The Government Can Be Transparent About International Negotiations... If It's Unhappy With Them

from the tpp-vs.-wcit dept

We've been covering two big stories lately: the ongoing negotiations over the TPP agreement (Trans Pacific Partnership) as well the upcoming fight to change key internet governance issues via the UN's ITU (International Telecommunications Union) as part of WCIT (the World Conference on International Telecommunications). Of course, there's an interesting contrast about these two discussions. Both have been hit with accusations of government bureaucrats keeping things way, way too secret. The ITU has been notoriously secret, despite claims of opening up (which generally involve releasing redacted versions of documents which have already been widely leaked in un-redacted form much earlier). Then we have the USTR, claiming unprecedented transparency, even as the USTR seems to think that "transparency" means getting people to testify about a document they're not supposed to have seen.

Of course, part of the USTR's claims about "transparency" are that it has a variety of ITACs (Industry Trade Advisory Committees) who have more or less full access to the negotiating positions of the US -- which the public and Congress do not. That those ITACs are limited to just a few industries -- often the legacy industries seeking greater protectionism, and not the up and coming innovators who are more important for economic growth. Basically, these ITACs are locked up providing a clearly protectionist attitude towards copyright.

The TPP process has its own ITACs as well -- though, in that context, it means an "International Telecommunications Advisory Committee." More or less the same thing.

Except there's one major difference. Whereas the ITACs having to do with TPP have been quite secretive, the flipside is happening with the ITACs related to the WCIT fight. And it's the US driving the transparency. There are lots of reasons to be concerned by the ITU WCIT process, but the US government is making it easy for the public to participate:

Join me and make a difference. 303,000,000 Americans have just been offered access to the notoriously secret ITU WCIT documents. Just join ITAC, the State Department International Telecommunications Advisory Committee, and enjoy access. “It takes a simple email with a request to be placed on the ITAC listserv, based on some material interest in a given topic,” Paul Najarian of State writes. Simply send an email to join ITAC_Listserve_Requests@state.gov and you automatically have access to ITAC.

So, basically, anyone can join the ITAC concerning WCIT. That's quite different than with TPP, certainly. Oh, and then there's this bit of transparency, straight from the State Department. The following is an email from Terry Kramer, the US Ambassador and head of the US delegation dealing with WCIT:

First, we welcome all interested stakeholders to participate in our WCIT preparatory process and help the U.S. Government form positions in advance of the conference. We solicit this input and feedback through the United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC). I believe that the ITAC process is critically important in helping the U.S. Government convene the type of open, public, and necessary consultations from all stakeholders that helps strengthen our positions in advance of the WCIT. The ITAC has advised the Department of State on U.S. participation in international telecommunications treaty organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union for decades and has, accordingly, been critical in the preparation of prior U.S. positions for meetings of international treaty organizations, developing and coordinating proposed contributions to international meetings and submitting them to the Department of State for consideration. For the WCIT, the ITAC will continue to serve this critical role. Therefore, we welcome any person and any and all organizations, whether corporate or non-profit, to participate in the ITAC if they would like to assist with the WCIT preparatory process.

Second, all WCIT preparatory documents – including revisions of the TD-62 compilations of Member States proposals, the final report of the Council Working Group, and Member State proposals – have been and will continue to be made available to interested ITAC member. It is imperative that we ensure full consideration of a WCIT proposal’s impact on economic growth, the Internet’s openness, and the world at large and this is best done through the adoption of open and transparent processes that allow for wide consultation. Thus, we will continue to share these WCIT documents with stakeholder so that they can provide more informed views and help us develop positions that reflect the input of the diverse range of interests in the United States.

Starting this week, I will proactively communicate our positions on participation and document availability to underscore the US Government’s commitment to transparency.

Okay, just to translate, if that's a bit dry: when it comes to WCIT, where the US finds itself on the defensive, suddenly it's a lover of openness and transparency. The State Department readily invites anyone to join an ITAC and promises to quickly reveal all relevant documents it receives. Furthermore, it knows that sharing the documents will lead to "more informed views."

