Since NYPD counsel isn't a judge, they don't rule on things. They might make claims or declare things, but they don't make rulings.

It matters because there's a chance that this will go before an actual judge, who might rule that NYPD's counsel is wrong.

There are indeed many administrative rulings that are not made by judges, but instead by executives in government.

That internet service providers are not common carriers is just one example of an administrative FCC ruling.

Administrative rulings matter a great deal to the daily operation of government and how citizens interface with their services.

It has been and continues to be a major cost in terms of time, effort and resources for news organizations to drag every administrative ruling in front of a judge.

"NYPD Counsel" is not an example of an executive branch agency with rulemaking authority. Counsel is an advocate, and they have merely asserted a position with reference to the law. Absent some other (unprovided) citation, it doesn't behoove anyone to use loose language here.

"NYPD's lead freedom of information counsel refused to release the department's freedom of information guides, citing attorney-client privilege."

Translation: NYPD's lawyer said they don't need to release it. There was no ruling of any kind.

Yes, but we're not talking about a regulatory agency that's granted administrative rule making powers.

That's sort of beside the point. A good lawyer, especially one who is working for a supposedly representative government, should know not to make assertions that a operating manual, or any normal operating document that might have been reviewed by a lawyer, is privileged communication. He deserves the ridicule he's getting for that.

It always seems to be this way.. The DA or govt will make some claim that the courts eventually refute. It is very weird in some sense.

It's not weird at all - the courts in the US are an adversarial system. You have defense attorneys making claims that courts later reject, or counsel in civil cases making claims that a judge later decides the merits of. Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal.

> Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal.

In this context that is often the cause of a very serious inequity. The government has lawyers funded by the taxpayers arguing for the government's position against the public, but no taxpayer-funded lawyers are provided to represent the public against the government. Predictably the public interest then gets the short end of the stick in any case where there are no well-heeled private interests willing to pick up the tab.

If we're paying them, shouldn't they be representing our interests?

It's like asking, shouldn't the CEO be representing the interests of the shareholders? In theory, but it's a classic principal-agent problem. The agents have different goals than the principals and can be expected to try to game or corrupt whatever system is in place to make them accountable.

The trouble is that the accountability system in government doesn't take that into account. The state's attorney is presumed to be representing the interests of the public, so nobody is provided to argue the contrary position when the state's attorney ignores his duty by advancing the interests of the state instead.

Yes. But are they?

Agree. The headline is clear as "muck"...

seems par for the course, given the URL.

But you raise an important and non-trivial point.

It seems strange that a muck-oriented site would use that language in a headline, even if it was verbatim from the agency.

If an organization's purpose is to serve the general public, any and all information they create should have a reasonable timeline applied to it where it eventually becomes public information. Otherwise, it's simply information someone is using for their own purposes, and perhaps gain.

I think it would be amazing if there was a constitutional amendment forcing all government information to be disclosed within an extremely short period. Someone sues the NYPD, the amendment gets incorporated, bada bing, bada boom, government transparency.

A lot of government information is tied up with individual privacy. For example, Census data isn't released for 70 years, for privacy reasons. I certainly wouldn't want the IRS to release my tax returns, or Medicare to release my medical records.

Of course it's easy to abuse the citizen privacy excuse to hide things that should not be private. But you can't just make everything public without causing significant problems, either.

I'm willing to give up my personal privacy if everyone else is. That's the catch now, isn't it?

Well it can't really be this black and white. Any information they create could be case data they are working on for murders etc and other information that needs to be kept secret, so there has to be some type of restrictions in place.

Thus the "eventually" caveat.

Don't we need to also ensure that the information isn't tempered as well?

Or tampered with.

> NYPD counsel rules freedom of information manual is confidential

This sentence seems straight out of 1984.

Man, these are great times to be alive if you're a cynic.

All times are great to be alive if you're a cynic living in any society of appreciable size.

You either need to be a hermit or part of a small tribe to live in "times" where there is less room for cynicism.

one of many reasons why I will never again live in New York or locate a business there. I refuse to pay taxes to a state as oppressive as the government of New York (city).

The best idea is to try to convince someone to leak it. My guess is that if the NSA can't secure their computer networks, neither can the NYPD.

does this break recursion?

FOILed again!