Justice Department Wants To Be Able To Lie In Response To Freedom Of Information Requests
from the how-the-doj-views-freedom dept
The era of government anti-transparency continues. Reports have come out about a proposal from the Justice Department to allow federal agencies to flat-out lie in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. No, we're not joking. Under current law, documents that don't need to be revealed -- for national security reasons, for example -- lead to a response saying that the government "can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records." That, at least, leads to the possibility of an appeal and potential court case to make sure the government is legally allowed to withhold such documents.However, the new DOJ proposal would let federal agencies go even further, and flat-out deny the existence of documents it doesn't believe are subject to release -- even if they exist. And while it's true that people could still appeal, most people are much less likely to do so if they believe that the documents don't exist, rather than being told that they may be there, but the government just doesn't want to reveal them.
This seems like a stunning move by the government that goes beyond even its general opacity on FOIA requests. To seek permission to flat out lie to the public just seems ethically and legally dubious.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Crooked Politicians...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You expect TRUTH from governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You expect TRUTH from governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You expect TRUTH from governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You expect TRUTH from governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You expect TRUTH from governments?
You look very impressive riding upon your high horse.
In the absence of a citation let's assume this statistic is correct. Where do these donations go? Given the high probability that at least some of these donations are going to fund political campaigns and PACs, your horse begins to look a bit smaller. Also, wth do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fools. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do think you can 'corrupt' any1 if using the right methods (who wouldn't cave in if some1 threatened their family?) but that's discussion for another day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A patriot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Only two types of people can disagree with the person holding a gun to their head: professionals and maniacs, and most people can't tell the difference, anyways..."
-(roughly) Mass Effect 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holding a gun to my CHILDREN'S head, the mother of my children's head, or my parents head? I am very sure I would cave immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Glad to see you signed in, instead of posting in every story as an Anonymous Coward.
BTW, why isn't Marcus signing in?
;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why would a person want to become President? It is a huge pain. In order for the cost/benefit to work out, all of that needs to be counterbalanced by the benefits. Therefore, people with deep seated psychological problems and the extremely corrupt are more likely to want to gain power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Power corrupts. And absolute power (rubbing hands together maniacally) is actually pretty cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reminds me a smartass comment kids would make when I was young - "I can answer any question in the world." When asked a question, they'd proudly point out that they didn't say that they could answer any question correctly. That's the maturity level we're dealing with in regards to the DOJ here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistyped Headline?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mistyped Headline?
I wonder if I could destroy evidence in contempt of court and get the Judge to say "oh, it's only a transgression..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I keep wanting to find a Republican replacement because of exactly this kind of crap.
They might be just as corrupt, but when it doubt throw the bums out.
However, Huntsman is the only one who has the intelligence and the sane policy stances to be palatable and he has no chance due to his sane policy stances.
Ron Paul is okay too, I think he may be the closest thing to uncorruptible we have. If only some of his views weren't so bat shit crazy he may be president right now.
I really don't want to be forced to vote for Obama, but the Republican front runners are so much worse it's hard to know what to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My friend... You are screwed. And so are most of us, hence the #ows movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Find the best candidate and vote for them. If they aren't on the ticket, write them in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ahem: Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche
This is what your vote always comes down to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
NONE of them are what anyone want. But they'll get the most votes because a third party will split the vote.
I'm worried about the next 4 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Emphasis on 'bat shit crazy'. He sounds good until you actually start asking questions about the details. Much like Libertarianism itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one is quite sure what he would do in office because his platform is too different and most (sane) people won't vote for policies when they don't really feel like understand the implications.
I use 'feel like' because a lot of people will vote for oversimplified, dumb plans with broad and horrible implications because it sounds simple even if they don't really understand it. (see 999 plan)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am confused by how he's too different? He has been firm on every account being a politician, what he voted against etc once he will do it again. Unlike most who have actually had a chance to make real change. I am ready for heavy feet in the house, so I am voting for Ron P. If voter's don't understand then count me as something else, because I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading the court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prosecutor: Where were you on the night of January 12th?
Witness: I'm sorry, but I don't believe I was alive to witness any thing on that night.
Customer: Can a have a burger and fries?
Register: I regret to inform you that we do not serve burgers and fries here.
Customer: But it's on the menu.
