FBI Almost Entirely Arbitrary In Redacting Info On Freedom Of Information Requests
from the transparency dept
The officials rules from the Obama Administration, when it comes to Freedom of Information requests, is that the default view should be the transparent one. In practice, we've seen exactly the opposite. Studies have shown that the Obama Administration has turned down FOIA requests at a greater rate than the previous administration (which was already pretty damn secretive) and often uses political reasons, rather than genuine secrecy reasons to hide information (for example, claiming ACTA had to be secret for national security reasons).The EFF (which the administration has highlighted internally as an organization deserving more political scrutiny before documents can be released to it) has now pointed out that it appears that the FBI has extremely arbitrary standards for figuring out what to redact when complying with FOIA requests. Specifically, the EFF asked for multiple documents on two separate occasions and was amazed to find that the redactions were entirely different -- even if the reasons for the redactions were the same:
Through a careful comparison of thousands of pages of documents we received from this FOIA request with the same documents we received from an earlier FOIA request, we found that redactions in many of these duplicated documents were strikingly different. In several cases, the FBI redacted more information in later-produced documents than it did in earlier-produced documents. In other cases, the FBI redacted differing amounts of information when it produced two copies of the same report in response to the same FOIA request. Sometimes the agency blocked out whole paragraphs, while at other times it blocked out only the key words that explain the details of its acts. What is interesting is that the FBI claimed the same FOIA exemptions in each version; it just applied them differently.What's most troubling is that the documents in question had to do with evidence of the FBI's own misconduct. So, if it's being arbitrary in figuring out what to redact, what's to stop it from just redacting the information it doesn't want to get out? The EFF page discussing this has some funky "slider" functionality that lets you look at the two different versions of redacted documents to see how the redactions appear to change quite arbitrarily. As the EFF notes, there might be less public demand for things like Wikileaks if the US government wasn't so secretive in such an arbitrary manner.
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: eff, fbi, freedom of information, redactions
Companies: eff, fbi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The glass is always half empty around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's just not always full of liquid, sometimes it's 50% liquid, 50% air, sometimes it's 100% liquid, 0% air, sometimes it's even 0% liquid, 100% air....
But we can definitively say that the glass is always FULL (of something anyway).... where does BS fit into the above scenario, as there is usually some of that floating around as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI: 1) redact things properly and 2) Do it ONCE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arbitrary government actions
But the EFF folks who discovered this result the inefficient way, exhibit some of the same qualities by not using the information itself, to ask certain effective questions that would effect the FBI being unable to escape a resolution on public record (resolve the contradiction), to the extent that the entire concept of government secrecy could be openly jeopardized, much to the amusement of thinking people.
Respectfully, DougBuchanan.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]