Techdirt Files FOIA Requests Concerning ICE 'Anti-Piracy' Videos

from the digging-in dept

Mon, May 16th 2011 12:50pm — Mike Masnick

Earlier today, I filed three Freedom of Information requests concerning the infamous "anti-piracy PSA" that Homeland Security's ICE division started placing on domains it seized. As we noted at the time, the videos were not new and not created by ICE. Instead, they were part of a campaign put together by New York City with the help of NBC Universal and the MPAA. The scripts of the videos were misleading, and I was troubled by the idea that the federal government would be playing corporately produced and funded propaganda, with the imprimatur of the Department of Homeland Security. I asked a series of friendly (non-aggressive) questions to Brian Hale, officially the spokesperson for ICE within the Department of Homeland Security about where they got the video and how much was paid for it. Hale and Homeland Security apparently decided not to comment at all, despite multiple email requests.

Separately, I made requests to the City of New York, to get their side of the story, but after being asked who I was reporting for, what "the nature" of my story was and who else I was talking to (all of which I answered honestly), I received no further response from the City of New York.

Thus, the three Freedom of Information requests -- filed using the new system from MuckRock.com, an open government tool that seeks to publish documents retrieved via such requests and which recently built a tool to make it easier to make such requests (which I'm now testing) -- are as follows:

A FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security, concerning the details of any licensing agreement with the City of New York or with NBC Universal directly.
A request under NY State's Freedom of Information Law concerning details of any licensing agreement with Homeland Security concerning the same videos.
Separately, a second request to NYC, concerning communications between the Mayor's Office and NBC Universal or the MPAA concerning the details behind those videos as well

The NY State law says that the city must respond to my request within five business days. DHS has a longer period of time to respond. Honestly, it's silly that I had to file such requests. Homeland Security could have easily cleared this up weeks ago by answering my simple questions concerning how the federal government licensed this video. The fact that it has refused to do so necessitated this formal approach, unfortunately.

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: dhs, foia, freedom of information, new york city
Companies: mpaa, nbc universal

74 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 12:59pm

LOL

"hey Bob, that guy that writes the piracy love blog is on the phone again..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re:
  Hey Bob, another anonymous troll is trying to make fun of TD and failing miserably.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    LOL
    
    "hey Bob, that guy thinks the word freetard is offensive to the handi-capable..."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Qritiqal (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL
      
      Maybe if you LOL enough you'll increase your self esteem to the level that most human beings achieve in the 8th grade.
      
      (and yes, I LOL'ed too because I'm also mentally stuck in the 8th grade -- or thereabouts)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 6:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Considering that I /am/ handicapped (wheelchair most of the time and legally blind), I should take offense to that. It's difficult to, however, with the person behind that comment among the mentally challenged.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andy, 17 May 2011 @ 5:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey Bob (most popular guy in the office?), weneedhelp doesn't like a wee jokey joke it turns out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  "Thanks for the heads up, Joe. Better pay some more shills to troll his blog."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re: Response
  > "hey Bob, that guy that writes the piracy
  > love blog is on the phone again..."
  
  So you're suggesting the government should only respond to publications with whose point of view it agrees?
  
  Despite being granted no such discretion in the FOIA law?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 3:12pm
    
    Re: Re: Response
    no he is saying that if the person requesting disagrees with they they can ignore him until he makes a FOIA request. Then they can tell him it costs $100,000 to get a team of interns to track down what he wants, redact everything but pronouns, and make a copy.
    
    Only give information to people that agree with you unless otherwise forced by stupid "law." Sharing information leads to informed debate which is the last thing we want. Besides pirates share information, you dont want to be a pirate do you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 6:46am
    
    Re: Re: Response
    > So you're suggesting the government should
    > only respond to publications with whose point
    > of view it agrees?
    
    No. He's suggesting that the government is so deeply connected with the copyright maximalists that they call them to laugh about a lawful FOIA request.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:01pm

I filed three Freedom of Information requests
You're on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: I filed three Freedom of Information requests
  Mike, I hate to say it, but that was my first thought as well. My next thought was "/unsubscribe", for which I am not proud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- One_of_the_Norm (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: I filed three Freedom of Information requests
  Which is good, because with the potential offender* filing information requests the government officials now have "documented proof of subversive activities" toward the government. Which makes it easier to legally fight the offender* when the offender* complains or attempts to sue after finding the newly hidden GPS tracker under his/her car.
  
  Which was placed there using completely legitimate "court documents" that just happen to be filed over... ummmm... hmmm... well that isn't important, we'll get back to you on the location later.
  
