ACLU blocks woman's request for data on numbers of transgender inmates in women's prisons

[Patooka]

I'm curious; considering how many US prisons are privately owned, how would you get such information in the first place?

 

[TomC]

I'm curious; considering how many US prisons are privately owned, how would you get such information in the first place?

Then there's that whole issue.

I suspect it would be easier to get information out of a private company, that must report to shareholders and such, than a government beauracracy that doesn't have to care about anybody's opinions.

I could certainly be wrong about that. I really don't know.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Transwomen are a huge danger to real women.

Maybe you could justify that point of view with some record or evidence of attacks?

You mean, like from a source of evidence that the ACLU is blocking?

 

[Metaphor]

1) This is a request for medical information. As such, great care needs to be taken with the data even if it is to be complied with. Note that it's very unlikely the data being asked for exists in that form[/i]. Compliance would require compiling it--and this is a realm where great care must be taken to avoid leaking information. You need medical researchers, not bureaucrats.

2) The numbers are going to be low. With the breakdown requested it will narrow it down to a few people. This could be dangerous for the people involved. As such, it should be denied, period, even if enough care is taken in compiling the info.

No, it shouldn't "be denied, period".

Like any FOI request, things can be redacted where they are potentially compromising.

 

[Metaphor]

You know when you link a story, other people can read it, right?

I hope so. That was the purpose of linking it.

This wasn't some random person who was caught making anti-trans comments to a friend at the pub where someone else overheard and next thing you know she was clapped in leg irons.

I'm sorry. I can't seem to find the post where I claimed it was.

No, the woman you feel was terribly wronged by the "trans agenda" made public comments on social media which ran afoul of your discrimination laws. She paid a small fine and apologized. Problem solved? No, she failed to rectify the situation, leaving the offending comments up on her social media and "liking" discriminatory responses, which - one would have to assume - she knew would run her afoul of the law she had already violated.

I know what happened. I read the story.

Now, I'm not familiar with your anti-discrimination laws, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say they aren't limited to gender identity. Therefore, anyone making such comments towards any class protected under the law could face similar consequences. Yet you chose to highlight this one case and present it as proof that there's some sinister trans agenda wiping out your personal liberties. It's not. Turns out your country has some consequential anti-discrimination laws, and that strikes me as a good thing.

I'm not surprised to learn that you believe that 'liking' comments on Facebook should be punishable by the State.

It seems like you're bothered because trans people are protected by your laws. I can't help but wonder if you'd be this upset over someone being fined for making "vilifying and victimising " statements against racial or ethnic minorities.

In fact, under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, it is an offense to make, other than in private, remarks which "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person because of their 'race, colour, or national or ethnic origin'. I disagree with that law also, especially the first two words 'offend' and 'insult'.

I'm an ethnic minority, and I have been teased for it and I have probably been discriminated against for it. But I don't agree the government should punish people for speech. Much the less should the government punish people for using pronouns that accord with somebody's sex.

 

[Patooka]

I'm curious; considering how many US prisons are privately owned, how would you get such information in the first place?

Then there's that whole issue.

I suspect it would be easier to get information out of a private company, that must report to shareholders and such, than a government beauracracy that doesn't have to care about anybody's opinions.

I could certainly be wrong about that. I really don't know.
Tom

With regards to financials, absolutely. Things like demographics, food safety and hygiene standards I suspect would be infinitely more difficult. But like you I'm not sure.

 

[Copernicus]

Transwomen are a huge danger to real women.

Maybe you could justify that point of view with some record or evidence of attacks?

You mean, like from a source of evidence that the ACLU is blocking?

But you already know from the discussion that the ACLU is not blocking anything. They don't have that power. The ACLU filed a lawsuit that a court decided had possible legal merit, so the court is blocking the release until it can make a final ruling. Ziprhead posted the ACLU's side of the story, which pointed out that the requested information could violate the privacy rights of some inmates and that it was also for types of information specifically exempted from FOI requests under Washington state law.

 

[Metaphor]

But you already know from the discussion that the ACLU is not blocking anything. They don't have that power.

They had the power to file an injunction, didn't they?

The ACLU filed a lawsuit that a court decided had possible legal merit, so the court is blocking the release until it can make a final ruling.

Okay, I'll amend the sentence. The court is blocking a release because of the ACLU's injunction.

Ziprhead posted the ACLU's side of the story, which pointed out that the requested information could violate the privacy rights of some inmates and that it was also for types of information specifically exempted from FOI requests under Washington state law.

The statement reads:

In addition, the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Washington’s Public Records Act. While access to records under the Public Records Act generally serves a public interest through government transparency, there is no legitimate interest in a person’s transgender, non-binary, or intersex status or their medical information.

