Federal Agencies Are Still Abusing Their Favorite, Super-Vague FOIA Exemption Thousands Of Times A Year

from the (b)ecause-we-can-can-can dept

The Freedom of Information Act was supposed to result in, you know, the freedom of information. Obviously, not everything the government produces paperwork-wise can end up in the public's hands, but far more should be turned over to the public than has been.

Using a proprietary blend of stonewalling and excessive fee demands, countless government agencies have managed to keep public documents away from the public. It takes a lawyer to win FOIA lawsuits, which may be why corporations are getting their hands on far more documents than American citizens.

Exemption b(5) is, by far, the federal government's favorite. It's vague enough it can cover just about anything.

inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency

Sprinkle a little intra-agency imagination over a pile of paperwork and responsive documents suddenly become unresponsive and are removed from life support as soon as feasibly possible. FOIA lawsuits are the metaphorical families in the waiting room, begging Dr. Info to reconsider pulling the plug.

Exemption b(5) has been used to withhold everything from State Department's "what a load of crap" Post-It note (attached to a Congressional proposal to designate Pakistan as a sponsor of international terrorism) to the CIA's files on the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion.

The abuse of this exemption may have peaked in 2013, when federal agencies used it more than 81,000 times. But things haven't necessarily improved in the last seven years. In 2018, (b)5 was still cited more than 60,000 times. The (otherwise considerable) drop in deployment may be due to 2016 legislation, as the Project on Government Oversight explains:

One possible factor in the reduced use of Exemption 5 since its peak in 2013 may be reforms instituted by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. One reform barred the use of the exemption for records more than 25 years old…

That would remove the CIA's strategic blockade of its Bay of Pigs docs. But there's plenty of info far less dated that still receives the (b)5 "get out of transparency free" card. Multiple investigations of ICE detention centers highlighted the inconsistent application of the feds' go-to exemption. Documents handed to NPR [on the left in the image below] by ICE contained plenty of information. The docs handed to POGO, however, contained only redactions and the b(5) excuse.

Somehow the same information was both able to be released and able to be withheld under exemption b(5). As POGO points out, the b(5) boilerplate makes zero sense when applied to the text released to NPR. This exemption isn't supposed to deny the public access to common sense conclusions.

It’s difficult to understand how these statements—that inadequate mental health care leadership leads to poor care, and that solitary confinement is the “most important issue” at this particular detention center—can be properly withheld under Exemption 5. There is no attorney-client advice, and no deliberation on a pending policy decision.

If this is repairable, it will take an act of Congress, just like it did the last time. This exemption is like qualified immunity for cops: why not toss it up against the wall and see if it sticks? Since it usually takes litigation to reverse agency non-judgment calls, the house -- which spends other people's money to stick it to the people -- almost always wins.

Filed Under: b(5), foia, government, inter-agency communications, secrecy, transparency

FCC Withholds Ajit Pai's Emails Regarding The Infamous 'Harlem Shake' Video

from the b(5)-for-all-the-things dept

Last December, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai starred in a "PSA" produced by The Daily Caller. In the video, Pai addressed all the "trolls" in the net neutrality debate, reassuring the public that they will still be able to enjoy things on the internet after its repeal. To illustrate this, Pai does the absolute polar opposite of an enjoyable thing on the internet: the Harlem Shake.

That segment actually led to the video being temporarily removed from YouTube after a copyright complaint from the record label Mad Decent.

Curious as to whose idea this was, I filed a FOIA for emails between The Daily Caller and the FCC, as well as any talking points regarding this huge PR coup. Four months later, the FCC responded. The agency found two pages of emails but would be withholding them in their entirety under FOIA's infamous b(5) exemption regarding deliberative process.

This isn't even the first time the FCC has used b(5) to deny access to records regarding Pai starring in an embarrassing video - the agency rejected Gizmodo's request for records relating to a comedy skit in which Pai joked about being a "Verizon puppet," similarly under b(5).

Read the rejection letter embedded below or on the request page. If you're interested in Pai and the fight for net neutrality, you can check out his calendar here.