In other words, all of the things that the USTR refuses to do with TPP -- and which it claims are effectively impossible in an international agreement. Of course, the reality seems to suggest that when the US is in control (as with TPP), then it seeks to hoard and limit info, preferring secrecy to openness and transparency. Yet, when it's not, as with the ITU process, suddenly government officials are magically in love with openness and transparency. In those cases, it's willing to let anyone join an ITAC and is willing to share whatever documents it can provide.

All of this really highlights the dishonesty of the USTR in all of this. While, yes, the negotiation process between these two issues are somewhat different, there's no reason that the USTR can't take after the State Department in terms of transparency concerning an international negotiation. It just chooses not to do so, because then experts and the public might stand up and point out why the TPP is dangerous.

Filed Under: copyright, international agreements, internet governance, itu, tpp, transparency

Still All Talk: 19 Of 20 Presidential Cabinet Agencies Ignore Requirements Of The Freedom Of Information Act

from the freedom's-just-another-word-for-*********** dept

Despite having 45 years to get "warmed up," the era of "open government" may take several more cycles before it becomes a reality. President Obama promised an unprecedented level of openness, but to date, the level of openness remains pretty much unchanged from his predecessors'.

An analysis of open-government requests filed by Bloomberg News shows that most cabinet-level agencies would rather break the law than comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information act. And by "most," Bloomberg means "nearly all."

Nineteen of 20 cabinet-level agencies disobeyed the law requiring the disclosure of public information: The cost of travel by top officials. In all, just eight of the 57 federal agencies met Bloomberg’s request for those documents within the 20-day window required by the Act.

The Bloomberg analysis also tracked the timeliness of information requests, pointing out that fast turn-time was referred to as "an essential component of transparency" by Attorney General Eric Holder. Bloomberg was seeking disclosure on out-of-town travel expenses generated by top officials.

About half of the 57 agencies eventually disclosed the out-of-town travel expenses generated by their top official by Sept. 14, most of them well past the legal deadline.

The travel costs generated by some other Obama officials --Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano -- also remain undisclosed.

A request made in June for the travel records of Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, will remain unfulfilled for more than a year, according to a federal official involved in the case.

“We really appreciate your patience in this matter. The estimated completion date is July 2013,” wrote Chris Barnes, a State Department FOIA official, in a Sept. 24 e-mail. Under FOIA, the department is required to offer a timetable for delayed responses.

Travel expense reports aren't exactly the most arcane records. Every business has them and while the government may have more to track, it's hard to believe that requesting this data on only the top official in each department should take longer than the 20-day period. In fact, it's hard to believe that this data needs to be requested at all.

Eric Newton, senior adviser at the Knight Foundation, a Miami-based group that promotes citizen engagement, said agencies have no excuse not to rapidly disclose travel costs.

“In a 24/7 world, it should take two days, it should take two hours,” Newton said. “If it’s public, it should be just there.”

It looks as if FOIA requests, no matter what their reason, are either being stalled or given a very low priority in certain departments. Whatever can't be held off indefinitely is being avoided completely through abuse of exemptions. The Obama administration flexed its exemption muscle during its first year, deploying 50% more than the Bush administration. Since then, the numbers have died down a bit, but there's no reason to start celebrating a "new era of openness." This simply means a drop from a high of 466,402 down to 369,417 exemptions in 2011.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, a majority of these exemptions (231,634) were deployed by the Department of Homeland Security. (The next two are the Dept. of Defense [30,861] and the Dept. of Justice [23,916].) With the handy ability to cite the interests of "national security" at the drop of a hat, the DHS can turn down nearly any request. This hasn't stopped the public from trying, however. The DHS still receives the most requests but it's hard to believe it's receiving 10 times the number of requests the Dept. of Justice is, making its exemption percentage that much more egregious.

Even with exemption deployment being the default setting for a few agencies, there are currently no exemptions that apply to the requested travel information from disclosure. A slight delay could be expected for redaction efforts, but as Bloomberg points out, other agencies redacted personal data and still managed to respond in a timely fashion.

