States Pass Thousands of Info Restriction Laws

nebaz writes "The AP has published an article analyzing over 1000 laws passed by state legislatures since 9/11, and discovered a disturbing trend. More and more information is being made unavailable to the public. Some of this information may seem reasonable, dealing with national security and all, but there are other things, such as safety plans at schools, medication errors at nursing homes, and disciplinary actions against state employees, that are becoming restricted." From the article: "In statehouse battles, the issue has pitted advocates of government openness - including journalists and civil liberties groups - against lawmakers and others who worry that public information could be misused, whether it's by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards. Security concerns typically won out."

privacy

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why is it the government can make pretty much anything secret even when it has nothing to do with security, and meanwhile citizens are losing more and more privacy from things like warrantless wiretapping? Bunch of hypocrites.

Re:privacy

[by Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is Strength

Re:privacy

[mrmeval (662166)]

It has nothing to do with hypocracy and everything to do with corruption and control.

Re:privacy

[by Anonymous Coward]

Most politicians do not care about their consituents. They care about themselves, they care about power, they care about staying in power as long as possible. Rarely do they do anything to relinquish that power. Locking up the communications, data, and government plans will further their goal of keeping the people dumb, and promoting their own power plans. And this crosses party lines. If anyone thinks that the left is different, look long and hard at people like Teddy Kennedy or Tom Daschle. Both of those clowns did very little to benefit their constituents. They're backstabbing fools who would do anything to stay in power.

To anyone who thinks the right or the left is better, you've fallen into the media's trap. Look at the history of Rome. Power corrupts from within, and the media is blind to it, as are most people. We're in for a fall, and it's going to be a bad one.

Re:privacy

[antarctican (301636)]

Why is it the government can make pretty much anything secret even when it has nothing to do with security, and meanwhile citizens are losing more and more privacy from things like warrantless wiretapping? Bunch of hypocrites.

Because politicians don't like public scrutiny. They suddenly have an excuse to close off access for information which could be used to hold them accountable or embrassass them. They like to make decisions behind closed doors which benefit themselves and their supporters and not have the nosey public interfering, heaven forbid the information could be used to toss them from office.

Up north we're experiencing a similar problem at the federal and provincial (BC) level. Governments which are increasingly becoming more secret in their dealings and contracts - and we don't even have them using security as an excuse! Combine this with an apathetic public which just assumes all government is corrupt and you have a situation where the politicians get away with whatever they please.

It's typical of right-wing governments, they know their agendas mainly benefit a small, elite group despite any rhetoric they may spew. This is why they like secrecy so much, heaven forbid the public actually catch on to the number that's being pulled on them.

The solution is to stop whining and actually become politically active. Our cousins to the south certainly have a bigger battle ahead of them with a two party system where both parties are self-serving groups of individuals with a complete disconnect from the ordinary citizen. But if we continue fighting, in time we can wake the public up to this assault on democracy and freedom.

Re:privacy

[by Anonymous Coward]

Because politicians don't like public scrutiny. They suddenly have an excuse to close off access for information which could be used to hold them accountable or embrassass them. They like to make decisions behind closed doors which benefit themselves and their supporters and not have the nosey public interfering, heaven forbid the information could be used to toss them from office.

Well, I agreed with you, until you said that this is typical of "right-wing governments" (implication: left-wing governments don't do this).

"When given a choice between privacy and accountability we always choose privacy for ourselves and accountability for everyone else. This is especially noxious when it's some all-powerful leader making the choice."
  -David Brin [davidbrin.com]

And not just politicians, but lawyers, police, teachers, non-profits, corporations, etc (but only the right-wing ones, right!?)

Re:privacy

[BrynM (217883)]

The solution is to stop whining and actually become politically active.

Though you are in many ways correct, that is an idealistic point of view to hold here in the US. To ask a typical american to be "active" for anything sounds too much like work to them. Then come the mental justifications and excuses such as "I don't have time" or "well it really isn't my problem - it's waaaayyy over there". Further, to say "just participate" and not hand someone the tools to do it is a cop-out too many intelligent americans use.

Instead, I've found it's better to encourage people to simply question everything - especially motivation. Then teach them to link up where they were right and be willing to laugh when they are wrong.