  (*subnote offender: see entry for 'anyone who questions government activities or actions' in local references)
  
  --sarcasm over, returning to your normally scheduled program--
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta**, 16 May 2011 @ 1:03pm

Not happening
Nope. Not going to happen. Those documents and anything else of the government are related to National Security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: Not happening
  Maybe wikileaks can leak a classified document concerning a governmental evaluation over how many federal agencies it takes to screw in a light bulb?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Smarta**, 16 May 2011 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Not happening
    No need. It takes five government agencies and sixteen defense contractors. First they have to evaluate the national security impact of the bulb, the socket, the wiring, and each and every photon. Then they have to evaluate the amount of electricity, where it's coming from, how the bulb got there, who made the socket, the bulb, the filament, and the wall mount. They need to make sure classified information isn't going to leak through the bulb in the form of infrared heat. They they get the sixteen contractors to do the work, design the system of screwing in the bulb appropriately, and then evaluate it's functioning for the next thirty-six years, thereby costing the taxpayers about $1.2 trillion dollars....
    
    But it will create a few jobs... so the plan is a success. Hooray!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TypoFlood (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not happening
      Now we just need to figure out how many federal agencies it takes to answer this FOIA request. Maybe another leak is in order to answer that question.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 11:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not happening
        Twelve federal agencies, three Senators and Cleetus the Slack-jawed Yokel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chuck, 17 May 2011 @ 6:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not happening
      Actually it depends on the agency.
      Some of them have been working in the dark for years now.
      No light bulbs necessary.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - revwillie56, 17 May 2011 @ 3:32am
    
    Re: Re: Not happening
    Better to ask for government documents concerning federal documents, programs, research into how many Federal Agencies it takes to screw in a light bulb and the taxpayer cost of each report. $1.2 trllion per year as appropriated by Congress for each Federal Department to have their own maintainace department - ignoring each department has their own appropriations department to buy a light bulb which costs anywhere between $80 to $0.39 depending on how, where, and allowed to buy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:07pm

"Techdirt Files..."
Isn't it more like "Mike Masnick files"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re: "Techdirt Files..."
  For a minute I thought that said "flies" and I was like OH MY GOD FLYING PIRATES. Phew... Anyway what is your point exactly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Re: "Techdirt Files..."
  By that thinking, we should start assigning personal names to actions of the music and movie industries to manipulate the government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:08pm

I certain
You'll likely get results in 10 to 36 months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: I certain
  Hope he doesn't have to wait that long. By that point Masnick will likely have had an aneurysm due to increased record sales...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:14pm
    
    Re: Re: I certain
    Still holding your breath in hopes that killing Limewire will save the recording industry? We may have to call Guinness by the time that's done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I certain
      "Save" the record industry? LOL
      
      Hate to break this to ya bud, but your best chance to "kill the recording industry" was about 7-8 years ago.
      
      And it didn't happen.
      
      And it quite obviously isn't going to happen now.
      
      boo-hoo :(
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        So, "Piracy" isn't a problem, then?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        only if it being a problem aids him in insulting people
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        He is an insult to people with aids, I concur.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        Anytime someone else is making money off my work instead of me, we have a problem.
        
        But we're getting that problem addressed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        So piracy's not a problem then? After all if I pirate your stuff, all I'm doing is listening to it, not making any money off it.
        
        Right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        oooohh you are one of those guys that thinks pirates are making money off of pirating
        
        no wonders everything you say sounds so stupid
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        Didn't you know? Pirates go around stealing hundreds of songs from wayward musicians, then they put them in a chest and bury it on a remote island until the statute of limitations has passed. Then they follow their map, dig it up and live in luxury for the rest of their days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 2:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        Not enough Accountancy Shanty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        oooohh you are one of those guys that thinks pirates are making money off of pirating
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Gorton
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        ok so you have an example of one guy who tried to make money of off other people infringing....
        
        remind me, how did that work out for him?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        So the recording industry is a problem for musicians? Good to know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        Yeah, right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        Honestly, you're right (probably unintentionally). The recording industry is not just the RIAA and their labels, but a larger group of people that will always be needed. If copyright was abolished tomorrow and downloading songs was legalized, the recording industry wouldn't flinch, the music industry wouldn't flinch. The RIAA would die a horrible, flaming death, and reality would just shrug them off like the bad idea they are. The music will still flow and so will the money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        The RIAA is a non-profit trade organization.
        
        Care to try again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        RIAA is a non-profit
        
        Yeah, and the mob doesn't exist.
        
        I'll give you that on paper, "legally" they're non-profit. But that's just because the labels needed a non-profit group to funnel all that money to politicians.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 5:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        It's also shorthand for the labels affiliated with them. Try to keep up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 16 May 2011 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        "The RIAA is a non-profit trade organization."
        
        and scientology is a religion
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        NO WHERE do I find that that RIAA is a non-profit. Trade organizations can be for profit, non-profit, or not for profit. All three have differences. Care to cite where the RIAA is a non-profit?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        buck lateral (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        go to Guidestar and look at their 990
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TypoFlood (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        "The RIAA is a non-profit trade organization."
        
        All that means is that they don't pay taxes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 2:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        So that union-busting law in Wisconsin would actually break the RIAA? SWEET!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        Hate to break this to ya bud, but your best chance to "kill the recording industry" was about 7-8 years ago.
        
        If I wasn't at work, I'd find a Youtube link to the Monty Python "I'm not dead yet" scene.
        
