Massachusetts Threatens Website For Publishing Info It Gave The Site After A FOIA Request

from the locking-up-of-information dept

Thu, Nov 11th 2010 10:28am — Mike Masnick

An anonymous reader sends over the news that the website MuckRock.com -- an open records website -- has received a threat letter from the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, concerning some food stamp data that MuckRock had published. How did MuckRock get the data? It had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, who gave it to them. Apparently, the department now realized that it released the data in error and is trying to erase the mistake by ordering the site to delete the info.

I am writing to inform you that certain information found on the website http://www.muckrock.com, which lists individual retailer redemptions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is posted in violation of federal law.. [sic] This information was erroneously released by the Department of Transitional Assistance to Spare Change News. Federal law prohibits release of such information under 7 U.S.C. 2018(9)(c), and 7 CFR 278.1(q).

Failure to remove this information may result in fines or imprisonment. 7 U.S.C. 2018(9)(c) (�any person who publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by Federal law (including a regulation) any information obtained under this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both).

The Department has told the press that it was the federal government which alerted it to the mistake and the department decided to inform the MuckRock owner that he might face potential legal problems from the federal government, but didn't intend the letter to be a direct threat from itself. Of course, now that the news of the demand has been made public, the original information will only get that much more attention...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: foia, freedom of information, massachusetts, threats

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

A Dan (profile), 11 Nov 2010 @ 10:34am

Not bad
It looks to me like the state has been completely reasonable in this case. I read it as more of a cautionary warning than a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2010 @ 10:36am

�any person who publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by Federal law (including a regulation) any information obtained under this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both"

Huh. Well, the Department of Transitional Assistance is going to jail then, aren't they? They published, divulged, disclosed, and made known this information.

Wait...what do you mean the law doesn't affect the government itself? What kinda crappy country allows that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 11 Nov 2010 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: Legal Recursion
  "Wait...what do you mean the law doesn't affect the government itself? What kinda crappy country allows that?"
  All of them... all of them.
  
  ; P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2010 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  No, the employee who filled the FOIA request without checking would be fined.
  
  The site didn't obtain the information illegally - in fact they believed they were making a legal request.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse, 12 Nov 2010 @ 6:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    And the site published it. Irregardless of how they obtained the information, the publication is illegal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Valis (profile), 23 Nov 2011 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      " Irregardless" is NOT a word!!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2010 @ 11:19am

so how many have now downloaded that spreadsheet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SuperSparky, 11 Nov 2010 @ 11:37am

To the extent allowed by Federal law
"...to the extent allowed by Federal law" means the U.S. Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution essentially states that the freedom of the press shall not be infringed. This trumps any so-called Federal law. If the New York Times cannot be prosecuted for divulging classified information, then neither can that website.

Once it's out there, it's out there and there's no taking it back. Next time, don't release the information, instead of trying to shift the blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SCOTUS, 11 Nov 2010 @ 11:52am

Bartnicki v Vopper (2001)
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

�.�.�.

As a general matter, �state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards.� Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97, 102 (1979). More specifically, this Court has repeatedly held that �if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need . . . of the highest order.� Id., at 103; see also Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978).

�.�.�.

�Bartnicki v Vopper (2001)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris in Utah (profile), 11 Nov 2010 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re: Bartnicki v Vopper (2001)
  Sounds like the perfect defense for wikileaks and all the other whack-a-moles like it ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2010 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: Bartnicki v Vopper (2001)
  "if a newspaper lawfully obtains..."
  
  This is where you hit a snag. The legality of the release of that information is under question. The state may not have had the legal right to release said information, therefore making it illegal for the site to have the information in the first place. Ignorance of this does not absolve them from following the law. That being said, since they couldn't have known that the information was illegally obtained, there's probably an argument there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2010 @ 1:46pm
    
    Re: Re: Bartnicki v Vopper (2001)
    But the website did not break any laws in obtaining the information, the individual/division that honored the FOIA request did. They followed the law, its just the agency decided not to follow it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2010 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Bartnicki v Vopper (2001)
    
    This is where you hit a snag.
    
    This is where you didn't read the case. From the court's opinion:
    
    The constitutional question before us concerns the validity of the statutes as applied to the specific facts of this case. Because of the procedural posture of the case, it is appropriate to make certain important assumptions about those facts. We accept petitioners� submission that the interception was intentional, and therefore unlawful, and that, at a minimum, respondents �had reason to know� that it was unlawful.
    
    (Emphasis added.)
    
    The court distills the issue into a simple question:
    
    Simply put, the issue here is this: �Where the punished publisher of information has obtained the information in question in a manner lawful in itself but from a source who has obtained it unlawfully, may the government punish the ensuing publication of that information based on the defect in a chain?�
    
    The court's bottom line answer to that question? Justice Stevens concludes:
    
    [A] stranger�s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 11 Nov 2010 @ 5:26pm

CYA??
Isn't this just a bit like insisting the site lock the barn door after the cow has left and walked down main street passing out milk as she passess?

If there's one primary truism about the Internet it's that once information is out there it's out there and no amount of "being helpful" or theatening is going to make it disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 12 Nov 2010 @ 8:24am

Perhaps using the acronym is actually detrimental. Let's all just say "Freedom of Information Act" request. That way there can be NO misunderstanding on the nature of the request.

Yes, this is a ridiculous idea, but now the acronym seems to obscure the meaning of the request. It's a request to free information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 12 Nov 2010 @ 10:00am

Transparency again
Normally, I am very impressed by your care in accurate reporting, and I continue to read your blog devotedly because of that. Here, you missed:
"Apparently, the department now realized that it released the data in error and is trying to erase the mistake by ordering the site to delete the info."
No. They were complying with Federal Law. Should the law be changed? Sure. Different issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]