Defense Department Tells MuckRock It Will Need To Come Up With $660 Million To Cover FOIA Request Fees
from the in-other-words,-the-GDP-of-Switzerland dept
Nothing quite tells the public to mind its own business like attaching a ridiculous fee demand to an FOIA response. It's pretty easy to price the public out of the transparency market, seeing as it doesn't have access to the monetary resources its tax dollars are paying for.
We've covered a few of the more ridiculous FOIA fee demands here at Techdirt, like:
The City of Ferguson charging $135/hour for FOIA response work -- a rate roughly 10 times the hourly wage of entry-level city clerk's office employees.MuckRock has now topped that last number… exponentially. Martin Peck's FOIA request for information on the Dept. of Defense's use of "HotPlug" systems (a portable power pack that keeps seized devices from powering down) has resulted in an FOIA fee estimate exceeding a half-billion dollars.
The City of McKinney telling Gawker emails related to a police misconduct investigation would run 9,000 hours and cost $79,000.
The Florida State's Attorney's Office demanding $180,000 to turn over records on a questionable suicide.
The FBI telling MuckRock that it would cost $270,000 to respond to an FOIA request about Booz Allen -- and that's with an electronic file "discount" of over $6,000 applied.
Mr. Robert R. Jarrett, Director of Operations, Defense Procurement Acquisition Policy, and a FOIA Initial Denial Authority, stated that it is possible that contracts that acquired the requested items are present in the Electronic Documents Access (EDA) system; however, there are more than 30 million contracts in EDA, consisting of more than 45 million documents. No method exists for a complete text search of EDA, as some documents are scans of paper copies. The estimated time required to perform the necessary redactions of proprietary data, assuming 20 minutes per document, is estimated to be 15 million labor hours at an estimated cost of $660 million.While this amount may be couch change for the DoD (0.1% of its $573 billion budget), it's ridiculously out of reach for any US citizen without billions of dollars to their name. Then there's the question of feasibility. Even if every man, woman and child in America tossed MuckRock a couple of bucks to push this request forward, the estimate of 15 million labor hours suggests the DoD will never fulfill it. If the DoD throws 30 people at the problem 24 hours a day without a day off, Peck still shouldn't expect a response until 2073 at the earliest.
This astronomical estimate says two things about the DoD, though. One, it apparently uses these forensic devices frequently enough that searching for responsive documents will be a massive undertaking. Two, it says the Electronic Document Access system is not nearly as useful as its name would suggest, what with document scans not being searchable. This is a government-wide problem and one that no one's too interested in fixing.
Many FOIA responses contain documents scanned at skewed angles using the worst hard copy available. It happens often enough that it almost appears the government is seeking to maintain a level of obfuscation while still paying lip service to transparency. Sure, a released document is better than no response at all, but the insistence on releasing documents capable of defeating OCR software prevents collation of similar documents and thwarts search efforts for relevant info -- both on the government's end and the public's.
This decision will be appealed and the request narrowed significantly, but I imagine the DoD's database will continue to thwart both its FOIA response team and requesters like Peck, for years to come.
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: defense department, fees, foia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Titles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Titles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to understand these figures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electronic Ink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternate solution
1) DoD creates a user account so the people can do the leg work at their actual cost.
2) Hire a 16 Y/O and have them hack the system and give the info to the world freely.
Either way it saves time, energy, and money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you're ascribing malicious intent into sheer laziness. Record center contractors get paid by the number of pages they do. They need to fulfill a ccertain number of scans in a time period. They don't have to be *good* scans, and of course there are perverse incentives to doing good QC.
And most tech services are done by contractors who change every 5-10 years, which doesn't do much for creating a stable cohesive database system. So I'm not surprised that the DoD system is even more messed up than the EPA system was that I worked on. Throw in multiple regions, all with different systems, and yeah, the entire back end is a mess.
Not that I'm excusing the cost, but it's hardly a simple task to get all the documents, even if they are supposed to be available. And most of the cost of FOIA isn't from the document management side, it's because all of the documents need to be reviewed by a lawyer, who gets paid hourly, and well.
The reasonable thing would be to create a redacted copy of a document when it gets scanned/added, but dear God, the number of records generated is breathtaking, far beyond the ability for anyone to do more than a cursory indexing of them, let alone the time-intensive work of redaction.
Tl;dr: you're assuming that the federal government has its record management stuff together far more than it does, and it's more about bad management, perverse incentives, and entropy than it is malice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bad management and perverse incentives don't rule out malice. It they did, the government would be full of saints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there any way to reach you directly for any advice you might be able to share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The real solution isn't to create a redacted copy of a document though, it's to properly use document markers when filling out the document in the first place. Then a system can read the markers and redact as needed prior to sending to a recipient with specific clearance matched against the markers.
Any failures in this method cascade back to the person submitting the original document. All the lawyer has to do is review the redacted documents to ensure that the markers were applied correctly.
And one more thing:
MARKERS CANNOT BE REDACTED. This way, while a document returned for a FOIA request might be all blacked out, the reasons for blacking it all out are apparent, which adds at least a modicum of accountability to the process (ie: if all paragraphs in a document titled "Base Dry Cleaning Tender" come up marked "TS", there should be huge red flags, and heads should roll for being so lazy as to cause others undue work.
https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/nimaguide.pdf already exists; if it were actually USED, this wouldn't be an issue. The main issue comes from there being no consequesnces in the DoD for not using this document properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
20 minutes per document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High time for the overseers to investigate!
If each of these searches costs the tax payer 0.1 % of a $573 billion budget, those tax cuts we have been promised for a while now may finally become a reality, when the DoD is encouraged to upgrade its infrastructure, with OCR and metadata search ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be cheaper to be sued
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"contracts that acquired the requested items"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redacted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Redacted
Not that it matters; even if it only takes six seconds to see whether a document is responsive, it's still going to be over a million dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.hwdyk.com/q/images/futurama_s02e11_14.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eliminate those in charge of the DOD and eliminate the National Debt in less than a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I shoulod fit right in at the DOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good point. So if the DOD needs this same information for it's own use, it's going to cost the taxpayers $660 million to retrieve it? Sounds to me like massive fraud, waste and abuse going on there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...almost appears..."
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We only want the, "free," in, "freedom..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We only want the, "free," in, "freedom..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are we not bankrupt?
Sweden has the worlds oldest FOI laws, dating back to the 18th century. Our government is not allowed to charge for FOI requests. With these "costs", how can we not be long bankrupt?
It's worth noticing that actually charging for them would be hard. If you walk into an office and make your request in person, government officials are not only forbidden to ask for ID or even your name, but also to try to find out who you are. This also makes it hard to harass anyone making a request, which is of course the whole point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How are we not bankrupt?
Your administration clerks did not have a U.S. education. Your hobos are likely better qualified than a U.S. paper worker. Except that you have a shortage of hobos compared to the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For that
For that kind of money, they should be able to build a full text search system. Of course since this is the government, it would be bid at $660M but would actually cost $4B, take 15 years, and either not work or never be deployed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxpayers' Money > Ridiculous Requests
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxpayers' Money > Ridiculous Requests
Too frequently it actually requires a lawsuit to get what one wants. If the government generally showed a good faith desire to fulfill FOIA requests, it would be easier to accept their cost estimates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]