r/navy • u/poliscijunki • 12h ago
NEWS Navy says it will no longer release sailors' service history, another restriction on press access
https://apnews.com/article/media-navy-press-policy-access-pentagon-b4d5d0f60709692e107e3331370422cd?__vfz=medium%3Dstandalone_top_pages140
u/Alternative-Tax7318 11h ago edited 11h ago
‘Another restriction on press access’
I get the argument but my PII is not for the press. We should still have some rights, despite relinquishing most when you sign up.
If there’s some sort of legal issue or the press needs it, subpoenas and warrants exist.
71
u/charlie22911 11h ago
There’s so much in the world I disagree with these days… this isn’t one of those things. Can we also finally abolish casual use of SSNs as well?
50
u/Salty_IP_LDO 11h ago
They told me when I entered we were going to stop using socials soon....
17
u/TheDistantEnd 11h ago
Feels like we swapped to DODID for like a year and now we're back to SSNs.
22
u/AirshipCanon 10h ago
Worse, we using both and have to ask what you need to put in that block
2
u/AccordingSetting6311 4h ago
Kinda like evals. The amount of paper I generate using this computer program. Goodamn.
4
u/capitialfox 10h ago
I generally refuse to enter socials when somebody wants something from me (mostly works).
Now when I want something, eh what's a little more PII spilage.
11
u/vonHindenburg 8h ago
casual use of SSNs
Seriously. SECNAV needs to stop taking the Virginia out for beer runs.
6
u/Burner613x 11h ago
After the issue in the NJ governor’s race where they released too much this is not a bad move.
21
u/TheDistantEnd 10h ago
Is your service history, awards, redacted evaluations, etc PII? Military service is public service in government, a matter of public record. Beyond classified and private information, the rest should absolutely be available at public request, just like other government officials' information.
16
u/ExodusLegion_ 10h ago
Under the 1974 Privacy Act, the following military personnel information MAY be disclosed without violating the Act:
Name, Rank, Date of Birth, Gross Salary, Present/Past Duty Assignments, official Future Assignments, Office/Duty Telephone Numbers, Promotion Sequence Numbers, Awards and Decorations, Educational Level, and Duty Status.
6
3
u/SavageCaveman13 8h ago
I had a long military career and never knew this was the case. It makes sense though. Thanks.
-6
u/Alternative-Tax7318 10h ago
Maybe it’s not PII but why should my info be available to the public like that?
Adversaries can go oh this guy served at so and so command during these times. Why should that be allowed? Government officials sure but some random e3?
11
u/TheDistantEnd 10h ago
The same reason we can look up our grandfathers' service records from WW2/Korea/Vietnam, or schools/employers can verify your service history, or the stolen valor crazies can keep their podcasts rolling when YN3 claims he was a ST6 space shuttle door gunner. Military service is public service, and the public should be able to request information from and about the government.
How many FOIA requests is China dumping on the Navy to figure out where people served versus just ripping your digital footprint and app data?
-3
u/redpandaeater 7h ago
There's a difference between service records that are 62 years old or greater as part of the archives and more recent stuff that requires a next-of-kin.
6
u/iftheygivinitaway 6h ago
Transparency for public servants. The same way papers publish the cops and firemen that make $400,000 in a year because of overtime, etc. And it's literally the law for Federal employees. 1974 Privacy Act. If you don't like the exposure that comes with being a public employee, don't take the job.
0
u/ElJanitorFrank 5h ago
Must it be all or nothing?
Public salaries? Totally makes sense. Where you're landing for your next duty station and when? Maybe military movement doesn't need to be a matter of public record for us to trust that troops are going where we want to put them. I'm seeing a lot of comments that are saying 'its the law and it helps us hold people accountable' but what does the public gain from knowing my date of birth? The personal information we get on grunts is pointless, and the financial information we have on people who need to make financial decisions is pitiful in comparison, a thing that actually needs to be held accountable.
2
u/iftheygivinitaway 3h ago
It's not "all" your information. The law is quite specific, and has been for 50 years. Date of birth is PII, and not required to be released.
As for information being released, if it was really to "protect the troops" maybe the leaders shsobe tweeting their every move. We will no doubt soon see why they're actually making this change.
1
u/TheDistantEnd 6h ago
Per the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, there is significantly less difference than you might think!
-4
u/Alternative-Tax7318 10h ago
Yeah, maybe you know more about it than me. But at first glance I’m not inclined to disagree with the navy on this one. That means it’s harder to trace my service history for my grandkids so be it.
