I think a new strategy needs to be used with respect to FOIA enforcement.
An idea I had was this: Congress sets a minimum compliance level, perhaps 90% of requests completed in 30 days, with , perhaps, responsive documents in 70% of cases.
Fail that for three successive months and the department budget is automatically reduced by 10% until compliance is achieved. With ratchet; if the department remains out of compliance for a complete budget cycle then the 10% becomes permanent and they become subject to another 10% on top of the first 10%.
When lack of compliance is kicking them in their power structure, they'll give in. And if not, well, at least our taxes will go down.
There is security that keeps my information private: encryption, access limits, and legal warrants.
There is security in the "national security" sense, which means exactly the opposite.
The phrase, "...privacy perishes in the absence of security," conflates these. When this is used, the correct thing is to ask, "I need clarification: when you say 'security,' did you mean 'eliminating my encryption, ignoring my access protections and disdaining my legal rights?"
I'm thinking that the easiest way to do this is to paraphrase their response: "Sorry. There were some responsive documents twelve days ago, but those were automatically purged after three years and don't exist anymore, so now there are no responsive documents."
I'm thinking this specific call was a "concerned citizen" protesting the introduction of this bill infringing "free speech rights." I know the very concept of that is surreal to most people, but sociopaths are oblivious to anything but their own desires, even if that's a desire to swat someone.
Cable companies continually innovate ways to increase existing fees, add fabulous new fees, cut back expensive service, reduce costly quality, avoid underprivileged service areas, and eliminate customer choice; all in the service of greater profit.
How can you deny their incredible, awesome, daily innovations?
Barnett is just bowing to his corporatist masters. They will always have "anonymous speech" as expressed through: political action committees, media influence (via talking points, slant, and pseudo-documentaries presented as news), collusive trusts, backdoor lobbying and outright bribery.
None of their "anonymity" will be degraded by this proposed law. It will only prohibit activities of the ordinary citizen, by eliminating the anonymity for individual speech that might dilute corporate influence.
The DNA will not be used for medical purposes, such as checking for genetic markers of disease, which will avoid issues of whether people should be told about their predisposition to possibly serious illnesses. Nor will the DNA database be used for "lineage or genealogical reasons."
Oh, maybe not initially, but we've all seen function creep before.
Also, they neglected to list "ethnic cleansing"--an oversight, no doubt.
I wonder if the police wouldn't still have been called if he had correctly written "terraced". He's a Muslim kid, and the word "terraced" sounds an awful lot like "terrorist". It's not hard to imagine a fearful-of-prison teacher saying, "Maybe we just need to be sure?"
When I heard about his search, I immediately wondered if the motive isn't personal. I don't know how long Mr. Brown has been looking for this new planet, but if he was expecting the honor of finding the next planet after Pluto, well...then his honors were being stolen by the discoveries of Eris, Haumea, Quaoar, Salacia, Orcus, 2002 MS₄, Sedna, 2007 OR10₁₀, MakeMake, Varuna, Varda, 2002 UX₂₆ and...*whew*! Not to mention the ones discovered long ago, that were under debate for addition to the list, like Ceres 1.
So it's possible he figured that, if he was going to have the honor of finding the next planet, he had to stop the flood of these new mini-worlds being discovered. That would be petty (and Pluto an innocent bystander) but it wouldn't be the first time something of this type has happened in the astronomical community.
I'm wondering if it would have changed anything if he'd written "terraced house." Here we have a Muslim kid, who obviously meant to write "terrorist" and misspelled it "terraced"...wouldn't the teacher still call the cops?