Responsive agencies were able to redact personal details within the FOIA time period. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the chief regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provided the travel expense records for Acting Director Edward DeMarco’s six trips out of town within 15 days of the filing.

DeMarco’s trips cost $5,653.29, the documents show. Personal information such as his Social Security number and home address were blacked-out in the file.

Some of these delays can also be chalked up to good old fashioned bureaucracy, something which nevers seems to go out of style in DC. The administration is working on a streamlining plan for the FOIA process, but it's being rolled out at a very bureaucratic pace.

The administration acknowledged systemic issues with the FOIA process when the Office of Management and Budget issued guidelines Aug. 24 to all federal agencies on how to streamline government information. The memo called for all government information to be stored in an electronic format by December 2019 -- almost three years after the end of a potential second Obama term.

A glacial pace only a bureaucrat could love combined with what Bloomberg refers to as a "culture of obfuscation" means that requesting something as simple as travel records becomes an exercise in near futility. The Freedom of Information Act has been around since 1966 which means that a.) this isn't just this administration's problem and b.) the government has had more than four decades to make the process run more smoothly. One can only conclude that the government has very little interest in transparency, no matter what promises were made during the "honeymoon" period.

Fortunately, many more entities like the ACLU and the EFF are working to make the government comply with its own law. The process is arduous and far from satisfying, but without a continual push, the government will continue to allow the public to pay for the "privilege" of being told it's "none of their business." Oh, and it should be noted that after I finished this, Mike informed me that he's been waiting for months for the response to a FOIA he filed which, by law, should have been completed back in July. The reason given by the agency in question for the delay: give us more time, because we only have two people working on all FOIA requests.

Filed Under: administration, foia, freedom of information, secrecy, transparency

Texas Municipal Officials Fight 'Open Meeting Act,' Get Shot Down By Fifth Circuit Court

from the the-only-thing-transparent-here-is-their-self-interested-motives dept

There's been a whole lot of talk about openness in government, but so far, very little action. Many vague statements and unkept promises have raised the public's expectation of actually being involved, but when push comes to shove, legislators seem much more comfortable doing things the old, closed-door way.

The public has been pushing back against this lack of transparency. The Texas Open Meetings Act requires that most government meetings be open to the general public. There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, all qualifying meetings must be be announced at least 72 hours in advance and any final actions, decisions or votes must be made in these open meetings. If the Act is violated, the official(s) are subject to fines up to $500 or up to six months in prison.

In response, Texas municipal officials did what most officials do when faced with mandatory transparency: they tried to get the law thrown out as a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Fifteen city council members from across Texas, including Mel Leblanc from Arlington and Henry Wilson from Hurst, sued the state in Midland Federal Court, arguing the law requiring public government meetings criminalizes political speech based on content, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Specifically, the officials claimed that the law is "content-based" as it applies only to "public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control." They also expressed their concern that the Act was too vague and had the potential to "criminalize all private speech among a quorum of a governing body that is about public policy," helpfully stating that "most" of this sort of private policy-related speech "does not lead to corruption." Not only was the Act too vague in these officials' opinion, but it was simultaneously "too complex," requiring an "educational course to comply with it." (This last part is true -- an Open Meetings Training section exists in the Act -- but it hardly makes the law overly complex.)

The 5th Circuit Court shot every argument down, reminding officials that the goal of the Act is to bring about more openness and transparency, rather than to be used a blunt-force weapon for constituents to punitively punish government officials.

Referring to the argument that the law is "content-based," the court declared:

"Here, government is not made less transparent because of the message of private speech about public policy: Transparency is furthered by allowing the public to have access to government decision-making," the opinion states. "This is true whether those decisions are made by cogent empirical arguments or coin-flips. The private speech itself makes the government less transparent regardless of its message. The statute is therefore content-neutral."

