Talk:U.S. classifies record number of documents in 2004

Most of this one is just dry factual stuff which is not POV, but they do have a POV. I've tried to balance it by saying that it is unclear how much is due to recent circumstances. As I see it, lefties will read the increase in surveillance of foreign nationals as bad, but righties will read it as good, so it provides an interesting balance. Anyway, I didn't feel much more is necissary as the commentary was overshadowed by the number. I considered including some of the high profile cases where secrecy has been controversial, such as having Cheney be both VP and Energy guy, but looking to specific high profile cases seemed "off topic" for such an article. - Nyarlathotep 20:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think the report means to target Bush through choice of its year ranges; the organization is just not that old and they want to talk about today. If anyone feels they are Bush bashing, you should try to dig out the information that says secrecy was also increasing under Clinton, etc.; trust me it was.

Also, I would appreciate any refertences to the elimination of traditional wistleblower protections, although a link to wikipedia may provide that.
 * The balance so far has been pretty good, but it could use some more of it (which I think can be done simply by explaining a few items a little more), such as "secret patents".


 * Also:
 * I think it could be compared to a more recent year, such as 2003 or 2002 (that is, if information is available).


 * Actual figures would be good in here, to better explain. Also note that with an advance in technology, more information and the ability to process documents has increased rapidly since the Cold War.
 * Actual figures would be good in here, to better explain. Also note that with an advance in technology, more information and the ability to process documents has increased rapidly since the Cold War.


 * Another area where it could be explained in more detail, I felt as if it was a little dry in this statement.
 * Another area where it could be explained in more detail, I felt as if it was a little dry in this statement.

But, as said before - good job so far. --Mrmiscellanious 15:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) I think the choice of 2001 is partly because of the change of presidents, partly because of what years they had spent a lot of time looking at, and partly just to have a pre-9/11 picture. I'm not sure why any year is any more informative than any other really, without looking at some graph.  I'll see what information is available in the report.
 * (2) Yes, I wondered about using the actual number of applications, I'll make that change when I get a chance. But, no, its extremely unlikely that modern technology is relevant, due to the nature of the privilege.  If your an libertarian / anti-federalist, you could claim "expansion of federal power".  If your a liberal, you can claim bush helping his oil buddies, or hiding war stuff.  If your a Bush supporter, you could claim he was prosecuting terrorists.  But, all such things are pure speculation, as the report just doesn't say what the cases were, or even if they knew what the cases were.  I feel its best to just give the figure and forget about it.
 * (3) I'll consider some rewordings.

My own "mental picture" is that secrecy has been getting "worse" for a long time, AND that each president has "made it even worse". My understanding of this report is that, in some areas, the Bush administration is significantly more secretive even by previous standards, but that, in other areas, the "second derivative of secrecy" has increased only a bit under Bush. - Nyarlathotep 17:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I would love to know how many of the FOIA requests were by companies vs. nonprofits. At some point, secrecy should stary to have a negative economic impact.. You may be able to see this in the number of companies making FOIA requests, but you need to eliminate the noise from poliical requests.