Opportunity Digs; Spirit Advances

You still haven't explained exactly what "right" you think is being violated. (The 14th Amendment just says that states have to treat everyone equally and cannot abridge their rights. This seems quite irrelevant here, since there is no action by a state involved, but in any case, you have yet to establish that anyone's rights are being so much as endangered.)

When was the last time you held a party in your Congressman's office in Washington? If you show up claiming that it's your property and you have a right to party there, you will be informed pretty damn quick that even if it was paid for by tax money, your Congressman and his staff have the privilege of using it, and you do not.

You have that exactly correct: they never were rights.

No, he's *alleging* that his rights are being violated. He has yet to establish that there is any actual legal right involved.

If you whine about every imagined infringement on nonexistent rights, nobody is going to pay any attention to you on that unhappy day when the rights and the infringements are real. If you hope to make a difference on that day, you have to refrain from crying "wolf!" until that day comes.

Good night.

In article , Randy M. Dumse wrote:

I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I have no comment on the Constitutional issues. Nor do I have any comment on the ethical/moral/libertarian issues. However, on a purely legislative note, it appears that the FOIA has been interpreted in a way that allows temporary data embargoes:

Congress included a two-sentence provision in OMB's appropriation for FY 1999, contained in Public Law 105-277, directing OMB to amend Section __.36 of the Circular ``to require Federal awarding agencies to ensure that all data produced under an award will be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act.'' The provision also provides for a reasonable fee to cover the costs incurred in responding to a request. The Circular applies to grants and other financial assistance provided to institutions of higher education, hospitals, and non-profit institutions, from all Federal agencies. In directing OMB to revise the Circular, Congress entrusted OMB ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ with the authority to resolve statutory ambiguities, the obligation to address implementation issues the statute did not address, and the discretion to balance the need for public access to research data with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ protections of the research process. In developing this revision to the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Circular, OMB seeks to implement the statutory language fairly, in the context of its legislative history. This requires a balanced approach that (1) furthers the interest of the public in obtaining the information needed to validate Federally-funded research findings, (2) ensures that research can continue to be conducted in accordance with the traditional scientific process, and (3) implements a public access process that will be workable in practice. .... During the revision process, many commenters expressed concern that the statute would compel Federally-funded researchers to work in a ``fishbowl'' in which they would be required to reveal the results of their research, and their research methods, prematurely. They argued that this could prevent researchers from operating under the traditional scientific process. As in many other fields of endeavor, scientists need to deliberate over, develop, and pursue alternative approaches in their research before making results public. When a scientist is sufficiently confident of their results, they publish them for the scrutiny of other scientists and the community at large. Accordingly, in light of this traditional scientific process, we have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not construed the statute as requiring scientists to make research data ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ publicly available while the research is still ongoing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There's a lot more, also at:

The term, Research Data, is defined as the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings.

It does not include:

... * materials necessary to be held confidential by a researcher until publication in a peer-reviewed journal ...

The FOIA specifies a number of exemptions, and specific statutes have authorized more.

Do let me know how your plans to hold a party for your friends in the Oval Office go. I think you'll find that the normal occupants of that office do in fact have special privileges over you and your friends, and that no court is going to seriously entertain a Constitutional challenge to that.

You have a remarkably exaggerated idea of what the US Constitution says. Have you read it? Which clause, exactly, do you think is relevant here? (The 14th amendment is not, since no state law or action by a state is involved.)

I believe you'll find that most forms of proprietary information are normally held to be covered by clause (b)(4).

Moreover, I don't believe anyone involved in this discussion has made an FOIA request for this information. Just haranguing people about it in a Usenet newsgroup doesn't constitute such a request, you know. If you actually try making such a request, you might learn something.

Only in your imagination. Rights and protections have to exist before you can be deprived of them.

Its owners are some combination of the government and the scientists involved. Not you. (No, you do not own the government, as you will discover if you try to drive off with a police car or borrow a USAF jet.)

If they are working for you, the IRS will be very interested to know why you haven't remitted withholding tax deducted from their salaries. Assorted other government agencies will likewise want to know why you have not met various other legal obligations involved in employing someone. By your reasoning, *you* would be guilty of quite a few criminal offences.

It would seem there is a flaw or two in your reasoning.

Which specific right was violated? Name the specific law. Your are arguing generically in a very specific situation.

Banning? Are you equally careful in your research?

You have demostrated terminal stupidity here. That's about it for you.

You are using uselessly generic arguments here again. The point is precisely scientific. Name the specific laws. Put up or shut up.

Demostrated... careful in your research?

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Very interesting link, Ken. But I want you to notice what this says at the top.This is in the Federal Register, not the Federal Code. In other words, some minor bureaucrat took it upon himself to claim he was tasked to write law. In actuality he is writing policy. Policy is required to follow the law, not change or modify the law, not be the law.