The arguments that the act is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague were dismissed as well:

"The plaintiffs' argument fails, because it ignores the other purposes of TOMA, such as increasing transparency, fostering trust in government, and ensuring that all members of a governing body may take part in the discussion of public business," the opinion states. "With respect to these other goals, TOMA is not overbroad."

"Neither of the issues plaintiffs point to implicates the underlying purpose of the vagueness doctrine: preventing government from chilling substantial amounts of speech and facilitating discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement," the opinion states. "The concern underlying the vagueness doctrine is that citizens will not be able to predict which actions fall within the statute, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."

The Circuit Court found that increasing transparency and trust in government legitimized the inclusion of criminal penalties in the Act, as the overall point of the law was to foster governmental openness rather than curtail any official's First Amendment rights.

It's a great first step and one that will probably be cited if other states follow suit. (Illinois has its own Open Meetings Act.) Of course, this particular battle is far from over. The municipal officials are planning an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which seems like a ton of effort and expense to go through simply to lock the public out of discussions on policies that affect them.

Filed Under: free speech, open meetings, texas, transparency

Rep. Lofgren Gives USTR A Simple 3-Point Plan For Real TPP Transparency

from the let's-try-that-out dept

We've discussed, repeatedly, the incredible lack of transparency from the USTR regarding the TPP negotiations. Back in June, we noted that 130 Congressional Representatives all got together to send USTR Ron Kirk a letter, noting their concerns. At the end of August, Kirk replied (pdf) with his standard talking points. He insists that meeting with people is "transparency," even if they can't see the document. He insists that Congress has access to the TPP, even though the USTR locks out key staffers, and doesn't let the elected officials take notes or make copies. He insists that the document needs to be classified because it's the way things have always been done (which is generally a sign of someone not having much of a real argument).

Either way, Rep. Zoe Lofgren is unimpressed. She's now sent Kirk a letter, responding to Kirk's request for "suggestions" on how to improve transparency with some rather simple and straightforward ideas (pdf and embedded below), meaning that it's unlikely the USTR will pay much attention to them. You can read the full version at that link, but here's my summarized version, with commentary:

1. USTR should make the US positions (not those of other countries) open to the public. She doesn't even say the full text needs to be open, but merely summaries of the US's position. It's hard to see any reasonable argument against this. Since the USTR is negotiating on behalf of the American public (in theory, though the reality often seems so different), it seems ridiculous that the USTR would ever not put out at least summaries of its positions on what it's negotiating. Contrary to Kirk's claims, this does not weaken the US's negotiating ability at all. Quite the opposite, it strengthens it by making it subject to public scrutiny and input, while also highlighting to the world our resolve in coming up with a proposal that the public will accept.
2. Any IP section within TPP must have strong support for flexible "limitations and exceptions" for things like fair use and the public domain. While the USTR has shown a willingness to include some text on limitations and exceptions, the most recent leak raises questions since it appears to be rather inflexible and goes much further than is reasonable.
3. USTR should create more representative "trade advisory committees," which it consults on these issues. As it stands, the ITACs (International Trade Advisory Committee) is heavily, heavily biased in favor of older legacy industries, rather than innovators or the public. Lofgren reasonably suggests that a lot more thought and effort should go into fixing how unbalanced these committees are, since they have tremendous influence over the text.

These three basic changes won't fix all the problems -- not by a long shot -- but they would, at the very least, provide a bit more transparency and involvement, while also guaranteeing that we don't push a solely maximalist agenda in other countries. And, because of that, I fully expect the USTR to ignore all of these suggestions.

Filed Under: copyright, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr, zoe lofgren

USTR: By Making People Testify About TPP Text They Cannot See... We're Being Transparent

from the say-it-with-me:-w-t-f? dept

Jamie Love has provided the testimony he gave at a USTR hearing concerning Mexico and Canada's entrance into the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) agreement. As you hopefully recall, the agreement is being negotiated in secret... unless you happen to be a high level lobbyist. Then you get widespread access, which Love calls out:

The contempt for the public is all the more clear when USTR carries out an extensive system of briefing corporate interests on the nature of the proposals it makes in the negotiations, and openly embraces a double standard for access that can best be understood by the public when looking at the amount of money that various parties dump into political campaigns, in part to obtain this type of preferred access. According to USTR, the Advisory board for intellectual property rights is chaired by Richard Kjeldgaard, the Deputy Vice President, International Intellectual Property, PhRMA. That pretty much sums up how this process is perceived. The fact that the Obama Administration cares more about PhRMA than the public as regards access to information is a great disappointment.

