6 ms·

> (2) Inapplicability of FOIA.— > Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well

> (2) Inapplicability of FOIA.— > Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to the review of the covered transaction, is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the "Freedom of Information Act"). How is this even remotely acceptable? I'm generally in favor of a TikTok ban, but this bill is so ridiculously onerous that they handed the PR advantage to TikTok and made a necessary national security measure almost entirely unsalable.

kenjackson 4y ago
Why are you in favor of a TikTok ban?
- eganist 4y ago
  I go into more detail on my thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363138 The context in the thread is modestly useful.
gruez 4y ago
>How is this even remotely acceptable? Why not? It's not reasonable to expect everything to be public. There are classified documents, for instance. I skimmed the bill and "covered transaction" refers to financial (?) transactions with banned entities. Is that being exempt from FOIA laws really surprising? I wouldn't CTRs[1] to be requestable under FOIA, for instance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report
- eganist 4y ago
  The language exempts everything pertaining to this act. If there's intel informing a ban, that's one thing. But everything, even unclassified information? That's too much.
  - gruez 4y ago
    It literally does not. As per your own quote > Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to the review of the covered transaction That's certainly not "everything pertaining to this act".
    - henriquez 4y ago
      If it’s not classified it shouldn’t be exempt from FOIA, period. The government works for us, not the other way around.
      - gruez 4y ago
        >The government works for us, not the other way around. Part of "government works for us" involves not having them give up information in response to FOIA requests. I want the government to work for me by not allowing my tax returns to be disclosed via FOIA, for instance.
        henriquez 4y ago
        Fake and dumb example. That’s already excluded under existing law and you’re a pedantic troll for suggesting that was what I meant.
        gruez 4y ago
        >That’s already excluded under existing law and you’re a pedantic troll for suggesting that was what I meant. And this new law exempts other information. What's the issue here?
        eganist 4y ago
        The issue is that you're not debating this topic in good faith. This act exempts all information relevant to the act from disclosure, and unlike taxes of individuals, everything that this act would be concerned with is a potential risk to both security and individual liberties of every person in the United States as well as many people abroad. "Any information" submitted that's relevant to the law ("by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act") is exempted from disclosure. The law's purpose is to enable regulation of covered entities and their covered transactions; that's what determines what's relevant to the law. Likewise, "Any information" generated by the government as required by the law is exempted from disclosure. This would mean not only is any submission to the federal government in accordance with the act excluded from FOIA, literally everything the government does in regards to the act, including creating procedures, refining and operating those procedures, and even matters such as OIG reviews of procedures, would be blocked from disclosure. Which renders true the point I made earlier ("The language exempts everything pertaining to this act") which you so glibly dismissed. --- I'm not reading replies to this thread, so feel free to get in a last word.
- ramblenode 4y ago
  > Why not? My view is that a government which works for its citizens should by default be open and transparent about what it is doing and why. There may be exceptions, but they should be minimized and justified. FOIA is a rare piece of legislation that doesn't benefit either party or the bureaucracy but does broadly benefit the public. The bipartisan effort to nullify it feels like testing the waters for future FOIA carve-outs to insulate lawmakers from their constituents.

kenjackson 4y ago

Why are you in favor of a TikTok ban?

eganist 4y ago
I go into more detail on my thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363138 The context in the thread is modestly useful.

gruez 4y ago

>How is this even remotely acceptable? Why not? It's not reasonable to expect everything to be public. There are classified documents, for instance. I skimmed the bill and "covered transaction" refers to financial (?) transactions with banned entities. Is that being exempt from FOIA laws really surprising? I wouldn't CTRs[1] to be requestable under FOIA, for instance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report

eganist 4y ago
The language exempts everything pertaining to this act. If there's intel informing a ban, that's one thing. But everything, even unclassified information? That's too much.
- gruez 4y ago
  It literally does not. As per your own quote > Any information submitted to the Federal Government by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act, as well as any information the Federal Government may create relating to the review of the covered transaction That's certainly not "everything pertaining to this act".
  - henriquez 4y ago
    If it’s not classified it shouldn’t be exempt from FOIA, period. The government works for us, not the other way around.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >The government works for us, not the other way around. Part of "government works for us" involves not having them give up information in response to FOIA requests. I want the government to work for me by not allowing my tax returns to be disclosed via FOIA, for instance.
      - henriquez 4y ago
        Fake and dumb example. That’s already excluded under existing law and you’re a pedantic troll for suggesting that was what I meant.
        gruez 4y ago
        >That’s already excluded under existing law and you’re a pedantic troll for suggesting that was what I meant. And this new law exempts other information. What's the issue here?
        eganist 4y ago
        The issue is that you're not debating this topic in good faith. This act exempts all information relevant to the act from disclosure, and unlike taxes of individuals, everything that this act would be concerned with is a potential risk to both security and individual liberties of every person in the United States as well as many people abroad. "Any information" submitted that's relevant to the law ("by a party to a covered transaction in accordance with this Act") is exempted from disclosure. The law's purpose is to enable regulation of covered entities and their covered transactions; that's what determines what's relevant to the law. Likewise, "Any information" generated by the government as required by the law is exempted from disclosure. This would mean not only is any submission to the federal government in accordance with the act excluded from FOIA, literally everything the government does in regards to the act, including creating procedures, refining and operating those procedures, and even matters such as OIG reviews of procedures, would be blocked from disclosure. Which renders true the point I made earlier ("The language exempts everything pertaining to this act") which you so glibly dismissed. --- I'm not reading replies to this thread, so feel free to get in a last word.
ramblenode 4y ago
> Why not? My view is that a government which works for its citizens should by default be open and transparent about what it is doing and why. There may be exceptions, but they should be minimized and justified. FOIA is a rare piece of legislation that doesn't benefit either party or the bureaucracy but does broadly benefit the public. The bipartisan effort to nullify it feels like testing the waters for future FOIA carve-outs to insulate lawmakers from their constituents.