Private channel session 675
30 messages over 3h 34m, 2020-12-14 – 2020-12-14.
A “conversation” here is an activity session — a run of messages with under 60 minutes of silence inside it. The channel had no native conversation boundaries.
-
Here's your FOI friends Eddie - they apparently got about a TB of Baric's emails. https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/new-emails-show-scientists-deliberations-on-how-to-discuss-sars-cov-2-origins/
-
```In one email, dated Feb. 4, infectious disease expert Trevor Bedford commented: "I wouldn't mention binding sites here. If you start weighing evidence there's a lot to consider for both scenarios." By "both scenarios," Bedford appears to refer to lab-origin and natural-origin scenarios.```
-
Interesting - the emails seem to be all scanned PDFs - so you can't search them electronically - is that a normaltactic to a FOI?
-
Come to think of it - scanned pdfs are usually how NIH responds to FOIA requests. I haven't looked closely at themotherload of Baric emails, but personal stuff is usually exempt - ie. invasion of of privacy. Maybe other countries are different, but I would think that most of the correspondence between members of this this Slack channel wouldbe retracted as either personal or a trade secret. I've had FOIA request where most of the pages were redacted inblack. For example MOST of my correspondence with NIH program officers. What Can I Obtain with a FOIA Request? Under the FOIA and the FCC's implementing rules, you are allowed to obtain copies of FCC records unless the records contain information that is exempt under the FOIA from mandatory disclosure. Section 552(b) of the FOIA contains nine types of records which are routinely exempt from disclosure under the FOIA:• Records classified national defense or foreign policy materials, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1);• Internal personnel rules and agency practices, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2);• Information specifically exempted from disclosure by another statute, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3);• Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, 5U.S.C § 552(b)(4);• Inter- or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available to a party in litigation with the agency, 5U.S.C. § 552(b)(5);• Personnel, medical and similar files, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6);• Records compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7);• Records relating to the examination, operations, or condition of financial institutions, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8); and• Oil well data, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(9).
-
I love the fact that my email is so prominently displayed. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NASEM_Andersen-Email_Baric-1.pdf
-
Oh, but I SO want to search all those emails - I'm CONVINCED Baric has been saying shit about us and it all gottabe in there somewhere. I'm sure the DRASTIC folks will transcribe these.
-
I LOVE this bit from Trevor... :wink: [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-12-14 at 15.51.03.png]
-
You came out of it well with that email. Pretty much lays out what said in PO.
-
Why don't you download the lot and run it through some OCR
-
.... already doing it. I want to nail Deep Throat.
-
That's just between Andrew and I and because it does not discuss the paper per se I think I don't have to include it.
-
Hahaha, can't WAIT to see those emails on the internet - and it's fair - it shows that we too think he's an arse.
-
Also discuss personal medical history of a person.
-
Ohhhh - HIPAA
-
Yes, no way the lawyers will allow those to go up. I not quite sure how I'm going to explain it all them though.?
-
Out of interest what is the situation with Slack? Presumably that is private communication?
-
Great quote for Bob which we should definitely put out "I think the approach for the paper should be totally agnostic."Slack is private.
-
Oh boy. :clown_face:
-
Aside from the crudity, what the emails show I think is that we took lab escape very seriously and that we genuinely worried about it. They do show that Jeremy was involved though and I can see that causing a stir....but there's zero smoking guns. Absolutely nothing.
-
I'm pretty sure we'll come out better by people seeing those emails - it should be clear that this is a thorough investigation.
-
Eddie, what's the language in the FOIA request? Can they even request this - I mean, US organization and you're inAustralia
-
Okie dokie - all good. Reading through our old emails, it's all good stuff + terrible jokes - I'm totally ok with that :wink:
-
Yes, it's just shitty jokes. I can't see usrtk.org going much better than "Emails reveal proximal origins authors'lamentable use of puns".
-
"I have to say that I am disappointed that he has not threatened to fuck my mother after our trashing of snake flu." -Eddie
-
I stand by that statement.
-
Boys, I win the day - this too I predicted. Apparently... [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-12-14 at 5.49.32 PM.png]
-
Although, Andrew gets some points for his response to my email too... :wink: [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-12-14 at 5.50.59 PM.png]
-
That one is definitely in.
-
The most likely emails of ours that could *possibly* be FOIAed are the ones with .gov email recipients. I don't think any of those are harmful - on the contrary.
-
I do want our suggested name of Wuhan Turtle Flu virus to show up somewhere.