Interesting new rule "The Obama Rule"

[heironymouspasparagus]

+1

. . .and take it a step further, the precedent that this amendment to FOIA creates will carry to other areas of government.  Since it was passed in 1966 numerous amendments have been made to chip away at the public's access to information, further insulating the actions of government from the people, but the hurdle that government faces (and advantage to the citizenry) is it's inability to simply deny the existence of information.  Because of this, when agencies respond with a Glomar Denial, they can be challenged to provide legal argument as to why access to such information may pose a risk.  Glomar denial simply represents a legally correct way of saying "Yes the information exists but we cannot disclose its nature, extent, or any summery of its contents."

This new clause could essentially button up the FOIA by removing the need for accountability when denying access to information because requesting parties would have no idea whether that information actually exists.  An administration could essentially deny all requests for information, rendering the FOIA null.

The bigger question that no one has stumbled upon is why would the administration press for this now? 
 

Why not?  Doesn't really matter since you aren't gonna get the info anyway...

I have submitted around 10 to 12 FOIA requests since the early 70's - personal requests about information about me.  And I know for a fact the information exists, because friends in the TPD actually saw parts of it.  Recently, it is about once a decade... all with no information ever provided.  And have contacted Inhofe, Jim Jones, Don Nickles, et al. offices to ask for help with it.  (Not Sullivan or Coburn yet).  Inhofe while in House AND Senate was predictable.  All the previous ones were only a half step better.  Some talk, no action. 

(And no, I have never been arrested for any crime if you don't count two speeding tickets as an arrest for a crime, have no criminal record of any kind, and no interest in experiencing the thrill.  Always paid child support on time, and never beat the wife, the kids, or the dogs.) 

[nathanm]

Other news explains why I just can't expend much "give a smile" on this:

Louisiana bans the use of cash in secondhand sales
Visa and Mastercard decide to sell your purchase history to advertisers

I find these things far more disturbing than a minor change to the way the feds say "no" to FOIA requests.

[Teatownclown]

I know you think ThinkProgress does not rate but they sure are balanced.

Bush Had Generated More Regulations At This Point In His Presidency Than Obama


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/26/353942/bush-more-regulations-than-obama/

"We certainly don’t remember Republicans crying about the “excessive” Bush regulations."

[Teatownclown]

Visa and Mastercard decide to sell your purchase history to advertisers

This is not good for barbarians who may have purchased "toys" on line...

[guido911]

From the ultra-conservative LA Times:

One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama administration has been its proclivity for secrecy. The president who committed himself to "an unprecedented level of openness in government" has followed the example of his predecessor by invoking the "state secrets" privilege to derail litigation about government misdeeds in the war on terror. He has refused to release the administration's secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which two senators have described as alarming. He has blocked the dissemination of photographs documenting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. service members. And now his Justice Department has proposed to allow government agencies to lie about the existence of documents being sought under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.

At present, if the government doesn't want to admit the existence of a document it believes to be exempt from FOIA, it may advise the person making the request that it can neither confirm nor deny the document's existence. Under the proposed regulation, an agency that withholds a document "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

This policy is outrageous. It provides a license for the government to lie to its own people and makes a mockery of FOIA. It also would mislead citizens who might file an appeal if they knew there was a possibility that the document they sought was in the possession of a government agency. Such an appeal would allow a court to determine whether the requested document was covered by an exemption in FOIA.

[Emphasis added] http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secrets-20111031,0,273702.story

[heironymouspasparagus]

Other news explains why I just can't expend much "give a smile" on this:

Louisiana bans the use of cash in secondhand sales

I find these things far more disturbing than a minor change to the way the feds say "no" to FOIA requests.

VISA is a mess that is unlikely to be reined in any time soon.

I am curious about your response to the regulations for used and junk dealers...they are theoretically regulated in most places anyway, and this addition seems like a very small difference.  For example, pawn shops in Tulsa are supposed to take a fingerprint each time they buy or pawn something and send it to the city.


Do you feel the requirement to pay with (traceable) check or other negotiable item is that much more onerous? 

Kind of seems to me like it makes it that much harder to fence stuff, sell stolen copper, sell stolen 'scrap' iron of railroad equipment they mention in the bill.

[nathanm]

VISA is a mess that is unlikely to be reined in any time soon.

I am curious about your response to the regulations for used and junk dealers...they are theoretically regulated in most places anyway, and this addition seems like a very small difference.  For example, pawn shops in Tulsa are supposed to take a fingerprint each time they buy or pawn something and send it to the city.


Do you feel the requirement to pay with (traceable) check or other negotiable item is that much more onerous? 

Kind of seems to me like it makes it that much harder to fence stuff, sell stolen copper, sell stolen 'scrap' iron of railroad equipment they mention in the bill.

Last I checked, cash is still legal tender under federal law.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Last I checked, cash is still legal tender under federal law.

Sure it is.  This seems to be one of those infamous "special case" type situation - the state is telling the junk dealers they have a new rule to follow not too unlike the fingerprint thing.  This is a monetary fingerprint.


I not quite sure what my opinion in on this yet.  I suspect that I really don't like the idea very much, since I like to deal in cash for a lot of things I purchase (firearms and ammunition related).  And yet, I have lost "scrap metal" to the kinds of thieves and fences this is targeting, so I have a little bit of a dilemma.

 

[nathanm]

Sure it is.  This seems to be one of those infamous "special case" type situation - the state is telling the junk dealers they have a new rule to follow not too unlike the fingerprint thing.  This is a monetary fingerprint.

It's not just pawnshops, though. It's every used transaction. If I was in Louisiana and wanted to sell an old pair of shoes on Craigslist, I couldn't take cash. If I were in Louisiana and wanted to buy a cheap used car, I couldn't use cash. It's ridiculous.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's not just pawnshops, though. It's every used transaction. If I was in Louisiana and wanted to sell an old pair of shoes on Craigslist, I couldn't take cash. If I were in Louisiana and wanted to buy a cheap used car, I couldn't use cash. It's ridiculous.

I guess I read the law differently.  It seemed to me like they specifically said second hand stores and junk yard type places - specific places of business.  Metal recycling places.  I didn't see anything about personal sales outside of the business venue.  There were several exemptions for car related.

?Where did you see the personal sales part??

[nathanm]

?Where did you see the personal sales part??

The law states that anybody who buys or sells secondhand goods more than once in a month is considered a dealer and must follow all the regulations, whether they have a permanent place of business or not. There are a few exceptions. Tires, gold bullion, and items with a numismatic value are exempt.

[Conan71]

It's not just pawnshops, though. It's every used transaction. If I was in Louisiana and wanted to sell an old pair of shoes on Craigslist, I couldn't take cash. If I were in Louisiana and wanted to buy a cheap used car, I couldn't use cash. It's ridiculous.

You could, you'd just be breaking the law.  The unintended consequences of making everyone else into a criminal when you try and reign in the criminal few.  In spite of laws designed to crack down on copper theft in Oklahoma, people just keep on stealing it.

[dbacks fan]

Speaking of stealing stuff to sell for scrap......


http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2011/10/31/20111031mesa-statue-liberty-replica-stolen-scrapped1102.html

[JCnOwasso]

resurrection of a not too old topic.  I think I have figured out why there was a sudden push for this "rule".  With the creation of the "We the People" petition page.  They had to figure that some of the questions would deal with touchy issues and since they want to give yes or no answers, this "rule" allows then to give a straight answer, even if it is a blatant lie.

[Gaspar]

LOL! It's a necessary first step in protecting corruption.

There must be some pretty big scandals lurking.