But the really insane part about all of this was that it was asking for hearings from people who don't know what's in the text, because they can't see the text because the USTR refuses to release the text. That resulted in some awkward exchanges:

In Eric Schwartz of IIPA's testimony, he claims that the 3-step test applies to all exceptions, including those like the quotation or news of the day exceptions, which are mandatory. When State asks him a question about the TPP text, Scwartz says he has only seen the leaked text. Exchange illustrates the ackward nature of asking for comments on a secret text.

But, much more ridiculous is that the USTR took the farce, and then bizarrely claimed that this hearing, in which people who can't see the text were asked to talk about it, shows how transparent they're being about this process:

“USTR is committed to transparency in trade negotiations,” said Ambassador Kirk. “Today’s hearing is a good example of our engagement with interested stakeholders and members of the public. As the TPP negotiations progress, we will continue to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to express their views.”

How many times does it need to be said? That's not transparency. Inviting a bunch of people who can't see the text to comment on what might be in the text might be considered some weird form of "hearing from the public" but transparency is not about hearing from the public -- it's about showing the public what you're doing. It's about information flowing in the other direction which appears to be something that Ron Kirk and the USTR do not understand. At what point will a reporter interviewing Kirk, or perhaps an elected official, ask the basic question of how keeping something secret is transparent? Or ask him if he can explain the difference between hearing from people and being transparent. Because they're very, very different. And it seems immensely troubling that a massive trade agreement that will have far reaching implications is being negotiated in complete secrecy (unless you're a big industry player, of course) by someone who doesn't even understand what transparency means.

Filed Under: ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text

from the massive-fail dept

The folks over at the EFF have a decent summary of the travesty that was the "stakeholder" events at the latest TPP negotiating round, in which various groups (on all sides) were supposedly given an "opportunity" to express their thoughts on the TPP. We've already discussed some other aspects of it, but the one thing that the EFF writeup makes clear, is that the whole thing is a complete joke. The text, of course, remains "secret," and negotiators flat out refuse to discuss any points raised about the various leaked texts:

The stakeholder engagement events in the morning were followed by a stakeholder briefing in the afternoon. The briefing allowed registered individuals from civil society and the public to ask questions of and make comments to eight out of the nine negotiators who represent a TPP country. The press was barred from the room. Roughly 25 people rose from the audience to ask questions to the trade delegates during the 90-minute briefing period. As predicted, they were not transparent about the talks, revealed little new information, and delegates also refused to make any comments based on leaked version of texts—the only text EFF and other public interest organizations have had access to. It is difficult for public stakeholders to ask accurate questions or receive any substantive answers when the content of the agreement continues to be shrouded in secrecy.

Rossini asked the USTR about its claims that the TPP’s intellectual property chapter will provide for fair use in its IP chapter, and how those public statements starkly contrast with the recent leaked TPP chapter that shows that the US delegation is in fact pushing for provisions that will restrict non-US countries from enacting fair use. Further, they neglected to comment on the fact that the leaked test has the potential to limit US fair use to the three-step test restrictions. In response, the lead negotiator for the USTR dodged the question and stated that they would not comment on issues raised by text EFF has “purportedly” received. The representative did acknowledge that fair use would be discussed during the week's meetings.