They have not cited why it is exempt from disclosure, they've simply asserted it. They have also asserted that there is 'no legitimate interest' in the information the person has requested (which is at best, the ACLU's opinion). They also deceptively framed this in reference to personal information, which is not being released. Whether a particular named prisoner is trans is not being asked for, but the population of prisoners.

It's like asking how many people in a population have type 2 diabetes. It's a statistic. But you don't have the right to know if any individual person has type 2 diabetes.

 

[ZiprHead]

They had the power to file an injunction, didn't they?



Okay, I'll amend the sentence. The court is blocking a release because of the ACLU's injunction.

Ziprhead posted the ACLU's side of the story, which pointed out that the requested information could violate the privacy rights of some inmates and that it was also for types of information specifically exempted from FOI requests under Washington state law.

The statement reads:

In addition, the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Washington’s Public Records Act. While access to records under the Public Records Act generally serves a public interest through government transparency, there is no legitimate interest in a person’s transgender, non-binary, or intersex status or their medical information.

They have not cited why it is exempt from disclosure, they've simply asserted it. They have also asserted that there is 'no legitimate interest' in the information the person has requested (which is at best, the ACLU's opinion). They also deceptively framed this in reference to personal information, which is not being released. Whether a particular named prisoner is trans is not being asked for, but the population of prisoners.

It's like asking how many people in a population have type 2 diabetes. It's a statistic. But you don't have the right to know if any individual person has type 2 diabetes.

Instead of bitching, pissing whining and asking stupid questions, why didn't you just take a minute and look up the law and answer your own questions?

Here is what the law applies to:

The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency" includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. "Local agency" includes every county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency.
(2) "Person in interest" means the person who is the subject of a record or any representative designated by that person, except that if that person is under a legal disability, "person in interest" means and includes the parent or duly appointed legal representative.
(3) "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives. This definition does not include records that are not otherwise required to be retained by the agency and are held by volunteers who:
(a) Do not serve in an administrative capacity;
(b) Have not been appointed by the agency to an agency board, commission, or internship; and
(c) Do not have a supervisory role or delegated agency authority.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.

I don't see anywhere in there that could include personal information of people incarcerated in the state's penal institutions.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't understand how a private NGO can block a Freedom of Information Act request. I am unaware of any mandated permission to make a request. I thought it is up to the gov't agency to comply or supply a reason for denial. If denied, one can then seek redress through the courts. So, how is the ACLU blocking this request or is this yet another example of ideologically-driven hyperbole?

The intended audience for this kind of stuff do not have great critical thinking skills. If the story is slanted to appeal to their innate conformational bias, it's accepted as truth, with no regard to the obvious reasons it can't be real.

 

[Metaphor]

Instead of bitching, pissing whining and asking stupid questions, why didn't you just take a minute and look up the law and answer your own questions?

Wow, okay. I didn't ask a question, I said the ACLU made an assertion about the law.

Also, even if I had asked a question, is that forbidden on message boards? You're the boss, so I assume you know.

I don't see anywhere in there that could include personal information in the states penal institutions.

Personal information identifying individuals was not requested. If the request would unreasonably identify an individual in its current form (individuals can sometimes be identified even when there is no unit-level data provided), the responsible agency could deny the request on that basis. But a request for non-identifying information?

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand how a private NGO can block a Freedom of Information Act request. I am unaware of any mandated permission to make a request. I thought it is up to the gov't agency to comply or supply a reason for denial. If denied, one can then seek redress through the courts. So, how is the ACLU blocking this request or is this yet another example of ideologically-driven hyperbole?

The intended audience for this kind of stuff do not have great critical thinking skills. If the story is slanted to appeal to their innate conformational bias, it's accepted as truth, with no regard to the obvious reasons it can't be real.

Well, what do you know...




https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/

 

[Copernicus]

...
The statement reads:

In addition, the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Washington’s Public Records Act. While access to records under the Public Records Act generally serves a public interest through government transparency, there is no legitimate interest in a person’s transgender, non-binary, or intersex status or their medical information.

They have not cited why it is exempt from disclosure, they've simply asserted it. They have also asserted that there is 'no legitimate interest' in the information the person has requested (which is at best, the ACLU's opinion). They also deceptively framed this in reference to personal information, which is not being released. Whether a particular named prisoner is trans is not being asked for, but the population of prisoners.

It's like asking how many people in a population have type 2 diabetes. It's a statistic. But you don't have the right to know if any individual person has type 2 diabetes.

If you read the email that was sent to the litigants by the ACLU, they refer to attached documents to that email that included additional details of their request for an injunction. Those documents were not released by the litigants when they published the email text, so we clearly do not have all of the legal argument that the ACLU has presented to the court. What the email said was that the request was so broad that it could contain information that would reveal individual information. What the ACLU was concerned about was the possibility that some public official would just release a boatload of records without taking the time to redact them. Records of that sort could contain details about incidents that would allow third parties to identify individuals. It should be no surprise that a court would enjoin the release of such a broad request for records about transgender individuals. Usually, FOI requests are more specific about the documents they want released. This request was a fishing expedition.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, what do you know...


