Obama Administration Withholds FoIA Requests More Often Than Bush's 601
bonch writes "Agencies under the Obama administration cite security provisions to withhold information more often than they did under the Bush administration. For example, the 'deliberative process' exemption of the Freedom of Information Act was used 70,779 times in 2009, up from the 47,395 of 2008. Amusingly, the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive."
Re:Biased much? (Score:4, Interesting)
The headline is misleading, despite the source. The source was willing to go as far as saying that this figure is in spite of Obama's own directive to stop using these loopholes for the FOIA. So whether it is lack of proper pressure, simple insubordination, or a deluge of requests (these figures should appropriately be compared to the overall requests, right?) the bottom line is that the President directed it to not happen and it is happening anyway.
is someone running up the numbers? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I had been logged in, I would have been treated like a breitbart.com was treated in this case, and the precise content of what I had said would always be drowned out by a chorus of argumentation. If you have unpopular views, being AC is the only way to have people consider whether those views are actually accurate or not, which is all I want.
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Biased much? (Score:2, Interesting)
Although, of course, there IS something wrong with jumping to conclusions based upon incomplete data.
And you know just as well as I do that the article at breitbart is intended to lead people who like to jump to conclusions that support their politics.
Re:"Often"? (Score:3, Interesting)
So total requests went down and the number of denials went up.
Not necessarily. The number of "cited exemptions" is not the number of denials, it is closer to the number of reasons for denial. Like a lawyer, these agencies will frequently cite more than one reason to avoid release. It may even be that given Obama's directive to be more open to FOIA requests that the agencies are just covering their asses and citing a lot more exemptions when they do deny a request. For example, if the average number of exemptions went from 1 to 2 per denial, that would mean an actual decrease of about one third in actual denials since 2008.
Re:is someone running up the numbers? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not sure why your post was marked troll, even if it's a little paranoid. It's quite likely that teabaggers and other anti-obama people have affected these nnumbers, even if unintentionally.
I think the nature of the requests probably has a lot to do with it. A lot the people who submitted FOIA requests that related to their frustration with the prior administration (1) had given up/stopped caring prior to 2009 or (2) knew what they were doing, so were less likely to submit a request that would be denied.
In comes Obama, and all the sudden you have a change in where a lot of the FOIA requests are coming from. People without experience in submitting them... people who make errors in submission, those who submit requests for information they know won't be released.
Let's compare numbers after a few years, one year (especially after a huge administration change) does not make a good sample.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:is someone running up the numbers? (Score:2, Interesting)
What was the nature of the inquiries? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You'd be surprised (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not from the US, so American polities aren't really that interesting to me. The only thing I can remember reading at the Huffington Post over the past couple of years was related to the Joseph Stack / IRS plane case, and that made me consider that site the lowest of the low.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seema-ahmad/austin-plane-attack-highl_b_478062.html
"Right-wing extremist groups -- sometimes religiously inspired -- have a history of aggression in this country. Take anti-abortion groups that supported the death of Dr. Tiller or anti-semitic members of Posse Comitatus who refuse to pay taxes and have killed or threatened federal officials. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report in April of 2009 on the rising threat of right-wing extremism. It may be that Stack has no affiliation with these groups, but the public inquiry should be made."
Contrast with:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html
In what possible way is it legitimate to draw a pattern that encompasses, interrelates and connects all of religious and conservative people, anti-abortionist doctor killers, antisemitic killer organisations, and Joseph Stack? "It may be that he had no affiliation but [we should still publicly raise the possibility]"? Can you say that with an honest mind after you have read his suicide note? There "might be" grounds to paint Joseph Stack a part of the same movement as antisemites, doctor killers and the religious Right?
I don't love your system, but you made it, so you are the ones who live with it. Good luck however it turns out.
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Interesting)
They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year.
Notice the conclusions are the complete opposite? Welcome to reporting by the AP. They are biased, but they are biased in both directions -- and they do it by spamming out stories to stir up controversy. Don't get me wrong, it's not all bad. But even the usually well respected AP has an angle, and it's important to remember that. So I ask again, is it any wonder why Brietbart picked the article it did?
