Federal Judge Says Public Has Right To Know About FBI's Biometric Database, Awards $20,000 In Legal Fees To FOIA Requester
from the more-forced-transparency dept
Another win for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the American public in general. A federal judge has ruled the public has the right to know certain details about the FBI's facial recognition database.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the bureau's Next Generation Identification program represents a "significant public interest" due to concerns regarding its potential impact on privacy rights and should be subject to rigorous transparency oversight.Not only did Chutkan compel the release of documents related to the FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) database, but she also awarded $20,000 in legal fees to EPIC. In the opinion [pdf link], she points out that -- despite its arguments to the contrary -- the FBI was anything but "responsive" to EPIC's FOIA request.
"There can be little dispute that the general public has a genuine, tangible interest in a system designed to store and manipulate significant quantities of its own biometric data, particularly given the great numbers of people from whom such data will be gathered."
The FBI’s explanation for its delay in producing the requested documents is not unreasonable; the Court is well aware that compliance with FOIA requests can require significant agency time and resources. However, after EPIC narrowed the scope of its Second Request—at the behest of the FBI—the FBI had no further contact with EPIC for six months, until after EPIC filed this lawsuit. The FBI has not advanced any colorable legal reason why, after indicating that it possessed responsive documents and asking for a revised request, it simply ceased all communication with EPIC in October 2012, until EPIC sought recourse in this Court in April 2013.Despite the FBI being more motivated by lawsuits than FOIA requests, Chutkan softens this blow by stating she saw "no evidence" that the agency behaved "recalcitrantly or obdurately." This is its standard m.o. of many government agencies, FBI included. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be nearly as many lawsuits.
The good news is that courts are recognizing (at least, now and then) that there's a very asymmetrical collection of information going on here. Agencies like the FBI gather up tons of data, much of it personally-identifiable, and then refuses to grant the public even the tiniest bit of access. When members of the public ask to see the data gathered on them (by requesting their own records), they're told that doing so would compromise law enforcement operations and methods.
The public does have a right to know what's being collected and distributed to law enforcement agencies around the nation. The public cannot simply rely on the (limited and often ineffective) oversight of its legislators. True accountability comes from outside the government, not from within it, and FOIA laws are supposed to facilitate that. A few more wins for the public will increase the effectiveness of the accountability tool, something that has been blunted tremendously by government agencies' willful opacity over the past several years.
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: biometric database, facial recognition, fbi, foia
Companies: epic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ideally, that $20K would cover the entire amount, since prying documents free via FOIA shouldn't require a lawsuit in the first place, but I can't help but think it's not, and that they've still ended up paying a decent chunk to get the document into the light of day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colorable? I've heard plenty of strange legalese before, but this one totally stumps me. What exactly is (supposed to be) being colored here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should read "What color are your bits?"
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Mason Wheeler, Re: colorable legal reason
They are what the framers called "null and void" laws, because they are not constitutional. Here in the USA ALL laws MUST be constitutional to be lawful to be lawfully enforced.
That does not meant that those that are ignorant of the US Constitution or willing to destroy our nation from within will not enforce them, because they will.
That is a felony on their part because they are REQUIRED to take and KEEP an Oath. The required Oath says they will support and defend the US Constitution and their state Constitution - if it applies - above and before anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're an optimist
More likely, it will increase the effectiveness of the government to hide information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're an optimist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]