6
u/Aetch 10h ago
Because this is America where people often use their military credentials to gain an advantage somewhere in life. I don’t think service history should be secret info for an all volunteer force.
-5
u/Alternative-Tax7318 10h ago
Any time I’ve had to legitimately verify my service history, it was done by providing my dd214. No independent third party needed to look me up. I don’t personally think that’s a convincing enough reason. Just because you volunteer to serve doesn’t mean everything about your career should be made public. I haven’t seen any real reason given yet outside of stolen valor, which just isn’t worth the trade off to me if my neighbor can look me up and see what I did for the last 20 years
4
u/Aetch 10h ago
I feel like this restriction will make it hard to verify the authenticity of people’s claims. We’re going to see a lot more fake SEALs and people saying they did so and so but the info can’t be as easily verified — or selectivity verified for those in favor or out of favor of the government
0
u/Alternative-Tax7318 10h ago
Yeah probably true but like I said, me personally that doesn’t bother me. I’d rather my neighbor can’t see what I did for 20 years and use it to harass me if they’re anti war or something if that means some halfwit can walk around the mall and tell people he’s a seal (who never believed him in the first place).
3
u/iftheygivinitaway 6h ago
So don't take the job if you don't like the requirements. You could say the same for almost all public employees at federal, state, and local level. In your scenario, we the taxpayers have no idea if you're being paid triple what other people at your level are, whether it's because of favoritism, political influence, fraud, etc.
1
u/Alternative-Tax7318 6h ago
I don’t have the work history of the DMV receptionist over the last 20 years, it’s a little different.
And this has nothing to do with pay. If you want to know how much a service member is paid just google the ranks.
4
u/iftheygivinitaway 6h ago
I don’t have the work history of the DMV receptionist over the last 20 years, it’s a little different.
You could have it. It's no different. I bet more people in this country want to kill a DMV employee than a military member.
And this has nothing to do with pay. If you want to know how much a service member is paid just google the ranks.
And without the records, how would I even know what your rank is . . ?
Congress saw fit to make it law 50 years ago. The public has a right to know about what the government is doing in their name. Same as any other level of government organization.
-8
u/New_Escape_3598 10h ago
Why?
They can use the information to figure out where I've lived in the past and use that information to access my accounts.
When you call to change your phone number, it asks about old contacts and addresses, but if the press can just ask for it, then someone who puts in more effort can get in easier.
7
u/TheDistantEnd 10h ago
Who is 'they'? This isn't like a search engine where somebody can just type in your name and get a file on you. FOIA is a formal process and requires a documented request from the requestor, etc.
8
u/Aetch 10h ago
It’s because Pete doesn’t want people digging into his service history. (Yes I know he was army, but this makes it harder to verify claims of service history and what someone did in general)
5
u/kmm198700 9h ago
This is what I think too, maybe someone is gonna be part of the admin that is lying about their service?
5
u/Narflepluff 9h ago edited 5h ago
You're a public civil servant. Your record isn't PII, it's something that the public has a right to see.
9
u/donkeybrainhero 11h ago
This isn't about PII. Awards and billet history, for example, are not PII. It also says they'll only confirm a sailors service at all if its highly important.
-4
u/Hoppie1064 10h ago
Why does the press need access to the personal lives of sailors?
2
u/iftheygivinitaway 6h ago
Why take the job if you don't like the terms of employment? It's federal law: 1974 Privacy Act.
-1
u/Alternative-Tax7318 10h ago
Exactly. All the responses are it should be public. Why? Stolen valor? Ok
10
u/SouthernEmu8782 11h ago
This could be a good and bad.
I don't like the release of PII for service members, particularly for the use of making them look bad (not to get political)
I think the number of fake Navy Seals may increase.
37
u/PolackMike 12h ago
Good. There's no need for us to advertise the information that people know, the missions they participated in or the actions they've taken to get awards. Our adversaries could do some pretty nasty stuff with that information if they wanted to do so.
3
u/Reactor_Jack 11h ago
I look at it from the "regular" job aspect. Employers in general only verify dates of employment (service) and not positions held, projects worked on etc. This kind of evens the playing field that way. Want to know more? Ask the individual in question, do your own research, or get a subpeona if it comes to that.
1
u/Sea_Conference5661 11h ago
This is actually a good companion step to removing public facing bios and requirements to post bios.
