USTR Refuses To Release Congressional Research Service Study On Legality Of ACTA
from the why-is-this-kept-secret? dept
We've talked about how ridiculous it is that the government keeps Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports secret. The organization, which is widely respected and tends to do thorough, objective and useful research, technically produces reports that are in the public domain. However, the recipients of those reports (usually members of Congress or other government employees) often don't want to let those documents out for that very reason. If you're pushing for a certain law, and CRS research proves that there are problems with it, you don't want that info to get out. Of course, if we had intellectually honest politicians (stop laughing!), they would not just publish the research, but would actually use it to guide some of their policy making decisions.Back in October, you may recall that Senator Ron Wyden, one of the very few elected officials to actually understand and to worry about the implications of ACTA, asked the CRS to study ACTA to see how it would impact US law. That report has been delivered to the USTR, and KEI filed a FOIA request to see the document. However, the USTR has refused to provide the document. The USTR really seems to take a "secrecy first, transparency never" view on all things ACTA, doesn't it? It certainly makes you wonder what's in that report, doesn't it?
KEI is now appealing the rejection, claiming that the USTR's explanation for denying the request is simply not supported by the law. The USTR claims that it can't hand out the document, because it belongs to CRS. This is simply incorrect, as KEI noted in its reply. Of course, it's also unclear why Senator Wyden's office doesn't release the document itself, but the feeling there is that he doesn't want to upset the USTR either.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, crs, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Perhaps because he is like most politicians, grandstanding and spewing hot air because it resonated with some voters. He is likely less interested in the content of the document (which would require actual work to understand) and more interested in the political grandstanding moment of asking for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It must be a matter of national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope you don't live down wind from a reactor, coal fired power plant, highway, chemical plant, or petrochemical plant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they actually had to debate facts, Wyden would be in trouble because most people's eyes would glaze over after a few paragraphs and few would pay attention to his objections at that point. It isn't about getting the information into the public's hands, it's about grandstanding when the issue is simple, not when it becomes complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue is this. FOIA pertains only to "agency records", i.e., records associated with the executive branch. The CRS is not an agency, but a part of the Copyright Office, which in turn is a part of the legislative branch.
This being the case, I have to wonder why KEI is using FOIA in the first place. In my opinion I see nothing that prevents it from requesting a copy from either the CRS or the Senator from Oregon. While neither have an obligation under law to provide a copy, nothing prevents them from doing so. Frankly, I would have expected KEI to first try the CRS/Senator route before launching off using FOIA.
Of course, since the Senator has the power to release the document, I do have to wonder why he has not done so. Is he playing politics? Does it say something he does not like? Other? Who knows....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I suspect there are more points to be made playing this game than actually addressing what is in the report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think it effects your point, but I'm not sure what you've said here is accurate. As far as I can tell, the CRS is part of the Library of Congress and has no direct link to the Copyright Office, although that is also part of the LoC. More relevant is the fact that if it were part of the Copyright Office then it would likely be subject to the FOIA, as the Copyright Office itself is (despite the LOC not being so).
Those points of detail aside, the argument of the KEI is that the CRS does not retain control of the document: "A record produced by Congress and later acquired by the agency qualifies as an agency record if the agency controls it. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144 (1989)". If that is the case then whether the CRS is subject to the FOIA would be irrelevant anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
CRS is an organization within the Library of Congress, and at the same level as the Copyright Office.
This is what I get commenting from memory. I'll be more careful next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The CRS ACTA report FOIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The CRS ACTA report FOIA
The practical concern I have is that arguing back and forth on the issue may very well stretch things out to a point in time where the information becomes stale. It is because of this that were I in your shoes I would be "pinging" on the good Senator for all it's worth. At least that would hold the hope that a copy could be released in real time while the matter is bouncing back and forth in court.
Of course, the Senator is but one person in Congress. Surely there are others, and especially staffers, who could be sweet-talked behind the scenes to release a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waiting on a call back..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this what they wanted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this what they wanted?
The report being discussed below is from March 12, *2010* not 2011, and appears to be out of date.
I don't believe it's the same report being discussed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this what they wanted?
They also send it to KEI..
Funny thing the top ACTA negotiator for Mexico, is out of the game. No official statemet about his leaving has been released. Next week (apr 6th) the government need to testify in the ACTA Working Group of the Mexican Senate.. and the top negotiator won't be there.
how funny :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The March 12 CRS report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The March 12 CRS report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The March 12 CRS report
Think this is the one referenced
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the same report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not the same report
Still, I would try to secure a copy from a member of Congress of a staffer since that would represent receipt in real time, versus using FOIA to receive a copy in "law" time. The two times are, of course, worlds apart in duration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41107_20100312.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. That's the same report mentioned multiple times above from 2010. Not 2011.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]