CIA Redacted 'Off The Record, No Comment' From Released Documents

from the huh? dept

Fri, Sep 5th 2014 9:00am — Mike Masnick

Over at The Intercept, there's an article claiming that the AP's national security reporter Ken Dilanian had a too cozy relationship with the CIA while he was at the Tribune Company. It's an interesting read, based on pages upon pages of emails between reporters and the CIA that were released under a FOIA request. However, what caught my attention, more than the full story, was something in all of those emails, spotted by Katherine Hawkins. And it's that, on page 363, it seems clear that the CIA, when releasing these emails, redacted the line "Off the record, no comment." It's rather obvious, because Dilanian immediately repeats that line right back, somewhat angrily at the ridiculousness of it.

Rather than using the all purpose b(5) redaction, it appears that the CIA is claiming a b(3) and b(6) reason for this comment being "redacted" (even though they left it in in Dilanian's reply). b(3) is for documents "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute" and b(6) is for documents "personnel and medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

I'm curious how "off the record, no comment" qualifies as either. It appears to be redactions for redactions' sake.

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, ken dilanian, no comment, redactions

12 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 7:48am

I'm curious how "off the record, no comment" qualifies as either. It appears to be redactions for redactions' sake.

They don't line the sheets and spray black ink with a hose because it would be too blatant. Incidentally that's why they pretend to follow some judicial orders.

At this point what prevents them from completely forging communications and other documents to release as FOIA responses anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DavidL, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:15am

They even redact the name of their freaking public relations officer. Because god forbid THAT crucial bit of national security info should be released to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:34am

REDACTED
http://i.imgur.com/uhJShfw.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:38am

Something smells and it ain't the petunias. 🌼
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LduN (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:39am

#1 best comment ever
[redacted]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:57am

Why is anything redacted?
Why is anything redacted (including names)? If it was confidential, then they shouldn't have been revealing it to a reporter and whoever did should be prosecuted. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DavidL, 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: Why is anything redacted?
  Under the third-party doctrine, anything in that e-mail should be available to whoever wants to ask, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:24am

Are you sure?
I suspect that "Off the record, no comment" isn't what was actually said, but instead something like "Off the record, we have been told not to talk about X or acknowledge its existence" -- which was then angrily summarized as "Off the record, no comment."

The size of the redaction space kind of bears this out too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 12:29pm

Contempt of the people.
On the lower level, the redacting officer has been advised to over-redact than under-redact, so he's covering his ass.

And then the upper level officer rubber stamps it nominal consideration.

On both levels: Contempt of the people. Why can't they just trust us and let us do our jobs, those F[REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED]kwits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 1:29pm

how
I'm more curious how *any* reply given to a reporter can be considered sensitive/classified enough to later be redacted on a FOIA request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 2:03pm

kinds of redactions?
"Rather than using the all purpose b(5) redaction, it appears that the CIA is claiming a b(3) and b(6) reason for this comment being "redacted""

Sounds like more of a b(s) redaction to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 8 Sep 2014 @ 7:35am

test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]