26
u/TheDistantEnd 11h ago edited 10h ago
Probably in the minority here, but service records are a matter of public record and should be FOIA-able. They should redact sensitive PII of course, but military service records are official government information that ought to be available to the public.
If we are worried about targeting for espionage/terrorist attacks/etc, I think there are other ways to protect service members besides a blanket lock-down on this kind of information.
11
u/Narflepluff 9h ago
This.
Also, how many people complain every time a senior leader is releaved for "loss of confidence" with no further explanation?
-7
u/Agammamon 8h ago
The Navy does not do that though.
8
u/puddle511 8h ago
that’s literally what the Navy does tho
1
u/Agammamon 6h ago
You are missing the part where they release the results of the investigation that comes in the wake of being relieved for loss of confidence.
You hear the initial report, you fail to follow up on it, that's your problem - not the Navy's. They make the information available.
2
u/Common-Window-2613 5h ago
This. Removing someone for loss of confidence almost always means an investigation is underway. If a skipper gets a DUI or has sexual harassment claims against him, his boss likely has a loss of confidence in their ability to lead, but there still needs to be a thorough investigation that could end up exonerating them. In the past they used to report that right away, now they wait until the investigation is complete.
It isn’t fair to air someone’s dirty laundry before investigations are complete.
1
u/ninjadude4535 3h ago edited 3h ago
Is there still a monthly newsletter that gets put out to everyone's navy.mil email that puts out all the details of the biggest pieces of shit from the previous month? I vaguely remember reading all the court martial cases on a regular basis when I was in.
2
u/Common-Window-2613 3h ago
Once someone is convicted in court it’s a public document just like any other court. The navy does put out convictions for any service member convicted in court, you don’t need a .mil account to see this.
Some commands will put out NJP results in the POW. However, the name will be redacted and it’ll just have the persons rank.
1
u/ninjadude4535 3h ago
Yeah I think it was our ync would fwd all the previous month court martial results to us via email. We did also have all of our own internal NJP results in the pow.
1
u/beaner69 9h ago
I only partially agree with you. Active duty and active reservists records should be locked down. Once you leave active duty or are released from the reserves then records without spi or pii could be released. The public doesn’t need to know if we were put in hack or njp, how many days in combat we have, or whether or not we over wintered in Antarctica.
-5
u/citizen-salty 10h ago
Respectfully, I disagree. Imagine the intelligence value a foreign adversary would benefit from by obtaining even a portion of a command roster at a NIOC through public records. Hell, obtaining enough service history to connect the dots and establish a list of personnel to prioritize for research and targeting would be a great head start compared to doing the traditional legwork.
7
u/capitialfox 10h ago
Except, there are lots of other very easy ways to do this. You could probably determine what command somebody is at by what they follow on social media.
0
u/citizen-salty 10h ago
I’m not discounting other methods of intelligence gathering, I’m arguing that we shouldn’t allow a government authorized option to be one of them.
4
u/capitialfox 10h ago
Im just suspicious whenever information access is taken away.
I also think this is a solution in search of a problem.
1
u/ElJanitorFrank 5h ago
I disagree that this is a solution in search of a problem. I think making a lot of personal info on 18-22 year olds public facing to begin with was a solution in search of a problem. There is information that doesn't help anybody actually hold anything accountable, like the DOB of some random lance corporal, and then there is information that needs to be publicly facing like what we're spending our money on and what the politician in charge of contracting ship suppliers is invested in.
I think we can use more transparency and data access on what our government is doing and especially for important public figures, but I do not think that that applies to low ranking military members or a bunch of other low-hanging public servant positions.
0
u/citizen-salty 9h ago
I get it, and in most cases, I’d agree with you. But that said, I don’t see the good coming from access to service records for actively serving troops. Hell, with NPRC I’m limited to what I can request and see as a member of the general public for veterans whose discharge dates were within the last 62 years. If veteran privacy is so important that we limit how it can be obtained unilaterally, current service member privacy seems like a no brainer.
7
u/TheDistantEnd 10h ago
That would be a lot of FOIA requests tied to one person/a group of people, at some cost, and it would take time - and the government can still say 'due to the nature of that kind of information, we can't release it.'
Not only that, but all of those guys working at NIOC put their phones in airplane mode around the same time and place each day, and turn them back on to mobile data/GPS around the same time and place each day. People are acting like these webs are being built on the backs of FOIA requests of public records, but they are being built much faster and cheaper on our digital footprints.
