CIA Cannot Find Its Own Regulations On How To Declassify Documents
from the or-maybe-it's-classified dept
There have been questions about what documents the CIA chooses to declassify, and so Kel McClanahan of National Security Counselors filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out what procedures the CIA must follow in response to requests to declassify information. McClanahan appeared to know exactly what he was looking for, but... was told that the CIA simply could not find any such documents.
I especially like this part: "our searches were thorough and diligent, and it is highly unlikely that repeating those searches would change the result." This certainly reminds me of the news that came out last year about how the administration wanted permission to lie in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, such that if it doesn't want to release a document, it can just say that no such documents exist, rather than admit it does exist but can't be revealed. No, that's not wide open to abuse at all...
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: cia, classified information, foia, national security counselors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that the CIA was unable to find their own information really just lends itself to a buncha comedy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The CIA was going to try and get a judge to grant them access to the document, but as a government agency themselves, they already know the fruitlessness of that action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys don't understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys don't understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm now officially better than the CIA and especially Michele Meeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should have done a simple web search instead...
http://www.foia.cia.gov/32CFR.asp
That's right, the CIA has a link on their own website to download an electric copy of the document they said they don't have an electronic copy of. In their FOIA section. Maybe it's on a domestic server, and the FBI should have looked for it?
Of course you can always download CFR from the GPO. It seem ridiculous to submit an FOI for a whole section of the CFR when it's freely available, but it's even worse for the CIA to give this response. Is there a 'secret' subsection of 1908 that was specifically requested? The article doesn't indicate anything other than the entire section being requested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should have done a simple web search instead...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should have done a simple web search instead...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replace them
I'm imagining a kid who doesn't like his underwear and conveniently "loses" it. His parents go buy him another pair, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's ok
They are all scratching their heads and wondering why they need written rules for an agency that has no authority to operate in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The form of the letter strongly suggests to me that the request was directed to matters other than the noted section of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is, of course, already published and freely available to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a simple little system
B) Does it hurt our political opponents? If yes then declassify
C) All else (just to be (keep us) safe) keep classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not lying.
You might describe it as a technicality or semantics, but it's very, very useful. The general reaction to the FOIA law in some parts of the gov't has been to name documents very obscure and obfuscating names. It's probably the case here and the actual name of the document can be further hidden through incomplete acronyms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, let's see here...
The quotes in the response imply that the requester specifically worded it as "an electronic copy of the CIA's copy of its new regulation 32 C.F.R. 1908."
That being said, I think this is where you get into legalistic hair-splitting.
5 USC 552 (a)(1) Requires disclosure of certain things through the Federal Register.
5 USC 552 (a)(3) Provides that records not made available under 5 USC 552 (a)(1) or (2) can be requested.
5 USC 552 (a)(3) is the formal citation of making a request "under the FOIA"
(a)(3) specifically excludes (a)(1) and (a)(2). CFR publications are BY DEFINITION under (a)(1) and thus not responsive to requests under (a)(3).
Lawyer-ey, and weasely, but perfectly in line according to the law.
As a side note, I would appreciate it if you acknowledge that the 5 USC 552 (c) exclusions aren't "the Governemnt lying." The three exclusions are extremely narrowly defined, they are explicitly stated in the law to be "not subject" to the FOIA. There is an explicit point in all FOIA litigation where the court consults with the Government with regard to the use of exclusions. EXTREME scrutiny is applied to any consideration os using an exclusion. It is FAR from "I don't wanna."
Yes, I understand distrust of the Government. There are many times when they shouldn't be trusted. Frankly, I do think this was a bit weaselly, though I can certainly sympathize with the annoyed processor who got this case. I think they should have gone the extra mile and explained WHY no responsive records exist, but I must concede (and point out) that they met the legal minimum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would, however, be reluctant to suggest the letter is a bit misleading in the absence of a copy of the original request. I say this only because experience informs me that quotes of the type in the first paragraph of the letter are seldom, if ever, truly a complete statement of everything contained in the associated request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Answers to most of your questions
1) The full text of the request was "This is a FOIA request for an electronic copy of the CIA�s copy of its new regulation 32 C.F.R. 1908. A paper record will not satisfy this request." Followed by our office address. No joke.
2) The copy you linked to on the CIA's website is an old version. The CIA amended 32 C.F.R. 1908 in September but have not updated their website. (In fact, I'm currently suing them over one of their amendments - see http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/national-security-counselors-sue-the-cia-for-ignoring-free dom-of-information-laws/).
3) Despite the clear statutory requirement that agencies must release records in electronic format if the requester so requests, the CIA has adopted a practice of refusing to do so across the board (with very few exceptions). Agencies are allowed to refuse to release specific records in electronic format if that record is deemed "not readily reproducible in electronic format," but the CIA argues that none of its records are readily reproducible in electronic format (because it implemented a FOIA processing system that resides solely on its classified network, requiring FOIA analysts to upload unclassified documents to the classified network to process them, and then saying that because they're on the classified network, they can only be printed). For more information go to our litigation webpage at http://www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/litigation.html and read the briefs about a "status conference" for Civil Action No. 11-443 (BAH).
