So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?
> Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?
How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent?
While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details should be made available after-the-fact via FOIA. Eg, "what were security details on suchandsuch date", with say a 3-month minimum past-time limit. Of course, it can be difficult to learn from problems 3 months ago, but that difficulty must be balanced with "oh crap there's a problem we have to quietly fix before someone's hurt"
> Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it.
Public certainly can request information via FOIA, but US government has many different security classifications and timeframes. Your mileage may vary but I would argue that yes, the public does have that kind of access, even if timeframes might be decades instead of days or months.
How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent?
While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details should be made available after-the-fact via FOIA. Eg, "what were security details on suchandsuch date", with say a 3-month minimum past-time limit. Of course, it can be difficult to learn from problems 3 months ago, but that difficulty must be balanced with "oh crap there's a problem we have to quietly fix before someone's hurt"