January 30, 2003 6:36 AM

Yes, you're in the dark, but it's for your own good

Official Secrets: Is the Bush administration using terrorism fears to shield government -- and business -- from public view?

It's a double-edged sword, really. The very information that we can use to make our world a better, safer, and more well-informed place can also be used against us by those with the desire to do so. The question, then, is what to do with such information. Well, if you're the Shrub Administration, you're apparently using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to shield the business of government and of business from public view.

People who live near chemical plants can no longer go online and find out which hazardous materials are stored near their home. Air travelers can no longer see Federal Aviation Administration records on airport-security violations. Journalists and elected officials no longer have access to a string of reports pinpointing weaknesses in the nation's antiterrorism defenses.

When the federal government scrambled to remove vast amounts of information from official libraries and websites in the wake of September 11, most assumed that access would be restored after officials had a chance to carefully evaluate security risks. But instead, many observers now say, the administration has used a string of laws and executive orders to reverse a decades-long trend toward government openness. The new measures are so broad, critics warn, it's impossible to say whether officials are protecting national security or simply expanding their power to operate without public scrutiny. "An iron veil is descending over the executive branch," warns Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform.

No one is saying that we need to make information easy for terrorists to find. Nonetheless, does ensuring national security need to mean locking up information that might be inconvenient or embarrassing to government or business? The USA PATRIOT Act may not have started out as a means for controlling access to information (regardless of relative security risks), but it has certainly lent itself nicely to that purpose.

Why should have I have to worry that my purchases at book shops, my library records, or the websites I visit be known to the government? I don't think it takes a Ph.D. to see that there is a line between security and invasion of privacy that has long since been crossed. The worst part of this is the apparently total lack of accountability.

When the House Judiciary Committee asked last June how many times the FBI had used each of the new powers -- many of which were taken away from the bureau in the past because of abuses -- the Justice Department said that information was classified. "Their attitude seems to be that even Congress isn't entitled to know how they're using the authority that Congress gave them," says outgoing Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.).

The push toward secrecy has extended far beyond law enforcement. Under a new policy restricting access to "sensitive but unclassified" information, agencies have made it harder for the public to see records that are often used by health and safety advocates and that industry has long sought to keep secret. The EPA, for instance, now limits access to the "risk management plans" that companies must file to inform communities what is being done to prevent toxic chemical accidents, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has withdrawn information on hazardous materials stored at power plants.

A reasonable person might expect that those in charge of Homeland Security would be able to develop a reasonable standard for what information could, if disseminated, pose a security risk. In that case, a reasonable person would be gravely disappointed. Apparently, it has been easier, and certainly more expedient, to restrict access to information on a wholesale basis. Damn the Freedom Of Information Act; there's a war on!!

One of the most troubling effects of this trend is that the segregation of information is now filtering down to the state and local level. Never mind the fact that most jurisdictions below the federal government have no jurisdiction over, or interaction with, federal anti-terrorism efforts.

Our government should, in a perfect world, be an open book. Post- 9.11, I think most of can understand why that might no longer be a reasonable expectation. I DO feel, however, that there needs to be a balance struck between maintaining national security and upholding the public's right to information. This is still (nominally, some might argue) a free society. The business of government is to protect it's constituents- NOT itself and it's business allies from embarrassment. Homeland Security should not be synonymous with obstruction and dissembling.

Power corrupts and absolute power is, well, kinda fun, really....

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on January 30, 2003 6:36 AM.

Get a roll of stamps and mail it in.... was the previous entry in this blog.

Why men shouldn't babysit, Take 2 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12