FBI Investigates Open Records Request

GrooveMoose writes "A university student at the University of Texas makes an open records request for information on the underground tunnel system at the school. A few months later the FBI and Secret Service come knocking on his door to see if he's a terrorist. He's still under investigation by the federal government regarding a completely open request."

Comments

A thought...

[brolewis]

This story may be related to Austin's Anti-Terrorism Force, but they have a saying at UT that may be apropos: You can't spell stupid without UTPD

Re:What's the problem here?

[petabyte]

Actually, the best quote of that I saw (I believe I saw it as someone's sig here) was:

Welcome to America, Land of the Free*

*Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited.

Re:So WTF?

[BandwidthHog]

Yeah, I keep threatening to make up some "What Would Jefferson Do?" bumper stickers, but nobody gets the joke so I haven't bothered.

[answer: ~85 rpm]

Planning a plot?

[actiondan]

I enjoyed this part:


"The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."


Planning a plot? That's only the tip of the iceberg! What if he is plotting a scheme or scheming a plan?

I see no problem with such a request being investigated. It does sound like they asked the guy some pretty stupid questions though (do they really think that long hair is significant when it comes to identifying terrorists? or membership of the ACLU?) OTOH, those questions may well have been filler to pad out the real questions they wanted to ask.

If they find no evidence during their investigation, they really should grant his further information requests though. Once they are satisfied that he's not a terrorist, they'll have no reason not to let him see all the files relating to his case, surely?

Dan.

Good reason to ask for tunnel maps

[joelparker]

...to design new levels for Quake.

Never give true reasons but plausible ones instead

[B.D.Mills]

Honourable though his intentions may be, he also demonstrates a lack of knowledge on how corporate politics works. He gave true reasons for his actions.

In the chat log, he gives a reason for an investigation thus: "To satiate my curiousity." This is the wrong thing to say. If you are up to anything that is remotely dubious, never give the exact *real* reason you are doing anything. Instead, make up another reason that is plausible and legitimate and always give that reason instead. Never divulge the real reason to anyone you don't trust. If you cannot think up a plausible reason then you may need to rethink your actions.

In the example given, he should have said that he was gathering information in the public interest. (This reason is even true and therefore irrefutable: he's a member of the public and he's interested, therefore it must be in the public interest.) Another thing one could say is anything using corporate doublespeak. The eyes of thine listener shall glazeth over: and thou shalt be as slippery as an eel in thy escape from unwelcome scrutiny.

Concealing real reasons is commonplace. The leaders of the MPAA and RIAA do this. Politicians do this. Corporate CEO's do this. And we know what fine, upstanding citizens these people are. *cough*. So if it's okay for them to do it, why can't the masses?