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/

What do we know, ZiprHead? Are you claiming errors of fact in this particular story? Or are you making the asinine claim that different media have different biases?

 

[Metaphor]

What the ACLU was concerned about was the possibility that some public official would just release a boatload of records without taking the time to redact them. Records of that sort could contain details about incidents that would allow third parties to identify individuals. It should be no surprise that a court would enjoin the release of such a broad request for records about transgender individuals.

It has been my experience that the outcomes of FOI requests are far more biased towards "deeply redacted/incomplete" than "indiscriminate disclosure". I am a public servant and my lived experience of FOI requests is that public servants are hypercautious about disclosing information that could personally identify an individual. I disclose that I work directly with both personal data and statistics created from it, so I may be more aware of these issues than the average public servant (though not the average public servant that responds to FOI requests, I imagine).

It's interesting to me that the ACLU appears with this action to have decided that this particular government agency is too incompetent to safely handle FOI requests, while simultaneously championing FOI requests.

 

[Copernicus]

What the ACLU was concerned about was the possibility that some public official would just release a boatload of records without taking the time to redact them. Records of that sort could contain details about incidents that would allow third parties to identify individuals. It should be no surprise that a court would enjoin the release of such a broad request for records about transgender individuals.

It has been my experience that the outcomes of FOI requests are far more biased towards "deeply redacted/incomplete" than "indiscriminate disclosure". I am a public servant and my lived experience of FOI requests is that public servants are hypercautious about disclosing information that could personally identify an individual. I disclose that I work directly with both personal data and statistics created from it, so I may be more aware of these issues than the average public servant (though not the average public servant that responds to FOI requests, I imagine).

It's interesting to me that the ACLU appears with this action to have decided that this particular government agency is too incompetent to safely handle FOI requests, while simultaneously championing FOI requests.

Have you considered the possibility that your personal experience might not be a great criterion for granting an FOI request? I've worked with the problem of redacting sensitive information (and have developed a patented technique for a methodology to extract such information). It is far from a trivial exercise, and it requires someone with training and skills to do it properly. In any case, the FOI does not appear to ask for documents. It asks for information that may not currently exist in that form. This has already been pointed out to you by Loren Pechtel. FOI requests are for existing documents, not analyses of those documents.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, what do you know...


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/

What do we know, ZiprHead? Are you claiming errors of fact in this particular story? Or are you making the asinine claim that different media have different biases?

The release was blocked by a judge, not the ACLU. The PM didn't bother to get the ACLU's side of the matter to include in the story, so poor journalism.

So, as Bronzeage said: The intended audience for this kind of stuff do not have great critical thinking skills. If the story is slanted to appeal to their innate conformational bias, it's accepted as truth, with no regard to the obvious reasons it can't be real.

 

[Metaphor]

Have you considered the possibility that your personal experience might not be a great criterion for granting an FOI request?

I don't know what you mean. I think the government agency that received the request should handle it.

I've worked with the problem of redacting sensitive information (and have developed a patented technique for a methodology to extract such information). It is far from a trivial exercise, and it requires someone with training and skills to do it properly. In any case, the FOI does not appear to ask for documents. It asks for information that may not currently exist in that form. This has already been pointed out to you by Loren Pechtel. FOI requests are for existing documents, not analyses of those documents.

I am aware that FOIs are for existing documents. The letter asks for five pieces of information which may be contained by one or more documents or no documents. For example, request 3) is "Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a women's facility"

A document(s) that contain this information may or may not exist, but if the document didn't exist, it doesn't need an injunction to prevent its release. Its non-existence prevents its release.

Now, it is my opinion that the ACLU wants to prevent making public any of the information contained in request 3), even if nobody's privacy rights were violated.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, what do you know...


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/

What do we know, ZiprHead? Are you claiming errors of fact in this particular story? Or are you making the asinine claim that different media have different biases?

The release was blocked by a judge, not the ACLU. The PM didn't bother to get the ACLU's side of the matter to include in the story, so poor journalism.

So, as Bronzeage said: The intended audience for this kind of stuff do not have great critical thinking skills. If the story is slanted to appeal to their innate conformational bias, it's accepted as truth, with no regard to the obvious reasons it can't be real.

In other words, you can identify no errors of fact in the story.

 

[ZiprHead]

The release was blocked by a judge, not the ACLU. The PM didn't bother to get the ACLU's side of the matter to include in the story, so poor journalism.

So, as Bronzeage said: The intended audience for this kind of stuff do not have great critical thinking skills. If the story is slanted to appeal to their innate conformational bias, it's accepted as truth, with no regard to the obvious reasons it can't be real.

In other words, you can identify no errors of fact in the story.

It's right there in bold. Both you and the PM said it was the ACLU that blocked the action.