        ...I feel happy! I feeeeeeeel happy! I feeeeeeel
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 2:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        I think Ill go for a walk...
        
        you're not fooling anyone!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 2:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I certain
        Strange then that I have never seen a record sold in the last 7yrs.. all I see are crappy CD's by wannabee marketing hyped artists using computers to mask that they cannot actually sing...
        
        When we had 'records' at least we could get some good, though expensive, music by the 'recording industry' since they were not wasting all their money on their egos, or legal fishing expeditions and instead spent it on the actual music industry and strategic positioning.. ie: Not going to Youtube/***IDOL to grab the latest wannabee star
        
        The Music Industry will never die, humanity has too much of a cultural history with music. The Recording Industry on the other hand.. Ever seen what happens when you cut a chickens head off? Just before it falls over stone dead and plucked.. it races around all over the p[lace doing nothing much but spewing out gore and bile onto anything it touches.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 10:17pm
    
    Re: Re: I certain
    By that point Masnick will likely have had an aneurysm due to increased record sales...
    
    ROTFLMAO! You actually believe that bull your touting? Hilarious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: I certain
  Only because the information would have already leaked by then. No point in not releasing it once its leaked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steven (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re: I certain
    Actually once it leaks it's even more important to pretend it's secret and demand that everybody pretend it doesn't exist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:12pm

FOIA Request
Do you have to be a journalist to file an FOIA request? Why does that have anything to do with anything? Shouldn't I, as a regular citizen, be able to file one just for the hell of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: FOIA Request
  The answer to your first question is "no".
  
  To your second "nothing".
  
  To your third "yes".
  
  Bear in mind that FOIA is the name associated with the federal government.
  
  Each state generally has its own nomenclature.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2011 @ 6:39am
  
  Re: FOIA Request
  Anyone can file a FOIA but depending on what you ask for you may end up paying for the reproduction cost of what you are looking for unless you can justify a wavier of cost.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:13pm

Aren't they the ones?
Isn't it them and their blind followers who are always saying that if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to hide when they are pushing for more transparency in our daily lives?
Interesting that they wouldn't respond then when we are asking them to be open about operations that are funded with OUR tax dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re: Aren't they the ones?
  "if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to hide"
  
  that is why they hide so much
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:13pm

*waits for TD homepage to be replaced with ICE anti-piracy PSA*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  I chuckled too, but seriously, who here with an ounce of sense (sorry Joe) doesn't believe that is exactly what will happen the day after PROTIP or one of its clones is passed? I need to jot down TD's IP address...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:31pm

Response time
FOIA allows 5 days to not actually provide a response to the questions, just an acknowledgement of receipt of request and an estimated cost to the inquisitor (staff time to recover information, copies, etc., if any) and date when the pertinent information is available to you. Or a rejection. Keep your fingers crossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zangetsu (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 1:38pm

Bravo
Although you cannot see it, I am standing up and applauding your efforts. I look forward to the results.
So if this video is hosted on a government site, can it be taken down by ICE, because that would truly be funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: Bravo
  Are you typing with your feet then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Bravo
    Since most keyboards are on a desk that's about waist-high, I shudder to think what he's typing with.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:38pm

So they come back someday and send info, so what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 1:57pm

Prediction:

1. The government will attempt to block MuckRock.com, presumably by declaring that they arbitrarily don't have to obey FOIA requests associated with them.
2. A lawsuit (with the support of interested parties like the EFF) will, after a lengthy court battle, declare that the government does, in fact, have to respond to FOIA requests.
3. The government will try somewhere between 0 and 3 more attempts to get out of responding to the FOIA requests. Each time, it will be decided (at taxpayer's expense) that they do, in fact, have to respond to FOIA requests.
4. After kicking and screaming for months, the government will finally give in and respond to the FOIA requests, which will reveal nothing particularly controversial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 2:42pm

What happens when they present a bill for $1,000,000?
So what happens when they say that it will cost an absurd amount of money to hand over the information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Webster (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 3:27pm

ICE Technological Prowess
You have to remember who we're dealing with here. ICE is not even capable of generating a random number!

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216721/Computer_glitch_forces_U.S._to_cancel_visa _lottery_results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 16 May 2011 @ 8:05pm
  
  Re: ICE Technological Prowess
  Wait...
  
  You mean to tell me, we have a lottery to allow people in the US...
  
  We don't get them for any skill...
  We don't get them for any number of jobs that they might be good for society...
  
  We get them because they had the most luck.
  
  *facepalm*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 6:00am
    
    Re: Re: ICE Technological Prowess
    Hey, if it works for Europe...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fredrik, 17 May 2011 @ 7:18am

Do they have it?
Does the DHS have a license to show the video? Or should www.dhs.gov be put on notice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LaughingalltheWay (profile), 17 May 2011 @ 12:46pm

Gee
A true journalist, jumping in to defend the rights of pirates everywhere. Awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 1:24am
  
  Re: Gee
  A true journalist, jumping in to defend the rights of pirates everywhere. Awesome.
  
  Odd statement. This has nothing to do with defending piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]