Clearly they knew there was a problem with the policy as violating the law, or the law wouldn't have been named .

Public Law 105-277, directing OMB to amend Section __.36 of the Circular ``to require Federal awarding agencies to ensure that all data produced under an award will be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act.'' You see the law is clear. The policy intends to sidestep the law.

Here, some minor government employee is saying, "In directing OMB to revise the Circular, Congress entrusted OMB with the authority to resolve statutory ambiguities, the obligation to address implementation issues the statute did not address, and the discretion to balance the need for public access to research data with protections of the research process".

Whoa! This ought to alarm us greatly! There is no provision under the Constitution for Congress to entrust anyone to write law. First Congress cannot delegate their elected status to non elected officials concerning the making of law. There is no provision under the Constitution for Congress to entrust anyone resolve statutory ambiguities. Secondly, how can Congress delegate authority resolve statutory ambiguities given specifically to the judiciary? and specifically prohibited from the Congress?

It doesn't take a Constitutional expert to see what is going on here.

What I am complaining about, is we citizens can read well enough to know a violation of Constitution, and the FOIA, for ourselves. The founding fathers counted on us as the last hope to keep the new government they created honest. That's why we sit on juries as the final defense against government abuses and usurpations, which they greatly feared. I am amazed and disheartened to see I live among so many who would disappoint the founders so easily.

George Washington upon leaving the White House, said: "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master."

Ultimately my freedom and your freedom, depend on living among those willing to defend it, not mock it. When someone says they are incorrectly treated at the hands of government, such that it is the master and he is the slave, and no one defends them, or thinks deeply enough to see a problem, or can't read a few lines of law, or instead talks of alleged rights that don't exist... it is a sad, sobering day.

February 21, 2004

Is that the new American creed?

Or some lawyers. This is America, right?

Since logic utterly fails on you, then I choose profanity.

Where is the spectroscopy, asshole?

Thomas Lee Elifritz

Here I am in complete agreement with you. Well said.

February 21, 2004

There ought to be a law, eh?

Prohibit crackpots from posting crackpot theories on the usenet?

Chosp uses his fundamental right to freedom of speech, to protest against our fundamental right to freedom of speech.

America is great, isn't it?

Thomas Lee Elifritz

February 21, 2004

What else are you going to do? You've already demonstrated that you don't care to understand the local spectroscopy of the Martian surface.

Hello, Mr. President, thank-you for taking my call. This SPECTRAgate scandal, could you please straighten that out for me by tomorrow?

Thank-you, I'll check in the morning to make sure the missing spectra are posted on NASA's website. I'll be sure to vote for you in November too.

Or perhaps I could organize a massive picket of JPL?

Show me some spectroscopy, crackpot.

Thoms Lee Elifritz

He also has not demonstrated (nor does he have to to us) that he is a US citizen. Usenet is an international forum. We don't even know he is who he says he is.

Haranguing folks on Usenet (where none of us have the data he wants) is about as useful as trying to buy an airline ticket from the dustbunnies under the bed.

People in the USA do have a propensity for complaining about something to everyone except the person who actually could do something about it.

Maybe that provides evidence he a bonafide citizen after all. On the other hand, anyone who has ever gone through channels knows that 'real-time' in a bureaucracy can be anything from weeks to months to years.

It all started with the me-now generation, instant pudding, and CNN, and we've been spoiled ever since.

*|;-)

Jo

You need to report it. Nothing will happen until you do. Your failure to report it implies your complicity with it. Since you are the offended party, it's all up to you.

True, though note that the FR does have the force of law, though it is not a law.

Sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say here. You are saying that the fact that they named the law means that they knew they were violating the law?

Instead, they left out an exact time.

At any rate, if Congress was unhappy with it, they would just pass a bill stipulating an exact time period, right? Write your Congressman!

Okay, but now we are moving far afield. You are essentially saying we should do away with the regulatory process (Federal Register). Each bill would have to include every single last detail. This sounds ideal, but it's impractical within our current system of government. Legislators already have a hard enough time understanding bills.

Well, like I said, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I didn't see anything in the 14th Amendment that requires immediate release of scientific data.

At any rate, I think a much bigger issue is that government-funded IP may not be in the public domain.

And if he doesn't, you do. To quote from the underlined section of the document you just cited:

"The federal crime reporting statute requires anyone knowing of a federal crime to promptly report it to a federal court."

If you believe what you have written, that it is a crime, then YOUR failure to report it implies YOUR complicity with it. However, since you have never really specified the crime, nor any specific laws broken, nor mentioned anything whatsoever specific to the actual situation being discussed, we can safely be assured that you won't. Instead, your most probable course of action will be to whine a little while longer with useless generic arguments then fade back into the woodwork from whence you came.