Re:RTFA! (Score:3, Interesting)
As an example of how these numbers may be worthless and misrepresent the reality (although it's certainly possible that the situation is worse now than before as well):
Year 1: 500,000 requests, Year 2: 400,000; a 20% decline
Year 1: 400,000 exemptions, Year 2: 500,000; a 25% increase
--
So far it looks bad, right? Significant decrease in requests and a significant increase of exemptions? Must mean that few requests are being honored, right? If we add a critical, but missing, piece of data: average number of exemptions per denial. Year 1: avg 1.5 per denial, Year 2: avg 2.5 per denial.
That gives us 266,666 denials in Year 1, and only 200,000 in Year 2. Not only is this an absolute reduction, but also a reduction relative to the total requests (53% in Year 1, 50% in Year 2).
As I said, since we don't have all the facts, it's also possible that "Obama's record" is worse than Bush's. Even if we had enough data to get to that comparison, it's still not worth all that much. If Bush had twice the number of denials but 90% of the requests were for ridiculous things that would never be granted (like troop positions or something), then it would be easy to say he has a better record despite Obama's lower totals.
In short, too many factors, too few of them presented.
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you considered that might be because we have the wealth inequality of a banana republic [wikipedia.org]?
If we were to restore 1950s and 1960s top-end tax rates rates, which were upwards of 90% on the very wealthiest, you'd find that we would not only have enough money to pay for the education and infrastructure, but that we'd be able to pay down the national debt as well.
Re:Biased much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How this works (Score:5, Interesting)
I just wanted to add my two cents... A month or so ago, I filed my first FOIA request. I requested some non-sensitive statistical data from an office associated with the Dept of Defense. Despite the banality of the data I was requesting, because it was related to the military and the shear volume of it (over 10M records), I was expecting some foot dragging. However, I was very pleasantly surprised. The very next day, the FOIA officer emailed me and then followed up with a phone call. She kept me apprised of the status of my request and about three weeks later, the data was FTPed to me. She even found someone to answer some questions I had about the formatting of the files.
I was fully expecting a more adversarial process considering the reputations of FOIA requests. But I learned that FOIA officers seem to care a great deal about facilitating requests. Just wanted to give kudos here where some is due.
Summary is inconsistent! (Score:3, Interesting)
This makes no sense: it uses the frequency of use of the (non-security) "deliberative process" exemption as a supposed example of the Obama administration using "security provisions" more frequently than Bush's did. It clearly isn't an example of that, since the deliberative process exemption isn't a security provision.
It's like saying "John Doe owns more pickup trucks than Bob Smith. For instance, John Doe owns 36 Toyota Corollas, while Bob Smith only owns 24."
Re:Biased much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Last week I decided to give the "hide comment scores" option a try, and I have to say I really like. You spend more time actually reading what people say, rather than blazing over the comments that weren't modded up.
Re:Obama is the New Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
Ay you should no better then to trust headlines, summaries and most article.
There is a lot of information missing.
The 'writer' of the article overlooks several things.
1) There is no break down in what the request where for. It simple could be that a high percentage of request where for more sensitive material.
2) A one year comparison does not a trend make. Simple statistic shows that this report is flawed.
3) How many documents were released that weren't normally released. This is the big one.
The default of what is held has changed. SO A lot of stuff that would have been asked for and released by previous administrations is being released without request.
The means the reaming pool has a high % of stuff that won't be released and never would have been released anyways.
Example:
Lets say by default you would have 20 documents kept, and 1000 requested are made.
10 of which don't meet any restriction standard. These will be released in whole if requested. 500 request get these
7 of which meet some restriction. These will be partially released. 250 get these
3 of which meet several restriction and won't be released at all. 250 get these
Then you decided only to keep stuff that meets some exception guidelines.
So instead of having 20 documents the need to be requested, you now have ten. The other ten are already available.
Well the 500 the would normally need to request to get documents in full no longer even make a request. They have no need to.
Now the raw number of requests has dropped to 500
250 request get partial docs.
250 get no docs.
That means slashdot runs the following headline: "OMG 100% of ALL request where denied. "
Really, you should know better. You just blindingly accepted what a well know biased author claimed.
Shame on you.
NO, this is not a post defending Obama, it's a post pointing out why the article is worthless. There is a difference.
I am very tired, so I hope I was clear.