White House Refuses To Be Transparent About Positions On Transparency

from the not-transparent-about-transparency dept

Thu, Jan 10th 2013 4:37pm — Mike Masnick

As we well know, despite promises from the Obama administration that it would be "the most transparent" in history, it has been anything but that over its first four years. The US Trade Rep (USTR) has been particularly bad on this front, especially when it comes to trade agreements that will have a massive impact on the public, such as ACTA and TPP. No matter how many times they were asked by the public, by Congress and by other countries, the USTR kept insisting that it had to keep things secret because... well... just because. There were some excuses made about how they don't "negotiate in public" or about how "this is how it's always been done," but those don't make any sense when you look at the details. It became especially silly in the ACTA negotiations, late in the process, when many of the countries involved indicated that they wished things were more transparent and many pointed their fingers at the US as being the one country that kept things secret. Also, we know that other international agreements are done in a much more transparent fashion.

The folks at KEI filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents relating to the US's position on transparency regarding a particular ACTA meeting, as well as documents the US had on the positions of other countries. FOIA requests are supposed to be fulfilled within 20 business days from the time they're received. In practice, this time frame is almost never met, though sometimes for good reasons (it takes a while to do some of the searches). However, in this case, it took two and a half years for the White House to finally respond, and when it did, the response was that, while 16 relevant documents were found, it wouldn't release them, because of reasons.

More specifically:

With regard to the second category, we identified sixteen (16) pages of responsive records. We have determined that all 16 pages of responsive records are exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process prong of section of the FOIA. The deliberative process privilege protects the decision making processes of government agencies by encouraging open and frank discussions on policy matters among subordinates and superiors. These records contain predecisional discussions regarding negotiating positions and their implications on future negotiations. Moreover, these documents contain policy recommendations and opinions shared between subordinates and superiors.

Think about this for a second. This is a request to be transparent about positions on transparency, and they're being rejected because it may show discussions about transparency. Really. The fact that these discussions "may contain open and frank discussions on policy matters" shouldn't be a huge concern. The ACTA negotiations are done at this point, and it should be easy enough to redact other issues that might impact future policy efforts. It seems ridiculous to suggest that discussions on whether or not the US should be transparent are, themselves, not subject to transparency.

Ustr Foia Acta Transparency 10jan2013 (PDF)Ustr Foia Acta Transparency 10jan2013 (Text)

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, tpp, transparency, ustr

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Shmerl, 10 Jan 2013 @ 4:52pm

When it comes to the public, the government likes to repeat the mantra that those who have nothing bad hide shouldn't worry about transparency (i.e. surveillance). So should the public use government's own logic to make conclusions about what they are hiding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 10 Jan 2013 @ 5:11pm
  
  Re:
  "Do as we say, not as we do."
  
  The USTR may as well go ahead and rename themselves to USSR. They're only one letter away as is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 4:46am
  
  Re:
  Absolutely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2013 @ 5:21pm

This is a request to be transparent about positions on transparency, and they're being rejected because it may show discussions about transparency.

Someday, when the White House lawn is ashes, and the capitol buildings are rubble, I'll be watching as the rebels start executing the bureaucrats. Then I'll remember that time the former government refused to be transparent about its position on transparency, and I'll smile as I watch their bloody corpses drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp - not signed in, 10 Jan 2013 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry but the future I predict is instead you will be climbing over rebel corpses(Citizens) while the bureaucrats hide behind the military and national police force (State police are taking over small/medium townships left and right around here) while using all those horrific war toys we paid for against us.
  
  The first civil war was fought with muskets and cannons, the second one will be a slaughter with weapons never seen.
  
  I hope I am wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 10 Jan 2013 @ 6:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Most of the "small" government folks actually want to increase military spending, so the government should be pretty well protected against whatever citizen revolution there is supposed to be. And most of those who threaten revolution aren't likely to give up their jobs, walk away from their homes and families, and put their lives on the line anyway.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 1:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Especially when we have no more guns.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2013 @ 4:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe the next revolution will not be fought with guns ...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2013 @ 6:10pm

Isn't not being transparent on transparentcy itself an answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2013 @ 6:30pm

No re-veally, no pay-uppy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 10 Jan 2013 @ 7:29pm

The deliberative process privilege protects the decision making processes of government agencies by encouraging open and frank discussions on policy matters among subordinates and superiors.
"If people in the government who discuss issues of transparency knew that what they said could be publicly viewed, it would discourage them from discussing how to oppose and hinder transparency."

Is there any other way to interpret invoking the deliberative process privilege? Because I can't think of any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2013 @ 7:41pm

To fill in the blanks
"16 relevant documents were found, it wouldn't release them, because" those documents are embarrassing to the U.S. government industrial complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 11 Jan 2013 @ 5:08am

Transparency
We can all see right through that statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Harrill (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 5:51am

1984...
George Orwell would be so proud. We've always been at war with Oceania...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:50am

They said prong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2013 @ 11:07am

Have you seen this XLS, entitled: Who gets to see the secret TPP negotiating text?

http://sojo.net/sites/default/files/Who%20gets%20to%20see%20the%20secret%20TPP%20negotiatin g%20text-current%206-22-12.xls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BentFranklin (profile), 17 Jan 2013 @ 2:35pm
  
  Re:
  Nice intel. This should be a TechDirt article by itself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jose_X, 27 Jan 2013 @ 11:35am

our private thoughts
Although the example sounds funny (lack of transparency about transparency), if we associate a corporation or government with a person, then internal strategic discussions are among the most private. It's at least somewhat like legal or medical privileged information or a person trying to decide among several options (ie, debating in their mind) about how to proceed before finally picking something and then not blogging on the details of the discussion they had in their head as they debated pros/cons. We don't expect people generally to reveal all their thoughts, so this is the same concept if we associate a single legal entity composed of many humans as being treated similarly to a single human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jose_X, 27 Jan 2013 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re: our private thoughts
  I should clarify. I can understand some items not being open, but, once a decision is made, just as judges give their rationalizations, the agencies should be able to offer their public rationalization.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]