This is not "transparency," no matter how many times the USTR claims that they have "unprecedented" levels of transparency around the TPP negotiations. If negotiators won't share what they're even negotiating, and won't respond to any questions related to the actual text that's leaked, the only thing you can discuss are vague generalities not found in the leaked documents. That's insane. And because of that, the negotiators are focused on ridiculous ideas. For example, the EFF writeup notes that negotiators were asked how they could justify negotiating expansive copyright laws in secret after seeing what happened with SOPA and ACTA... and the response revealed just how out of touch the negotiators are. They don't even realize that the DMCA is controversial:

The last question of the briefing came from EFF’s International Intellectual Property Coordinator, Maira Sutton, who raised from the crowd and asked the lead negotiator how they justify pushing for ever more restrictive copyright laws in the agreement even though it has become clear, with the defeat of ACTA in Europe, that users are sick and tired of international agreements regulating their Internet through overprotective intellectual property provisions... In response, the lead negotiator for the US stated that the standard for copyright regulation in international agreements has been the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They claimed that the DMCA was legislated fairly and is an effective model for copyright enforcement in the US. The representatives' answer contradicted the fact that EFF and others have been arguing for years that the DMCA is fraught with problems. Sutton responded that based upon what we saw in the recent leaked text on fair use, developing countries would not be able to implement such copyright laws as soundly given that the three-step test language restricts signatory nations from determining and establishing fair use as they see fit.

So, the end result is that we have a completely secret back-room process, where the USTR pretends to listen to the public, but won't talk to them about what's in the actual negotiations, and refuses to comment on the little we actually know is in the document thanks to leaks. And because of that, we have completely clueless negotiators pushing something they think is sensible, totally ignorant of the reality.

This could be solved pretty easily: make the US positions and negotiating documents public and allow public comment on them. The USTR still hasn't given a reason why this can't be done. Though, the answer seems kind of obvious: actually being transparent would mean having to listen to the public and various experts point out where they're completely clueless. If USTR negotiators are so insecure in their positions, they shouldn't be in that job.

Filed Under: negotiators, secrecy, tpp, transparency
Companies: eff

Testing 'The Most Transparent Administration in History'

from the not-so-transparent dept

Barack Obama pledged to preside over the “most transparent administration in history,” drawing an explicit contrast with the extreme secrecy of his predecessor. The Web site of the Department of Justice highlights that pledge, declaring its commitment to faithfully carry out a presidential directive encouraging such transparency, especially with regards to Freedom of Information Act requests, which are a vital tool for public accountability and informed democratic deliberation about government’s activities. Earlier this summer, I decided I’d put that commitment to what should have been an easy test.

When Congress passed the controversial FISA Amendments Act of 2008, granting the NSA broad power to conduct sweeping electronic surveillance of Americans’ international communications without individualized search warrants, it wisely required the Justice Department to issue semi-annual reports to Congress on the government’s implementation of the law, evaluating compliance with the various rules, guidelines, and procedures in place to reduce the risk of civil liberties abuses. While these reports are classified, redacted versions of several previous installments have been released to the public in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. The most recent is from May of 2010, which means that by now there are three or four further reports on the government’s use of its new spying powers which haven’t been seen by the public.

Since the FAA is set to expire at the end of this year, and Congress is rapidly steamrolling toward reauthorizing the law for another five years, it seems like now would be a good time to let the public see the latest versions of these reports—with any specific references to operational details removed, of course. That’s especially true given that we’ve recently learned that at least one ruling by the secretive FISA Court found some surveillance under the FAA had violated the Fourth Amendment. The latest reports, even in redacted form, might give us further insight into the scale and seriousness of this violation of Americans’ constitutional rights. If, on the other hand, we find no mention of this in the official reports, it would be powerful evidence that Congress is getting a whitewashed account, and that internal oversight may not provide adequate protection for our privacy and liberties. Again, the government has already released several previous installments of this report—though the ACLU ultimately had to file a lawsuit before they agreed to do so—so there should be no doubt now as to whether these are documents they’re obligated to release.