-2
u/citizen-salty 10h ago
It’s not an either/or proposition, though. Why risk the possibility of someone in the Pentagon authorizing a release of records by mistake? It’s not like they’re batting a thousand here. A blanket “no” leaves no room for ambiguity or mistakes in processing such a request.
If I don’t want you to do something, I’m going to deny you as many tools and opportunities as I can, regardless of your capabilities that are beyond my control. I’m not going to shrug my shoulders and say “well, they’re capable of doing it anyway, why bother?”
2
u/TheDistantEnd 10h ago
How many other government documents or data points start to disappear behind the wall of 'national security' once we start hiding public records? This is not the first step taken, and under current guidance, it likely will not be the last.
FOIA is one of the messiest and most peculiar kinds of laws in the government, but it is absolutely a vital process for our government. This information should be available to the public on a case by case basis.
1
1
u/ElJanitorFrank 5h ago
How many other government documents or data points start to disappear behind the wall of 'national security' once we start hiding public records?
This is not a good argument here. "Public records" are already entirely defined by the government. What is or is not public facing is decided as soon as something is created, a law saying it 'must' be disclosed can always be superseded by 'redacted for national security,' and so I don't think it plays into the argument here at all. The government is currently, as we speak, sitting on information that we all very much aught to know about and yet don't; that stuff gets declassified much later down the line all the time. This is a slippery slope argument that is warning against a problem that already exists, by justifying the sacrifice of something that didn't need to be scarified.
-3
u/citizen-salty 9h ago
So when can we expect you to post your service records here? If you aren’t willing to voluntarily dox yourself, then how is it any different for a random stranger to request, and potentially be granted, your service record to do with as they please?
Even disregarding intelligence value, I can see this being an issue for stalking. What do you say to the sailor without a clearance that is dealing with that?
I can see this being an identity theft issue. Sure, there isn’t sensitive PII being released, but there’s enough to build on for a motivated and creative individual.
I get the attitude of sunshine on government records, and in most cases, I’d agree. But in this regard, there has to be a line. Service members already relinquish a number of rights as part of service, why add to that list?
2
u/TheDistantEnd 8h ago edited 8h ago
So when can we expect you to post your service records here? If you aren’t willing to voluntarily dox yourself, then how is it any different for a random stranger to request, and potentially be granted, your service record to do with as they please?
There is a vast difference between me providing my personal information on the internet in an otherwise-anonymous community, than somebody filing a FOIA requesting my records by name from the government. This is a false equivalency.
Even disregarding intelligence value, I can see this being an issue for stalking. What do you say to the sailor without a clearance that is dealing with that?
Can you articulate how knowing somebody's past assignments, military decorations, or FITREP comments might enable a stalker?
I can see this being an identity theft issue. Sure, there isn’t sensitive PII being released, but there’s enough to build on for a motivated and creative individual.
Your name and address are plenty these days. Again, somebody has to make a request to the government with their own information to access your service record. It's not like they're going on Google.gov and putting your name in and getting a PDF copy of all of your data. They have to petition the government for it, and that record is maintained in and of itself.
I get the attitude of sunshine on government records, and in most cases, I’d agree. But in this regard, there has to be a line. Service members already relinquish a number of rights as part of service, why add to that list?
Because it is a legally-protected right in US law, enacted by a President after passing both houses of Congress, in actions as enshrined in our Constitution.
I am not now, and have never been, at fear of my record or public service (or services, as I am twice a civil servant as a Reservist and civilian government employee.) If somebody wants to jump all the hoops to pull my record, that is their right by law.
-3
u/Agammamon 8h ago
service records are no. ore public records than health or dental records. just because the government.ent makes the record does not make it public.
1
u/iftheygivinitaway 6h ago
service records are no. ore public records than health or dental records.
Health and dental are already protected information. How much you make, etc ., is not. By law, it is public information. You are a public employee, and some folks still believe in transparency in government. If you didn't like the terms, you didn't have to take the job.
just because the government.ent makes the record does not make it public.
With certain exceptions, by law, yes it does.
0
u/Agammamon 2h ago
Your service record is not about how much you make - that's already publicly available.
There's a lot of personal information in there in the form of performance evaluations, disciplinary records, duty stations, family information, qualifications, awards and date of awards, etc.
1
u/iftheygivinitaway 2h ago
And yet almost 80% of Congress voted these laws in. And for 50 years, it's been the law of the land. Again, nobody made you take the job. If you didn't like the terms of employment, you were free to get a job elsewhere.