Republished from MuckRock

Filed Under: ajit pai, b(5), fcc, foia, harlem shake, transparency
Companies: daily caller

Judge Shoots Down 'FOIA Terrorist' Jason Leopold; Says 'Panetta Review' Documents Can Be Withheld In Full

from the whatever-the-CIA-said-about-torturing-folks-is-between-the-CIA-and-the-CIA dept

DC District Court judge James E. Boasberg has ruled the CIA can continue to withhold the "Panetta Review" documents in full, thanks to widely-abused FOIA exemption b(5). (via Unredacted)

District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled against a journalist on Tuesday who had tried to uncover the classified documents — known as the Panetta Review, because they was completed under orders from former agency Director Leon Panetta — under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The CIA had used “sound” reasoning in keeping the documents secret, Boasberg decided in a 19-page judgment, preventing it from making its way to the public.

The journalist in question is every secretive agency's side-thorn, Jason Leopold, who sued the CIA one day after it passed the response deadline. And now this attempt to pry more torture-related documents out of the CIA's hands has hit a dead end. Judge Boasberg agreed that the overbroad exemptions cited are (unsurprisingly) broad enough to cover the CIA's assertion that the 40 memos comprising the Panetta Review must be withheld in full.

In the end, requiring disclosure of the Reviews would cause the sort of harm that the deliberative-process privilege was designed to prevent – i.e., inhibiting frank and open communications among agency personnel… Had the SRT known that the Reviews could become public, its members would likely have been tempted to highlight only the information that would paint the agency’s prior actions in a positive light and to avoid calling attention to information that could have embarrassed the agency or its officials. Protecting the agency’s withholdings in this case is thus consistent with the purposes of this exemption…

The Court, in sum, concludes that the Reviews are properly withheld under Exemption 5’s deliberative-process privilege. It further agrees that they may be withheld in full. While FOIA requires agencies to release “[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), it is clear that there are no such portions here. As the agency attests, and as the preceding discussion makes clear, “[t]he entire documents are pre-decisional, deliberative drafts . . . .” Lutz Decl., ¶ 26. Because “the selection of which facts to include [wa]s part and parcel of the deliberative assessment,” no portions can be severed without exposing the deliberative process itself.

Two interesting things to note about the Panetta Review and this particular case.

First, the CIA seems to be bolstering its FOIA exemption b(5) claims by designating documents as "draft" or "deliberative," no matter what their actual purpose is. In its supporting declaration filed in this lawsuit, it deployed circular reasoning declaring drafts and deliberative documents are drafts and deliberative documents because they are clearly marked as such by the CIA.

In a court filing last month as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, a C.I.A. officer said that the review had been stopped abruptly in 2010, had not covered all of the documents the agency had given to the committee and “had not been formally reviewed or relied upon by the C.I.A.’s senior leadership.”

“Each document is stamped ‘DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT’ at the top of every page, and most of the documents are marked ‘DRAFT’ on every page as well,” wrote the C.I.A. officer, Martha M. Lutz.

The CIA's internal document designations seem to bear some resemblance to the NYPD's use of its "SECRET" stamp -- which is deployed arbitrarily and without oversight to declare certain documents out of the reach of Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests. If the CIA feels exemption b(5) gives it the best chance to keep documents out of the hands of journalists like Jason Leopold. it can slap these designations on as many papers as possible and mention its predetermination in FOIA lawsuit declarations.

Second, Boasberg's refusal to challenge even a single exemption assertion by the CIA isn't particularly good news, considering his recent appointment to the FISA court. While he has pushed back on government secrecy in the past, he's also been just as likely to grant its wishes. Considering he's replacing FISA Judge Reggie Walton -- one of the few FISA judges to openly question surveillance tactics and hold the NSA accountable for its abuses -- this latest decision seems to indicate his appointment is a downgrade in terms of government accountability.

Filed Under: b(5), b5, cia, foia, james boasberg, jason leopold, panetta review, redactions