On June 26, therefore, I sent a FOIA request to the Justice Department asking for the release of the newer installments of this important report—specifically asking for expedited review, given the importance of informing the public about the use of the law before Congress renews it. On July 6, I got a response acknowledging that my request had been received and forwarded to the FOIA office of the DOJ’s National Security Division. Federal law requires agencies to reply to these requests within 20 business days. I was still waiting when, a few days ago, a bill extending FAA spying authority was scheduled for consideration before the House of Representatives this week. I did, however, have a brief phone conversation with the NSD’s FOIA officer confirming that she was evaluating my request, and that she understood clearly exactly which reports I was requesting.

Yesterday morning, September 10—more than two months after acknowledging receipt of my request for these three or four documents—I finally got a reply (my emphasis added), denying my request with the following unhelpful boilerplate:

The Office of Intelligence (OI) maintains operational files which consist of copies of all FISA applications, as well as requests for approval of various foreign intelligence and counterintelligence collection techniques such as physical searches.  We did not search these records in response to your request because the existence or nonexistence of such records on specific persons or organizations is properly classified under Executive Order 13526.  To confirm or deny the existence of such materials in each case would tend to reveal which persons or organizations are the subjects of such requests.  Accordingly, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records in these files responsive to your request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (1).

This is, in a word, ridiculous. The “existence” of the reports I asked for is required by federal law. To the extent they contain passing references to any specific persons or organizations under investigation, these can easily be redacted, and have been redacted for previous public releases of the same documents. No reasonable person could believe that this reply is applicable to my request. If it had been sent immediately, you could at least put it down to sloppiness or inattention, but remember, it took them two months to send out a denial based on the preposterous claim that it is classified information whether a report mandated by federal statute even exists.

I can appeal—and of course, I intend to—but since that’s likely to drag out the process for at least another month or two, the reports are likely to come too late to be relevant to the debate over FAA reauthorization. Try as I might, it’s almost impossible for me to see this as a good faith response to my request. Instead, it looks an awful lot like a stalling tactic calculated to drag out the process until it’s too late for the documents to be relevant to the debate over the FAA. I suppose this shouldn’t be terribly surprising: DOJ’s modus operandi, at least when it comes to anything controversial or potentially embarrassing to the government, seems to be to force FOIA requesters to waste time, energy, and money going to court even when it’s painfully obvious there’s no legitimate legal basis for sustaining a denial. That this is routine enough to be predictable, however, shouldn’t make it any more acceptable in a democracy.

Cross-posted from Cato at Liberty.

Filed Under: fisa amendments act, foia, politics, secrecy, transparency

Members Of Congress Demand USTR Open Up On TPP

from the about-time dept

We've been talking about the incredible and ridiculous level of secrecy that the USTR has kept with regards to the TPP negotiations. While industry lobbyists are free to look over the exact details of what the US is proposing, the public, and even key Congressional staffers are left out in the cold. While USTR Ron Kirk keeps insisting that any elected member of Congress is free to look at the negotiating text, he's being disingenuous. Elected members are allowed to go to the USTR and request the document, which they will be given -- but only for viewing in that room, and they're not allowed to bring staff members (such as those who understand the ins and outs of what's being negotiated, nor are they allowed to make copies or even take notes). At the same time, lobbyists who are members of the USTR's "advisory committees" can login via any computer with internet access, and see what the latest text is without any concern. That doesn't seem right.

It appears that more and more people in Congress are getting fed up with this. A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress (though, not surprisingly, spearheaded by Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa) demanding that this insanity stop, and that the USTR reveal what it's pushing for on behalf of Americans -- especially when it comes to the intellectual property sections.

Regrettably, the American people know very little about what the USTR is seeking in TPP generally, but specifically on IPR (Intellectual Property Rights). We believe that among all the areas of the TPP negotiations, the matters considered in the IPR chapter are ones in which there is particular public interest, therefore the USTR should be especially transparent and collaborative with the general public on these issues.

The American people deserve to know what the administration is purportedly seeking on its behalf.

We insist that, as expeditiously as possible, the USTR provide to the public detailed information about what obligations (and exceptions) the USTR is seeking in the IPR chapter. We call on the USTR to be particularly explicit with respect to what it aims to obtain as it relates to pharmaceutical drugs and enforcement of intellectual property rights online. Finally, it is important that the USTR convey to the American people whether the USTR is pursuing disciplines elsewhere in TPP that will promote an open and free Internet, given the Internet's increasing role in facilitating American exports of traditional goods and services as well as digital goods and services.

