Rep. Issa Wants List Of Everyone Who's Filed FOIA Requests; Increasing Transparency Or Chilling Future Requests?

from the depends-on-how-you-look-at-it dept

Rep. Darrell Issa, the new head of the House Oversight Committee recently requested that all of the various federal agencies give him all sorts of data about everyone who's sent a Freedom of Information Act Request for the past five years. He claims that this is to review how the agencies respond to such requests, and hopefully make the process work even better. And, in fact, many transparency advocates are hopeful that this will lead to greater transparency, if the somewhat flawed FOIA process can be made better. However, others are viewing the whole exercise in a much more nefarious light, suggesting that Issa is creating chilling effects, by looking closely at who's filing such requests.

It seems like the latter response may be a bit of an overreaction. The government already has this information and is it really problematic for someone to compile all the info to see who's filing such requests? There obviously could be some serious concerns if there's any form of retaliation, but there's no indication of that happening (or being likely to happen). While it should be watched, if this process really is about getting the government to really be more open, then that sounds like a good idea.

Filed Under: chilling effects, darrell issa, foia, freedom of information, transparency

Judge Says No To FOIA Request For TSA Body Scan Images

from the suspect-reasoning dept

Julian Sanchez points us to the news that a district court judge has rejected an attempt by the privacy-rights group EPIC to force Homeland Security to release some 2,000 full body scans from the TSA's new airport scanners. EPIC has been suing to get the new scanners banned, saying that the machines violate both the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches) and the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a public review of such plans before the government can implement them.

The group had filed a Freedom of Information Act for a variety of information about the scanners a while back, and while Homeland Security provided some documents, it withheld 2,000 test images that were done with volunteers. EPIC then went to court, but the judge claimed that the government has no obligation to hand over such info, and that providing such info could "provide terrorists and others with increased abilities to circumvent detection by TSA and carrying threatening contraband onboard..." In other words, the judge buys into the TSA's strategy of security by obscurity.

Frankly, if it's really true that releasing some images of what these scans look like make it possible for terrorists to beat these machines, then these machines are clearly useless. The TSA is delusional if it thinks that terrorists can't get their hands on these kinds of images. If the machine is so weak that having some images teaches you how to beat it, then the machine shouldn't be used in the first place.

Filed Under: freedom of information, scanners, tsa
Companies: epic, tsa

Irony: If You Want To Know What The FCC's Rules On Internet Openness Are, You Need To File A FOIA

from the openness-is-a-matter-of-degree dept

We've already talked about how the FCC was going to approve heavily watered down (and written in conjunction with AT&T) "net neutrality" rules today -- which it did. However, one aspect of all this that is particularly ridiculous is the fact that the FCC voted on rules which it has not released, and which it claims may be adjusted before they are released. Considering that these rules are supposed to be about internet openness it seems pretty ironic that the rules are secret. Jeff Jarvis noted this irony in asking if he needed to file a Freedom of Information Act request just to find out what was voted on. He followed it up by filing just such a request that seeks not just the rules, but also details of correspondences and meeting notes leading up to the creation of the rules. We'll see what the FCC comes back with.

Filed Under: fcc, freedom of information, internet, openness
Companies: fcc

FBI Almost Entirely Arbitrary In Redacting Info On Freedom Of Information Requests

from the transparency dept

The officials rules from the Obama Administration, when it comes to Freedom of Information requests, is that the default view should be the transparent one. In practice, we've seen exactly the opposite. Studies have shown that the Obama Administration has turned down FOIA requests at a greater rate than the previous administration (which was already pretty damn secretive) and often uses political reasons, rather than genuine secrecy reasons to hide information (for example, claiming ACTA had to be secret for national security reasons).