For example, someone I knew was addicted to celebrity life and tabloid-ish who's hot and who's not type things. Any mention of politics would get his pat answer: "That may be life, but that's not living. Next Subject." It really bothered me that someone who was intelligent, cynical and funny could be that closed-minded.

So I started pointing out that someone who was getting press in a slow crescendo (ie:"hot pictures" then "shocking scandal" then "heartfelt interview") probably had something like a movie or a book in the works. He eventually began to see when particular celebrity marketing machines were accelerating to generate buzz as well. Finally, he learned that he could apply those observation skills to anything. Today, he loves to talk politics as much as music. (Note: I didn't plan for this, but learned from what was happening over the course of months).

"Question everything" is a cliche for a reason. Good advice is often repeated. Luckily it turns out that people actually like to be sceptical, but most don't know how to do it critically. Once they know how, they can't help but participate in some way.

Irony...

[dshaw858 (828072)]

Headline: "Politics: States Pass Thousands of Info Restriction Laws"
Slashdot: "Nothing for you to see here, please move along"

Thousands of laws?

[McShazbot (570442)]

Thousands of laws? Um, not quite. From the article:

Legislatures have passed more than 1,000 laws changing access to information

and later in the article:

States passed 616 laws that restricted access -- to government records, databases, meetings and more -- and 284 laws that loosened access. Another 123 laws had either a neutral or mixed effect

The article is informative, and the actual data is compelling enough without going chicken little in the /. headline. . .

Re:Thousands of laws?

[aussie_a (778472)]

Perhaps he meant American thousands? Just as an American billion is actually quite a small number (when compared with a real billion), perhaps American thousands suffer from the same plight ;)

Re

[Alex P Keaton in da (882660)]

Something that bothers me:
Social security numbers being used for ID. I thought it was, when social security was enacted, against the law for social security numbers to be used for anything else besides social security.
I also hate that companies make many millions selling info about me- credit bureaus and such. And then the credit bureaus want to sell me a service to watch for errors they may make. I would like info about me to be private, unless I choose to disclose it.
What a joke. I just feel like sometimes we double dead bolt the front door and install a state of the art security system on the front door, and leave the back door wide open....

Re:Re

[LeonGeeste (917243)]

Agree and disagree. If Congress created the SSN with the specific condition that no business ever use it as a way of identifying someone (which they did, and which people violate routinely), they need to put a stop to this. But I seriously doubt it would help the problem that you describe. If the SSN weren't around, credit agencies would just create a different unique identifier that they would all share, and it would be just as hard to take out a loan or hide from a credit record. Asking that lenders make loans with no clue who you are or what your history of paying back load is, creates a huge adverse selection [wikipedia.org] problem. Not that you were advocating this but someone always suggests that in such discussions.

You're of course right that they need to better protect this, but my question is, why hasn't competition between lenders and between credit reporters sorted this out already?

ben franklin

[jollyroger1210 (933226)]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

so true

Freedom of Speech

[michaelhood (667393)]

Freedom of Speech isn't very useful when you no longer know what to say.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[rossifer (581396)]

you need a free education in order to have something intelligent to say

You're radically overstating the value of formal education, let alone publically provided formal education. To counter what appears to be a serious reality distortion field in your vicinity, I suggest you look up the definition of autodidact [wikipedia.org].

Libraries, my family's bookshelves, and now the internet have provided me more education than any public school ever did. BTW, my definition for autodidact: someone who hasn't had the hunger for learning burned out of them by public schooling.

you need free healthcare to be able to live long enough to be heard

Yeah, cause in the US, where almost everyone has to pay for their healthcare, nobody lives to be thirty. No wait, that's not right either...

Your arguments seem to put a lot of responsibility for your fundamental abilities on other people (teachers and medical professionals in these two sentences alone). I suggest you look inward and attempt to build up an ability to speak for yourself without all the external scaffolding. At least at that point, you'll be certain that what you're saying is all yours.

Regards,
Ross

Educated people need to start spreading the truth

[lowell (66406)]

about whats going on with Federal and State govs and not buying the "its for your own good" as being an exceptable answer as to why TYRANNY is ruling the land here in the USA. If restricting FREEDOM and INFORMATION is the answer then our ELECTED officials must have asked the wrong question.

