Linkmeister

Secrecy (sometimes) stinks

In this season of secret-keeping, here's a nasty tale.

I used to subscribe to US News and World Report. A while back I concluded that I didn't need three weekly newsmagazines, so I let the subscription lapse. (I also felt I really didn't need annual rankings of colleges, law schools, and hospitals, since I probably wasn't going to re-enter college, apply to law school, or use a hospital anywhere but here, and that seemed to be what US News was publishing more than anything else.)

Anyway, I haven't read the magazine very often in the past five years. The other day I found a link to a story in the current issue which describes the lengths to which the Bush Administration has been classifying and otherwise preventing information from reaching the public, information we have every right to know. It goes into great detail, and it goes well beyond the well-publicized instances most people know, like Cheney's meetings with his Energy Task Force. For example:

Four years ago, after news broke that failing Firestone tires on Ford SUVs had caused hundreds of deaths and many more accidents, Congress enacted a new auto and tire safety law. A cornerstone was a requirement that manufacturers submit safety data to a government early-warning system, which would provide clues to help prevent another scandal. Lawmakers backing the system wanted the data made available to the public. After the legislation passed, officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said they didn't expect to create any new categories of secrecy for the information; they indicated that key data would automatically be made public. That sparked protests from automakers, tire manufacturers, and others. After months of pressure, transportation officials decided to make vital information such as warranty claims, field reports from dealers, and consumer complaints--all potentially valuable sources of safety information--secret.

One would think the public should be informed about the potential danger its tires might present, or any customer complaints about dealers and their products.

Ok, that's auto safety. How about drinking water?

A public health and bioterrorism law enacted last year requires, among other things, that operators of local water systems study vulnerabilities to attack or other disruptions and draw up plans to address any weaknesses. Republicans and Democrats praised the measure, pushed by the Bush administration, as a prudent response to potential terrorist attacks. But there's a catch. Residents are precluded from obtaining most information about any vulnerabilities.

This wasn't always the case. In 1996, Congress passed several amendments to the Clean Water Act calling for "source water assessments" to be made of water supply systems. The idea was that the assessments, covering such things as sources of contamination, would arm the public with information necessary to push for improvements. Today, the water assessments are still being done, but some citizens' groups say that because of Bush administration policy, the release of information has been so restricted that there is too little specific information to act upon. They blame the Environmental Protection Agency for urging states to limit information provided to the public from the assessments. As a result, the program has been fundamentally reshaped from one that has made information widely available to one that now forces citizens to essentially operate on a need-to-know basis, says Stephen Gasteyer, a Washington specialist on water-quality issues. "People [are] being overly zealous in their enforcement of safety and security, and perhaps a little paranoid," he says. "So you're getting releases of information so ambiguous that it's not terribly useful."

How about airline security?

Under rules the Transportation Security Administration adopted last year--with no public notice or comment--the traveling public no longer has access to key government information on the safety and security of all modes of transportation. The sweeping restrictions go beyond protecting details about security or screening systems to include information on enforcement actions or effectiveness of security measures. The new TSA rules also establish a new, looser standard for denying access to information: Material can be withheld from the public, the rules say, simply if it's "impractical" to release it.

This is an Administration which has no qualms about hiding what it's doing. The article is filled with absolute denials of this activity, even when confronted with evidence. There's plenty more of that evidence cited; have a look. This is wrong. The government is ours, not the Administration's, and it has no right to hide what it's doing behind this secrecy.

Damn! Even William Safire agrees with me! "If "freedom" is the word Bush and Cheney want as the hallmark of their administration, they should begin with freedom of information."

Posted by Linkmeister at December 17, 2003 03:37 PM