The EFF (which the administration has highlighted internally as an organization deserving more political scrutiny before documents can be released to it) has now pointed out that it appears that the FBI has extremely arbitrary standards for figuring out what to redact when complying with FOIA requests. Specifically, the EFF asked for multiple documents on two separate occasions and was amazed to find that the redactions were entirely different -- even if the reasons for the redactions were the same:

Through a careful comparison of thousands of pages of documents we received from this FOIA request with the same documents we received from an earlier FOIA request, we found that redactions in many of these duplicated documents were strikingly different. In several cases, the FBI redacted more information in later-produced documents than it did in earlier-produced documents. In other cases, the FBI redacted differing amounts of information when it produced two copies of the same report in response to the same FOIA request. Sometimes the agency blocked out whole paragraphs, while at other times it blocked out only the key words that explain the details of its acts. What is interesting is that the FBI claimed the same FOIA exemptions in each version; it just applied them differently.

What's most troubling is that the documents in question had to do with evidence of the FBI's own misconduct. So, if it's being arbitrary in figuring out what to redact, what's to stop it from just redacting the information it doesn't want to get out? The EFF page discussing this has some funky "slider" functionality that lets you look at the two different versions of redacted documents to see how the redactions appear to change quite arbitrarily. As the EFF notes, there might be less public demand for things like Wikileaks if the US government wasn't so secretive in such an arbitrary manner.

Filed Under: eff, fbi, freedom of information, redactions
Companies: eff, fbi

Massachusetts Threatens Website For Publishing Info It Gave The Site After A FOIA Request

from the locking-up-of-information dept

An anonymous reader sends over the news that the website MuckRock.com -- an open records website -- has received a threat letter from the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, concerning some food stamp data that MuckRock had published. How did MuckRock get the data? It had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, who gave it to them. Apparently, the department now realized that it released the data in error and is trying to erase the mistake by ordering the site to delete the info.

I am writing to inform you that certain information found on the website http://www.muckrock.com, which lists individual retailer redemptions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is posted in violation of federal law.. [sic] This information was erroneously released by the Department of Transitional Assistance to Spare Change News. Federal law prohibits release of such information under 7 U.S.C. 2018(9)(c), and 7 CFR 278.1(q).

Failure to remove this information may result in fines or imprisonment. 7 U.S.C. 2018(9)(c) (“any person who publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by Federal law (including a regulation) any information obtained under this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both).

The Department has told the press that it was the federal government which alerted it to the mistake and the department decided to inform the MuckRock owner that he might face potential legal problems from the federal government, but didn't intend the letter to be a direct threat from itself. Of course, now that the news of the demand has been made public, the original information will only get that much more attention...

Filed Under: foia, freedom of information, massachusetts, threats

Homeland Security Giving Extra Political Scrutiny To 'Activist' Groups FOIA Requests, Singles Out EFF

from the freedom-deserves-extra-scrutiny dept

When President Obama first came into office, one of the things he pledged was greater transparency, including in responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As we've seen with things like ACTA, where the USTR refused FOIA requests with a totally bogus claim of "national security," the administration has regularly failed to live up to that promise and at times appears to be even worse than previous administrations. Over the last year, reports have come out that FOIA requests from certain groups and reporters are being singled out for political review. That's not the way the FOIA process is supposed to work, but apparently Homeland Security has alerted various FOIA officials that requests from certain groups need to first be sent up the chain for political review, both potentially delaying the release of the information, and subjecting it to reviews and possible redactions that go beyond what the law establishes. As the EFF notes, it seems to be among the groups singled out for special scrutiny, and the letter outlining this policy highlights three specific EFF FOIA requests. So, apparently the plan is "transparency, except when it might hurt us politically."

Filed Under: freedom of information, homeland security, politics

EFF Sues The Gov't, Demanding Proof That It Needs To Put Wiretap Backdoors Into All Communications

from the where's-the-proof dept

About a month ago, news broke that the feds were going to push for new legislation that would require wiretapping backdoors be put into all forms of internet communications. This is a bad idea for any number of reasons -- including the fact that this would make it much easier for others to spy on the communications of Americans. However, all indications are that the feds (especially the NSA, who wants to pretend they're "protecting" Americans from security issues, while really just wanting to spy on more Americans) are going to push forward anyway.