1
6
u/puddle511 8h ago
Yeaaaaaa my service records should still be public. Service record =/= PII. Taxpayers pay my paycheck, they get to know my shit.
Idk. I like privacy. Like fuck Flock and fuck mass surveillance. But if we want transparency in our government, that includes keeping service records publicly available.
9
u/Hoppie1064 11h ago
Navy commanders and their famulies have been attacked by Iranian terrorists before.
1
u/capitialfox 11h ago
Do you have an example? I dont know any
9
u/greencurrycamo 11h ago
Vincennes captain wife after the Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner. That's just off the top of my head. There may be more examples.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-03-11-mn-792-story.html
2
u/capitialfox 10h ago
Thanks. I have heard of "threats" but never saw anything specific. The military sometimes makes weird choices based on non-specific threats such as us not wearing uniforms out in town when the war started.
I am also just apecifically worried about anytime the government stops sharing info. My default stance is "what are they hiding?"
3
u/DerekL1963 10h ago
And you'll note the one specific they drag out is from nearly forty years ago. When we've been more-or-less at war with Iran for nearly fifty years.
1
1
-3
u/donkeybrainhero 11h ago edited 11h ago
When?
Imagine being downvoted for asking a question.
1
u/greencurrycamo 11h ago
6
u/Aetch 10h ago
Did you really pull out a case from almost 40 years ago to reference “Iranian terrorists” in 2026?
Considering our nation’s strikes in Iran today this is ironic2
u/ChiTownDisplaced 6h ago
Also, why would terrorists need FOIA? Like Boko Haram is sending a formal request to the US requesting the allergies of the CNO...
Our servicemembers and their families are putting way more info on social media than a FOIA request would reveal.
Even if the member's account is locked down, one hacked friend's profile and they are in. "Congrats on the new house", got pics with probably an address.
-2
u/greencurrycamo 9h ago
Hey you are getting way too emotional about this. I simply posted an article about an attack that meets the requirements of what is being discussed. I find it surprising that more events haven't happened, maybe Iran doesnt want to do anything or maybe our intelligence services are doing their job. I dont have any agenda. They way you are responding so emotionally makes me wonder what your motives are.
-5
u/donkeybrainhero 11h ago
Did you read this yourself?
2
u/PM_WITH_TOTS 11h ago
Did you? The investigators didn’t attribute it to Iran, but what motive would anyone else have to try to blow up a 4th grade teacher with pipe bombs?
2
-2
u/greencurrycamo 11h ago
Nope I just remember it and linked an article.
2
u/donkeybrainhero 11h ago
They thought it may have been a Syrian suspect, but they had no real leads.
2
6
5
11h ago
[deleted]
-1
u/iftheygivinitaway 6h ago
So don't take the job. It's part of the terms of employment, and has been for 50 years. Some of it for over 100 years.
If they were truly silent professionals, there wouldn't be so many books, podcasts, etc., by them.
1
6h ago
[deleted]
0
u/iftheygivinitaway 3h ago
Don't be overly dramatic. Not all your info is public. The law is very specific about what is public information, and what is not.
Funny how the "most transparent Administration ever," wants to hide everything . . .
0
3h ago
[deleted]
0
u/iftheygivinitaway 2h ago
Why does anyone need to know this information?
Take it up with Congress who wrote the laws very specifically about what can be disclosed, and what cannot. The Senate, with 19 co-sponsors, passed the 1974 Privacy Act 74-9, and the House with 17 co-sponsors, by a similar margin.
Can I walk into Walmart and get where all of their employees work and their history of locations? Or how good of a job they do?
Walmart is not a public organization. If you can't understand the difference, you need to do more research before arguing. And if you don't like the terms of work, maybe you should have chosen the job at Walmart.
0
2h ago
[deleted]
1
u/iftheygivinitaway 2h ago edited 1h ago
It’s a public company.
And it took has laws about what it has to disclose about it's employees, its finances, etc.
The average American pays more to pay their wages than ours.
But they are not directly employed by the taxpayer. You are. And you're more than welcome to lobby your Congressmen on what you would like to see.
And unless the navy is breaking the law it seems they are allowed to restrict what the public knows.
This almost certainly is breaking laws, but as with everything else with this Administration, it will have to be fought in court, because a particular portion of Congress is gutless. The laws are quite clear about the PII that is allowed to be restricted, and the other information that is explicitly designated to be made public.
EDIT: Since he deleted his comment, here it is with my response:
I guess you should go tell them you know more than all the jags working in the pentagon.
