonable time frame, no matter his personal beliefs. Freedom of information needs to be modernized. Document creation should be in the open from the start. There shouldn't be a reason to "release" them later. At least for civilian stuff like vaccine studies.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Is it reasonable to take 50 years to release the documents he's asking for? Absent Congress appropriating funds specifically for it, yes. Should Congress do that? That's a separate issue, which is not the court’s job to address. > He and other taxpayers paid for the studies, Citizenship, not taxpaying, is relevant for public data, but citizens (through their representatives) didn't choose to pay for the segregation of public and nonpublic information for release on a schedule more expedited than general FOIA releases. > Document creation should be in the open from the start. Maybe, though for processes that can involve mixtures of personal private info, confidential commercial info, trade secrets, and public data that will significantly increase the upfront cost of operations. But neither the executive branch alone nor the courts are the venue for that.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  > Absent Congress appropriating funds specifically for it, yes. I disagree with that. FDA was able to produce and analyze the documents in roughly a years time. They scrutinized the data enough that they felt comfortable in approving a novel vaccine. Surely releasing a USB stick with the documents on it shouldn't take 50x the time to analyze and produce the documents in the first place. > Citizenship, not taxpaying, is relevant for public dat Distinction without a difference in this case. > citizens (through their representatives) didn't choose to pay for the segregation of public and nonpublic information for release on a schedule more expedited than general FOIA releases. This is circular reasoning. When owning slaves was legal I could have said "citizens did not pay for law enforcement to catch slave owners". But that wouldn't be the end of the discussion. If a rule or law is wrong, we must fix it, not accept it as the eternal truth. > Maybe, though for processes that can involve It is hardly relevant what is involved. People paid for the research, subjected themselves to a vaccine you said is ok. They deserve to know the reasoning behind the conclusions.
  - smaudet 5y ago
    > Surely releasing a USB stick with the documents on it shouldn't take 50x the time to analyze and produce the documents in the first place. Absolutely disagree. If I have the following: "Joe blogs who is 89 and lives at 1400 West Rd, Los Angeles, CA 10921, today went to go obtain a vaccine and got the sniffles. His wife had eaten pizza, says Pfizer, and so precipitated a reaction via airborne cheese reactivity', it probably took you all of two seconds to read that. If you have to redact any of that, you first must confirm what to redact, whether talking about Joe's wife somehow constitutes a breach of personal information, etc. Maybe the address information is fine to leave in, maybe its not. But now instead of just regurgitating a couple sentences, you have to sit and deconstruct the sentence, match it to various classifications, etc., all by hand. Does that make FOIA requests somewhat useless? Perhaps, but we never mandated that the information going in had to be foia compliant. If you want it faster, sue for the public disclosure of all vaccine materials regardless of classification, and contact your senator, not your foia office. IMO the various vaccines should be public property anyways, not the property of any one corp, especially given we all are paying the price...
azsrz 5y ago
If every "reasonable" requests from taxpayer have to be answered exactly the way they are asked, the government will not function, or the taxpayer can expect to pay way more. This sounds like a DDoS attack.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  Don't you think taxpayers are entitled to see the reasoning behind FDA's decisions? Especially such a high profile one where everything from the technology used to the timelines involved was novel? This sort of disclosure should be part of the FDA's job, if it isn't already. It is not a DDOS attack, it is just the job they were paid to do, on taxpayers' expense.