CIA Took Three Years To Reject FOIA Request For Criteria For Rejecting FOIA Requests
from the glomar-glomar-glomar dept
Curious about what criteria the CIA have for determining if they "can neither confirm nor deny" something? So did Jason Smathers, who back in 2010 filed one of MuckRock's earliest requests for exactly that. Six years later, he still doesn't know.
Smathers first filed in October 2010 - to the agency's credit, they only took a mere two months to get back to him.
Which was followed by two and a half years of radio silence. A follow-up in June of 2013 was finally responded to with reassurances that the request was still processing ... which apparently served as a reminder to the agency to finally send the rejection letter collecting dust in the corner.
Ultimately, the CIA cites no fewer than three separate exemptions, including what appears to be a "Schrödinger's b(5)," all for what should be some basic FOIA processing manuals.
How do we know that? Well silver lining/insult to injury, Smathers filed the same request with the NSA, and though they too took three years to process it, they actually delivered.
But you know what they say - one agency's basic documentation is another agency's matter of national security. Not to mention a FOIA requester's complete waste of time.
Republished from Muckrock.com
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, criteria, foia, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unambiguously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have fun..
one LONG section..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope. They flip a coin, heads they win, tails you lose and they always call heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glomar on mind control? (see page 3)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unclassified but still Redacted
The paradox, the sheer oxymoron of the FOIA terms of release of documents being sent out REDACTED says it all about the intelligence community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unclassified but still Redacted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unclassified but still Redacted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unclassified but still Redacted
Seriously, for those 'not familiar with the classification system', there is (or at least 'was') no directive, whatsoever, for redaction of documents that have not underwent purvue for the 'classification' process. I'm sure in our paradoxical nation (where we are now scared of our own shadow, meanwhile the other hand offers to give money and highly classified material to other nations 'as a sign of good will'), this makes perfect logic - however, in reality, it's kinda like teaching something to bark, before you validate that it's a dog. About as humorous, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]