Freedom of Information Act Survives Yet Another Attack
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) while powerful in its words, can only depend on the people to defend it. As Mitch McConnell attempted to secretly limit its power, the Senate today rejected this latest attempt. At least for now.
Mitch McConnell (who on the surface pretends to hate me but secretly has a “man-crush” on me), has been dealt a much deserved slap in the face for his corrupt tactics. In using the same “must-pass” rhetoric that John McCain used for last years National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), he was rejected like a small Spud Webb driving to the basket against a much larger Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Excuse the analogy. For those that don’t follow basketball, when someone drives to the basket and gets their shot blocked, it’s what most people call a rejection.
Late last year, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake attached a land-swap measure to the “must-pass” defense bill (NDAA), in which ownership of 2,400 acres of Apache holy land known as Oak Flat was transferred to a mining company. A tactic that was recently cited in a New York Times Op-Ed as “a new low in congressional corruption.” The article also points out that the swap had been attempted several times before by Arizona members of Congress. Among those involved was Rick Renzi, a former Republican representative who was sent to federal prison for three years in February on corruption charges, related to earlier versions of the same land-transfer deal.
Remember Renzi? He was indicted on 35 counts connected to various land deals to which he profited over $800,000. He pled not guilty (of course). However in 2013, Renzi was convicted on 17 of 32 counts in his corruption case. That case accused him of using his office for personal financial gain and looting a family insurance business to help pay for his 2002 campaign. Then in October of that same year, he was sentenced to three years in prison.
Renzi was convicted in part for using the same reasoning McCain used in his case, as well as the same reason McConnell used in attempting to secretly pass legislation without debate. Both John McCain and Mitch McConnell are obviously a little smarter than Renzi, at least so far. Luckily for McConnell he was called out by his fellow corruptors before the shit got too deep. He was attempting to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), along with major changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
While this is not new, as politicians typically attach “riders” at the last minute to what they like to call “must-pass” legislation to satisfy special interests. These actions are always associated with corrupt political tactics in one form or another. I reported on this in a previous article citing major concerns, that these actions coupled with the USA Freedom Act allow the NSA enhanced surveillance capabilities. As if the USA Freedom Act didn’t grant them enough. They actually have more capabilities than ever before, with access to more detailed individual information.
Senate Democratic leadership wrote to the majority leader on Wednesday to urge him to back down from his “ridiculous” plan to attach cybersecurity legislation to an annual defense policy bill. The letter, signed by Minority Leader Harry Reid, Minority Whip Dick Durbin, and Sens. Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray, asks McConnell to not sneak the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act on as an amendment to the NDAA, which is generally viewed as “must-pass” legislation.
“Adding CISA to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in a manner that allows neither debate nor amendment is ridiculous,” the Democratic leaders wrote. “This is especially true given the President’s commitment to veto the NDAA for unrelated reasons. This is a pure political ploy that does nothing to advance America’s national security. We urge you to reconsider your efforts to jam through this important legislation in a manner that renders it meaningless.”
In doing so, the FOIA averts yet another attack, as changes to it were also included in the NDAA which read as follows:
SEC. 1046. REVISION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TO REINSTATE EXEMPTIONS UNDER THAT ACT AS IN EFFECT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.
Paragraph (2) of section 552 (b) of title 5, United States Code is amended —
(1) by inserting “(A)” before “related”;
(2) by inserting “or” after “an agency;”; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
“(B) predominantly internal to an agency, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk impairment of the effective operation of an agency or circumvention of statute or regulation;”.
SEC. 1047. EXEMPTION OF INFORMATION ON MILITARY TACTICS,TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FROM RELEASE UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
(a) EXEMPTION. — Chapter 3 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
Ҥ 130g. Nondisclosure of information: military tactics, techniques, and procedures
“(a) AUTHORITY FOR NONDISCLOSURE. — The Secretary of Defense may withhold from public disclosure otherwise required by law information on military tactics, techniques, and procedures in accordance with this section.
“(b) STANDARD FOR EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE. — For the purposes of this section, information on a military tactic, technique, or procedure may be withheld from public disclosure only if the Secretary makes each of the following determinations with respect to the information:
“(1) That the public disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to risk impairment of the effective operation of the armed forces. “(2) That either of the following condition is met:
“(A) The military tactic, technique, or procedure has not been publicly disclosed.
“(B) The use of the military tactic, technique, or procedure in connection with a specific military operation, either planned or executed, or its effectiveness, has not been publicly disclosed.
“(c) CITATION TO FOIA PARAGRAPH. — This section is a statute that specifically exempts certain matters from disclosure under section 552 of title 5 within the meaning of paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of that section”.
Some of the bill’s supporters are lining up to take shots McConnell’s strategy. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (who for years has pushed for information-sharing legislation), accused McConnell of trying to stifle debate, noting that lawmakers on both sides of the issue “want an opportunity to offer relevant amendments.” Feinstein also stated on the Senate floor that “A number of my colleagues would like to propose amendments, as is their right. And I expect I would support some of them and would oppose some of them. But the Senate should have an opportunity to fully consider the bill, to receive the input of other committees with jurisdiction in this area.”
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said in an email, “Actually, there is plenty of time for debate. They can go debate now instead of a quorum call. And they can amend, we did not fill the tree,”. Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr filed CISA as a second-degree amendment to another amendment late Tuesday, a maneuver that means it will not be open to further changes during debate.
Under CISA organizations aren’t required to hand over information on cybersecurity threats directly to the federal government. Instead, it would use a common system to share information while granting immunity from privacy laws, when users’ personal data is made available by organizations, such as service providers. Many privacy advocates see CISA as a serious blow to privacy rights. As it will open a door to hacking by government and private companies, allow service providers to perform surveillance on their users, and place more personal data on Americans in government hands.
Which is exactly what the USA Freedom Act does, however when you add CISA it essentially grants blanket immunity for companies to monitor all information including software and the devices the software runs on, while also providing immunity from sharing such information. The bill skirts the little privacy laws we have left, or should I say strengthens current laws that are put in place to circumvent privacy laws as well as hacking laws. Service providers will now be the ones hacking your systems.
While we may have our victory today, we have a lot more fighting to do in the war for our privacy. As this is far from over. We are steadily being stripped of our right to protect our privacy. The Administration is currently attempting to to limit our ability to protect ourselves from using encryption technologies.
If you concern yourself with the information that companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and many more use to provide you more “relevant” content. If you understand what the value is of such information. Then you have to ask yourself, why does the government want it. After all, we are not talking about national security anymore, we are talking about aggregate data on individuals in this country. And the people that want it have the worst security in the world. If they can’t protect their sensitive information, how are they going to protect your personal information?
When the FBI starts to give Google and Facebook grief for encrypting your information from outside sources, bells should start ringing. If these big companies continue to provide security at that level, protecting yourself from them is not only the easy part, but it should be the least of your concerns. After all, they sell advertising. Not much else. Who knows what the government is doing with your information. It certainly isn’t better Cable TV programming, or cellular service.
Keep yourselves protected!