Register: I regret to inform you that we do not serve burgers and fries here.
repeat until the customer leaves
Lady: Do you have protection?
Guy: No such thing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Register: I regret to inform you that we do not serve burgers and fries here.
Customer: But it's on the menu.
Register: I regret to inform you that we do not serve burgers and fries here.
repeat until the customer leaves
I've been to a pizza place in Watsonville, CA like that. Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lady: Do you have protection?
Guy: [said while waving hand in the manner of the Jedi Mind Trick] We don't need protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So ?
Of course the company probably won't be in business for long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, it's the DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's LACK of indignation pretty much illustrates the /actual/ problem:
COME ON. That's /all/ you can do for outrage? SEEMS? Your public servants just said they're going to LIE to you. I've said worse at finding part of a cookie missing.
Speaking truth to power requires clarity, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's LACK of indignation pretty much illustrates the /actual/ problem:
You're not getting upset enough!
Do you want some lithium with those fries?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem
There are 2 problems.
1) Corporate Personhood.
This is seriously skewing elections.
2) The people voting.
47% of people in the US will pay 0 federal income taxes.
These people vote for free new stuff because it costs
them nothing. It is easy to promise free shit and get
elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real problem
Well said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real problem
Since the whole "Occupy ..." movement started, I've been hearing this as the new bugbear facing our society. I think we should be careful when we tote out "Corporate Personhood" because I think there is room for nuance. The idea isn't that bad really, especially when it comes to financial matters, treating a corporation as a person makes sense when it comes to the books.
I will say that corps donating money doesn't bother me nearly as much as the privacy they're allowed. Corporate personhood definitely doesn't apply when it comes to them giving money to politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our system of checks and balances - redefined:
Sounds balanced to us! Check!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they ARE being more transparent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why surprise?
The government no longer believes in citizens' rights, which is the trademark of 3rd world weak governments. Guess we've reached that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course they don't tell you the whole truth
It's common knowledge that cops lie to suspects to get 'confessions', lawyers lie to clients to get admissions of guilt (not the quite the same thing, but close), and politicians lie to the public to get elected.
Why should the DOJ be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I swear...... the more and more I see, the more I realize that on issues of copyright and patent, Obama is just as in the hands of the MPAA and it's member companies as Bush was, if not more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what it's worth, this isn't news, and it isn't DOJ overreach. The ACLU case was FOIA Incompetence, which is distressingly common, but that's another issue.
What they're trying to invoke is right there in the law, and has been there since 2006. Or 2007, depending on who you ask, I guess. 5 U.S.C. �552 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3). Not sure why it isn't talked about, considering it's public law and all.
Anyway, those are what are called the "FOIA Exclusions," and they are specific cases, generally dealing wiht very sensitive issues, in which a no records response is acceptable because records that would be responsive to the request are not subject to the FOIA. This was added specifically for situations in which "GLOMAR" was not sufficient.
DOJ publishes a handbook of FOIA guidance which explicitly states that, when it comes under judicial review, it should be ex parte, based upon an in camera filing submitted directly to the judge. Because the whole point of the FOIA exclusions is to conceal knowledge of the existence of records (in an extremely narrow and sensitive fashion, mind you), all judicial reviews of "no records" responses which would potentially invoke an exclusion should have this ex parte review and in camera filing. Sadly, this appears to not have been the case in the ACLU litigation.
DOJ wants to modify their instruction to account for the change in the law. It's not adding somehting new so much as providing guidance for a change in the law more recent than their most recent revision of their instructions. DOJ's playing catch-up to the congresscritters, they're not making up new rules wholecloth.
From the article, the advocacy groups propose another response: You have requested ��records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA...�'
They're arguing for clearer language, but nothing substantially different from the standard "no records" response. The standard response is that "no records responsive to your request exist," or somehting to that effect. The point of the exclusions is that they carve out a narrow band of particular cases in which they are not subject to the FOIA. "Records responsive to your [FOIA] request" implies "records subject to the FOIA." As the exclusions are publicly posted, a reasonable individual would be expected to account for the fact that excluded records may exist before proceeding to litigation.
TL;DR Version:
The law's been there for years, DOJ is updating their guidance to account for it. FBI tried applying exclusions without taking into account procedural concerns. If you don't like the idea of exclusions (after knowing what exactly they apply to), blame the 110th Congress (and perhaps GWB).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]