4) I admit that it seems somewhat silly to make a FOIA request for something I could find in Google. I made this request to prove exactly how asinine the CIA's policy described in (3) is. I did not expect to be told they could find no responsive records. I haven't the slightest idea how they reached that result.
5) If they have used the fact that I have asked for an electronic copy as grounds to say that no records exist because they can't give me an electronic copy (for reasons described above), then this is a new escalation of this policy that should not be allowed to stand. It is patently unreasonable to give a "no records" response simply because a requester asked for electronic records, unless you say that's the reason.
6) Which brings us to the heart of another problem with CIA responses. They regularly apply very narrow interpretations of the scope of requests, but never tell the requester that the reason no records were found is because of this narrow interpretation. Only if you sue will you learn how the Agency read your request.
7) This applies to the issue of "not being able to request Federal Register thing" as well. If that was the reason they reached this decision, they need to say that, not just assure the requester that the search was thorough. This especially applies in this case, where they have consistently processed copies of Federal Register documents in response to FOIA requests in the past. In fact, if you file a request for all records about some CIA policy, often all you'll get is a copy of the regulation published in the Federal Register.
I hope this explains some of the apparent inconsistencies.
Kel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Answers to most of your questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Answers to most of your questions
2) This is another legal corner case. IANAL, but as I read it, (a)(1) only strictly requires the information be posted to the Federal Register. CIA policies or instructions may require more, but I don't think the FOIA strictly mandates they post it on their site.
3) I really can't comment on the CIA's actual processes. On a personal level, I can say that sounds sketchy, and inaccurate, but I really have no knowledge of their inner workings, so I'll keep this "no comment."
4) As I argued, the most likely approach appears to be the fact that (a)(1) and (a)(2) are not subject to (a)(3)
5) Agreed.
6) I am aware that the required reading is to "the four corners of the document" and the processors are not required to undergo any degree of speculation, but it seems poor form to not restate an interpretation, especially for a "no records" response. Poor form, but not illegal. I'm guessing there's no clarification of interpretations upon administrative appeal, then?
7) Another "legal" vs "best preactices". Technically speaking, providing any documents subject to (a)(1), (a)(2), or publicly available is considered going beyond the strict requirements of the FOIA. I'd expect the strongest arguemnt they'd provide here is "administrative burden", as mentioned in your third point.
8) (Your reply to yourself) Don't jump too quickly to that sort of conclusion. Both sides of the fence are VERY familiar with 60 lb. boxes stapeled every 2-5 pages. On this side, they tend to be musty, archival tissue paper with rusty staples. Many offices are going toward digital, even if CIA seems to eb retreating, but there's an inertia to the processing habits, so many things remain paper-based. Stapling every 2-5 pages to maintian consistency with the originals is a chore when it comes to scanning, but it could be a nightmare if all the documents were left loose. The ideal would perhaps be to serialize the documents, but, sadly, many worker drones care less about the ideal than just getting it done.
In the end, it's just like any other job - you have people who care about it, make sure to be knowledgable, and go the extra mile, and you have people who clock in, serve their time, and clock out. I could also rant about the particular frutstrations of being a FOIA processor, but no one really cares to hear someone complaining about their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answers to most of your questions
2) I think you think I meant something I didn't, so I apologize for any ambiguity. I'm not saying they are required to post the regs on their website; I was merely pointing out that the version on their website isn't the most recent version, in response to Oblate's 6:44 AM comment. I'm not suing them for failing to post the amendment, I'm actually suing them because the amendment itself is improper (for a handful of reasons I won't go into here).
6) You assume correctly. If you appeal a decision, the response is "We affirm our initial determination, Love, CIA." Nobody explains anything to the requester until you sue.
7) Agreed, and I wasn't saying that they were required to process the document. I was only saying that since they always have processed such documents, it's really poor form to deviate from that practice and not tell the requester that they're deviating. Not a legal argument, just more ranting about their stubborn refusal to say anything, no matter how minor, that they don't think they are absolutely required to say by law. True, there are plenty of times that they are required by law to say something and they don't, and I have no compunctions about suing them over those, but I agree that this isn't one of them.
8) I think you picked the wrong conclusion I jumped to. I believe you when you say that FOIA processors get just as annoyed with 60-lb boxes of paper as I do. I'm saying that she really doesn't have a right to get as annoyed at having to process a FOIA request for one 3-page document as I get at receiving these boxes when the Agency is supposed to be sending me CDs.
Re: ranting about being a FOIA processor, believe me, I've heard it all, and I do sincerely feel for you guys. The conscientious ones, at least. You are caught in the middle between agency people who want to keep everything secret and treat you like the enemy and the public whose real problem is with the aforementioned agency people, but you're the ones they get to deal with, so you're the ones who get the brunt of their frustration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe...
[ 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 ]