Vote the sorry bastards out and start electing real live humans to political offices not these morons we have now. Start with campaign funding reform. For the love of all thats good and pure do something. Dont let these SOB run this once great land into the ground.

Problem...

[C10H14N2 (640033)]

"Educated people" think these things are in their interest.

No matter how idiotic one side seems to be on an issue, it's counter-productive to boil it down to ignorance vs. education, intelligence vs. stupidity, because often, you're arguing with educated, intelligent people who have different values and interests. How many times has the argument about state-sponsored [X] come down to: only stupid people find anything of value in socialism and only an ignorant person would think that socialism is inherently bad. So, then we move on to good vs. evil and all that non-sense.

IMHO the problem is idealism in general. The Left (in the USA) has become LESS idealistic than it used to be--which is actually a GOOD thing, in theory--while The Right has become outright militant in its idealism. Unfortunately, it's rather hard to fight popular, militant idealism with pragmatism...but that may change as people tire of these fights and simply want things to be functional. We may see that as early as November.

Re:Educated people need to start spreading the tru

[BobSutan (467781)]

You are correct in that it all starts at campaign finance reform. But guess what? It'll never occur, the same way congress gives themselves raises they would NEVER approve of CFR as it'd limit each and every one of them and their ability to get reelected. After all, what's the use in obtaining a position of power if every Tom Dick and Harry has an equal chance at obtaining that same position, regardless of how many strings your daddy had to pull and how rich you are?

Obligatory Chomsky

[michaelhood (667393)]

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." Noam Chomsky

Obligatory /.

[CHESTER COPPERPOT (864371)]

"The smart way to keep /.'ers passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable stories, but allow very lively debate within those stories - even encourage the more critical and dissident views by modding up. That gives /.'ers the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the fanboy conjecture of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the discussion." Cowboy Nealsky

How the govt/military views the world

[zephc (225327)]

If you want a good insight on how the military and the current administration views the world, I suggest reading about Tom Barnett. There's an interview at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=16779 [frontpagemag.com]

There's a video of a talk he gave via CSPAN from a June 2004 at http://theconspiracy.us/CSPAN/ [theconspiracy.us] has the video in XviD format (can someone torrent this?)

Why all these laws?

[iminplaya (723125)]

When all they have to do is copyright everything. Hey, it works for Scientology. If everything like the weather service and map makers, etc. goes private, then IP law will have more teeth than those against murder and rape. It won't be long before a freedom of information request becomes a DMCA violation. If that doesn't work, then all you need to do is scream "terrorist!" at anyone who dares to question the authority of the gov't. Y'all let me know when you wake up from your slumber and start to vote these bums out of office. The change has to come from your own selves. Until you take action, you will find that this is only the beginning. "You aint seen nuttin yet."

What?!? Our govt is poor on civil liberties??

[tji (74570)]

What a shocker.

There was an interesting article in Newsweek this week, describing how the 9/11 commission recommended an oversight board to make sure the government was protecting our civil liberties.

It was set up in December 2004, but the board has never hired a staff or had a meeting.

So, yeah.. Our government really takes civil liberties seriously..

The article is available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11677336/site/newsweek / [msn.com]

Re:propaganda

[omegashenron (942375)]

You mean by using the more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine [bbc.co.uk] suggested by Rumsfeld which is paying journalists [latimes.com] to write favorably about the US and it's war effort?

I wonder how much propaganda the US is involved in domestically and in other regions around the world and I really think organisations such as RSF (reporters without borders) should do more to discourage it - no wonder reporters are always getting locked up.

There are two sides to every story and NO news source ever presents both, everyone has an agenda.

Re:Some things shouldn't be open source

[Reziac (43301)]

Not only that, but without access to said plans, how do you expect to find your own kid in the event of an actual emergency??

And how would you know if the plans might actually put kids in more danger than if there was no plan at all?

Realworld example of some years back: fire escape plans that sent kids out onto a busy main street, rather than toward quieter side streets.

ISTM such screwups are far more likely than any hypothetical use of said plans by a (OMG!!) Terrorist or Child Molester, or whatever is this week's Official FUD.