3 ms·

So let Pfizer submit requests for redaction. They have the resources to run a trial with ~65,000 people in it, they can throw some lawyers at that problem and g

So let Pfizer submit requests for redaction. They have the resources to run a trial with ~65,000 people in it, they can throw some lawyers at that problem and get it fixed pronto. Say: you have two weeks to submit any requests. After that, everything gets released. It's your trade secrets after all.

mattkrause 5y ago
The issue is that's not just Pfizer's trade secrets; the documents may also contain PII (e.g., medical history) of those 65,000 people.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Clearly, niceties like medical privacy are completely irrelevant when it comes to COVID vaccination. Government already went there and a thousand miles beyond so who cares. Replace the names with numbers and call ita day The consequences of bad things being hidden in this data are drastically higher than a few people being deanonymized.
  - mattkrause 5y ago
    Eh, I'm not sure I agree with that[0], but even if I did, the government skirting (what you think is) the law once certainly should not be a reason for it to do so again in the future. As it stands, they are legally required to redact PII. If someone actually wants to understand how/why the vaccine was approved, the most sensible option IMO would be to tailor the FOIA Request more narrowly. Request the summary section: it should lay out the rationale, without diving into specific details that might need redaction. The only other alternatives I see are lobbying congress to either a) allocate more money for FOIA or b) make some categories/documents releasable as-is. OTOH, asking for a third of a million pages--many of which no one has real intention of reading--does seem like a good publicity stunt. [0] If participating in a clinical trial gets (potentially embarrassing) personal details leaked, we won't have nearly as many volunteers next time.

3 ms·

So let Pfizer submit requests for redaction. They have the resources to run a trial with ~65,000 people in it, they can throw some lawyers at that problem and g

by native_samples 5y ago

mattkrause 5y ago
The issue is that's not just Pfizer's trade secrets; the documents may also contain PII (e.g., medical history) of those 65,000 people.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Clearly, niceties like medical privacy are completely irrelevant when it comes to COVID vaccination. Government already went there and a thousand miles beyond so who cares. Replace the names with numbers and call ita day The consequences of bad things being hidden in this data are drastically higher than a few people being deanonymized.
  - mattkrause 5y ago
    Eh, I'm not sure I agree with that[0], but even if I did, the government skirting (what you think is) the law once certainly should not be a reason for it to do so again in the future. As it stands, they are legally required to redact PII. If someone actually wants to understand how/why the vaccine was approved, the most sensible option IMO would be to tailor the FOIA Request more narrowly. Request the summary section: it should lay out the rationale, without diving into specific details that might need redaction. The only other alternatives I see are lobbying congress to either a) allocate more money for FOIA or b) make some categories/documents releasable as-is. OTOH, asking for a third of a million pages--many of which no one has real intention of reading--does seem like a good publicity stunt. [0] If participating in a clinical trial gets (potentially embarrassing) personal details leaked, we won't have nearly as many volunteers next time.