Kate Beecroft rightly questions the figures quoted for the introduction and administration of a Freedom of Information act. Why would it cost millions? The debate continues while our land of free as thy sweet mountain air doesn’t appear to be completely free.
However, we need to beware of any FOI act with too many conditions attached. It seems possible that such an act could actually work against us. Obama is presently retreating on FOI and it has been reported that there are proposals to permit the US government to lie in that it could be stated that records don’t exist. Presently, government can issue a Glomar denial – neither confirming nor denying that the records exist – that’s bad enough. However, new proposals would enable the government to state that records do not exist even when they do. http://www.propublica.org/article/government-could-hide-existence-of-records-under-foia-rule-proposal This is one of many proposed changes: http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/obama-justice-dept-battles-against-freedom-of-information-act/ Why the secrecy? Above all why the retrograde steps? After all – nothing to hide, nothing to fear. That’s what they keep repeating.
Does it seem strange to anyone else that we have sufficient money to roll out wall to wall
snooping devices – CCTV island wide (nothing to hide etc) , yet government can’t spare the money to enable us to have just a tiny bit more transparency? Do you call that balanced and fair?