It seems likely that the USTR will simply ignore this letter, showing what kind of respect it has for Congress.

Filed Under: congress, darrell issa, ron wyden, tpp, transparency

ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance

from the not-really-that-open dept

We've talked a bit about how the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) -- a part of the UN -- is getting ready for a big meeting in Dubai in December (the "World Conference on International Telecommunications" -- WCIT), where it will seek to put in place some new internet governance rules. There are significant concerns that the rules being discussed will favor certain governments and fracture the internet, by letting incumbent international telcos both tax internet usage and track all usage (potentially blocking anonymous usage). Part of the problem, of course, is that the ITU has been extraordinarily secretive.

In response to the criticism, the ITU is claiming that it will now be more open, including making the various draft plans publicly accessible. Still, it often looks like they're making empty gestures towards openness, rather than showing any real commitment towards it. Take, for example, the FAQ the ITU released (pdf and embedded below) about the WCIT, in which they say that the public is welcome to come all the way to Dubai... to find out if they'll be allowed in the meeting. Seriously.

CAN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTEND WCIT-12?

At the opening of WCIT-12 the Secretary-General of ITU will propose that the public be allowed to be present at the conference venue, in line with the practical arrangements adopted at similar ITU conferences. A formal decision on admitting the public will be taken at a meeting of the heads of delegations on the first day of the conference. This would permit the public to attend plenary sessions and certain committee meetings. Webcasts of plenary sessions are also planned.

Got that? Fly to Dubai, show up, and then wait for them to take a vote on whether or not to let you in. If they decide not to let you in, then, um... well... I guess you can enjoy the world's largest shopping mall while a bunch of bureaucrats who don't understand the internet carve it up and break it apart next door. That's not exactly being "open" to the public, now, is it?

Filed Under: dubai, internet governance, itu, public, transparency, un

$17,000+ Bounty Offered For Leaks Of TPP Negotiating Texts

from the go-ahead-and-claim-the-money-ustr dept

We've talked about the ridiculous secrecy around the negotiating texts for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. It makes no sense to have these documents secret and out of the view of the public, but it's what's happening. Because of that, we're forced to deal with very occasional leaks to get a partial view of what's being negotiated in our name without any oversight. ACTA was a somewhat similar situation, but there were more regular leaks there -- and we've heard that the USTR, in particular, has taken great pains to make it much more difficult to leak TPP text without revealing who leaked it.

However, it appears that some are (in some ways, quite literally) upping the ante in trying to pressure people into leaking the text. The folks over at ZeroPaid point us to some group that claims to have raised over $17,000 as a bounty for leaked TPP negotiating texts. They're asking for more pledges, though I have no idea whether or not the effort is legit. ZeroPaid points out that the site appears to be a project of Just Foreign Policy, which seems to at least be a legitimate organization, according to Guidestar. For what it's worth, the site also claims that you won't actually have to pay until the text is leaked, at which point they will ask you to fulfill your pledge.

The group's concerns seem reasonable as well:

The TPP negotiations have taken place under an unprecedented shroud of secrecy, denying all but a very few any input into the terms of the agreement. The chapters that have been leaked are quite disturbing, revealing plans that would threaten public health, the environment, internet freedom, and the general well-being of perhaps billions of people. Here's a little taste of what the agreement would include: foreign investor protections that would help corporations offshore jobs, powers that allow multinational corporations to challenge domestic regulations before international tribunals, a strengthening of patent and intellectual property rules which would, among other things, raise the price of life-saving medicines in third world countries, and the ability for Wall Street to roll back safeguards meant to restore financial stability worldwide.

Will this be incentive enough for someone to leak the text? I'm not so sure. I'd think that someone's basic conscience about having access to such a document should be a better reason, but you never know...

Filed Under: bounty, secrecy, tpp, transparency