Part of the justification for the push for such wiretapping mandates is that new technology has made it much more difficult for law enforcement to to intercept necessary information. So the EFF made a simple request: prove it. It filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the evidence that new technologies were actually hindering law enforcement. However, the US government apparently ignored the request, leading the EFF to sue the government over its failure to respond to the request.

"The sweeping changes the government is proposing, to require 'back doors' into all private communications technologies, would have enormous privacy and security ramifications for American Internet users," said EFF Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch. "Any meaningful debate must be based on the information we're seeking in the FOIA requests, so the government's failure to comply in a timely manner is troubling."

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, freedom of information, surveillance, wiretapping
Companies: eff

Crown Copyright Strikes Again: Documents Revealed Under Freedom Of Information Act Can Infringe On Copyright?

from the crown-copyright dept

Frankly, the concept of "Crown Copyright" has never made much sense at all. We've discussed it here a few times in the past, but it's the concept that some countries have for government documents being covered by copyright. Thankfully, this is one area where the US actually leads the way: it has no such thing. Documents produced by the federal government in the US are automatically considered public domain (state government documents aren't always public domain, but that's another discussion for another time). But in many other countries that's not true, and those documents are covered by "crown copyright." This makes little sense no matter how you think about it. If the purpose of copyright is to give incentives to create the content, it seems obvious that a government should not need copyright.

Instead, it seems to show how some now view copyright: as a tool to restrict information, rather than as an incentive to create information. For example, Glyn Moody points us to a rather depressing discussion of how information obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request in the UK might not be publishable because of copyright. Yes, you read that right. Even though the laws are there to free up government information, once that information is distributed to the requestor, it can be locked back up via copyright. So it's not really a "freedom of information" situation at all. It's just a "here's some information you can't share with anyone else."

Filed Under: crown copyright, freedom of information, uk

Can Alcoa Get Reporters' Notes Under Open Records Laws If The News Organization Is Connected To A State University?

from the protecting-journalists-vs.-freedom-of-information dept

JJ points us to an interesting situation in North Carolina. Apparently, Alcoa, the aluminum giant, is demanding all of the reporting documents associated with a segment done about the company, concerning its attempt to renew its 50-year lease for its facilities on the Yadkin River. Now, normally, a news organization wouldn't turn over such information, but there's a bit of a twist here. The reporting was done by UNC-TV, which is connected to the University of North Carolina. Thus, Alcoa makes the case that it is subject to North Carolina's "Open Records" laws, and it appears that the folks at UNC-TV are realizing they need to comply.

This certainly raises questions about how any news organization that is somehow connected to a gov't entity can feel its reporting is protected. This is also worth remembering as we keep hearing more and more newspapers insist that government subsidies are the best way to save newspapers. Doing so could, potentially, open up similar claims by private entities wishing to dig deeper into a reporters' notes.

Filed Under: freedom of information, journalism, north carolina, open records, shield laws
Companies: alcoa, unc-tv

Federal Gov't Mostly Ignoring Obama Directive To Be More Transparent

from the the-opposite-is-happening dept

One of the first things that President Obama did upon taking office was promise a much more open and transparent administration from what came before. He issued a "directive" to federal agencies to start with the assumption of openness and only back down from it with good reason. And yet, as we've seen over and over again, federal agencies have been anything but transparent -- and a new study supports that. The AP looked at Freedom of Information Act requests and found that agencies are turning down FOIA requests at a much greater rate than the last administration, and doing so using a "deliberative process" exemption -- which Obama specifically told agencies to avoid if possible. Amusingly, the AP notes that the administration still hasn't responded to its own FOIA request about the gov't's new transparency plans.

Along those lines, rather than waiting for the government to just be proactive in being transparent, why not help them along? You may recall last year that Jim Harper set up a system to crowdsource a comprehensive collection of earmark data that was required to be released -- but which was released in a variety of different and confusing ways. Now that the feds are finally moving towards standardizing how earmark data is released, Harper along with Jerry Brito are trying to make sure that the standardized format is as useful as possible. They've set up EarmarkData.org to try to help create a standardized format that will actually capture and present the data in the most useful way.

Filed Under: freedom of information, obama, transparency