GIThruster wrote:Aero wrote:If everything new that they developed is claimed as proprietary then they owe a properly redacted response to the FOIA request, because the report cannot be completely proprietary.
I'm sorry to say but you do not have the foggiest notion of what you speak. First of all, EMC2 does not in any way "owe" anyone any information. FOIA ONLY applies to the executive branch of the government and does NOT apply to private corporations simply because they accept public funds. There are no conditions under which EMC2 could possibly "owe" anyone, any answers about anything.
You over state your case. While EMC2 is not subject to FOIA, the Navy, as you point out, is. It is the Navy that owes a meaningful response to the FOIA request but EMC2 has declined to provide the information necessary to make that possible.
The same is not true of the US Navy which is part of the executive branch. What data EMC2 tells the Navy is proprietary is exclusively up to EMC2, and you don't get a say in this. None of us do. if they say they don't want any data out there, they are perfectly entitled to this and there is no way to argue with them. They are NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA.
You are right, EMC2 is not obligated to respond to off contract requests from their sponsor. However, their sponsor is required to respond to the FOIA in the proper format. That is, the requested report with proprietary information treated IAW the EMC2 contract, probably but not necessarily redacted. EMC2's failure to provide meaningful data to their sponsor does not release the Navy from its obligation under law.
Furthermore, US NAVY can easily say that any/all knowledge of the Poly project is a matter of national defense, and since 1976, all information related to the national defense is specifically identified as an exemption to FOIA. That's the way life is. You may wish it were different, stamp your foot and complain, but that's just the way life is.
No, the Navy cannot easily classify existing unclassified data. Data discovered or compiled in the future can be classified (not easily as you presume) but existing data not protected by proper security cannot now be classified. The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak, calling it classified now serves no security purpose. There are checks and balances in place to prevent the abuse of classification. It is NOT to be used for the convenience of the contracting office. Further, I believe that fusion research is addressed by international treaty, it is to be shared, not classified. (Not saying shared with us or at our convenience under the treaty.)
The question of what is in this international treaty is pertinent. Does anyone know how proprietary data is affected by the treaty or is this treaty no more than a rumor?