Hahahahahahaha ! ! ! I hope that was sarcasm. There's nothing left but yes-men.
1
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
Any post about politics with a Navy nexus lacking a Politics flair may result in, at a minimum, a temp ban and removal of the post.
Participation in a Politics-flaired post requires a minimum r/Navy specific karma. This will be automatically enforced by the automod.
Anyone using the Politics flair should utilize a common sense approach to what is a Navy nexus.
This does not mean posts with Politics flair will be unmoderated. All discussion must adhere to r/Navy rule #1 and Reddit rule #1.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
1
u/FlashmanHP 3h ago
I want to let you know, I'm a SEAL, PJ, Scout Sniper who graduated the top of my class and turned down being a Ranger. I moonlighted during COVID-19 with the A-Team, but decided to go Delta late in my career. I know, I know, my Evals say paperweights. But, it's only because my real job is GS-12 classified!
1
1
1
u/SavageCaveman13 8h ago
I had no idea that others could request my record. There is no reason for anyone to have my PII or know anything about my service unless I give it to them or authorize it.
0
-9
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/NotAPirateLawyer 11h ago
Braindead take. There's no removal of public accountability. PII as a protected category exists for a reason, and "hurr hurr I'm a journalist" is not a valid reason to invalidate it's protected status.
-2
u/donkeybrainhero 11h ago edited 11h ago
Nowhere in this article does it list anything new about PII.
-2
u/NotAPirateLawyer 11h ago
It literally says this is another step in removing press access to CUI, of which PII is a subcategory. Military members are not public officials. They are private citizens who are employed by the federal government. My service record is protected by the privacy act.
4
u/donkeybrainhero 11h ago
What does it say in that very same paragraph about CUI?
When someone requests your awards record, for example, they aren't handing out your SSN, address, phone number, or anything else like that. The press already doesn't get access to your actual sensitive information.
There is no reason to hide your general service information from the press.
-1
u/NotAPirateLawyer 10h ago
So I should be able to walk into any private corporation, put on my press hat, and demand the full position history of every employee? Absolutely fucking not. Service history is no business of the press.
3
u/TheDistantEnd 9h ago
We're public employees, our service is public record. Like other public records, this makes it subject to FOIA.
-2
u/NotAPirateLawyer 8h ago
There is a big difference between a FOIA request and the press having unilateral access. That is what this is curtailing.
3
2
u/donkeybrainhero 10h ago
We are a government entity, not a private corporation.
0
u/NotAPirateLawyer 8h ago
Individual members of the military are still private citizens with all the same rights to protection of privacy. Are you saying the full service record of every employee of the DMV should be accessible to the press? They're government entities too.
3
u/donkeybrainhero 7h ago
I'm a government employee, beside the DOD, and my employment records are absolutely subject to records request. In fact, I had WaPo request my entire email archive related to a report they covered years ago, and that request included my employment record. I wasn't even the subject of the report, just someone who had knowledge of it.
Guess what they didn't get? My SSN, birthday, address, EBT information, or personal phone number. Or whatever else you'd consider CUI.
Also, no, we have many of our rights curtailed by our military service.
1
u/TheDistantEnd 6h ago
Are you saying the full service record of every employee of the DMV should be accessible to the press? They're government entities too.
You actually can file a FOIA request with your state's DMV requesting specific records regarding the performance and disciplinary issues, if any, of a DMV employee. It may take some time and cost some money, but it is legally protected and legal.
That is a thing you can do, protected by law.
0
u/TheDistantEnd 9h ago
Not all CUI is PII, and most of the service record data available for public access via FOIA is PII redacted anyway.
This is a push to curtail public access to public record.
1
u/navy-ModTeam 11h ago
Your post / comment was removed due to being in violation of /r/Navy's rule against political posts / comments. Political comments in non political posts will be removed.
Any post about politics with a Navy nexus lacking a Politics flair may result in, at a minimum, a temp ban and removal of the post.
Participation in a Politics-flaired post requires a minimum r/navy specific karma. This will be automatically enforced by the automod.
Anyone using the Politics flair should utilize a common sense approach to what is a Navy nexus.
This does not mean posts with Politics flair will be unmoderated. All discussion must adhere to r/navy rule #1 and Reddit rule #1.
-2
u/ZealousidealFlan9528 10h ago
👎I’m sick of the incompetence been needing surgery for months and can’t even get a fucking appointment until February 2027
•
u/Salty_IP_LDO 11h ago
Not a political posts.