Slashdot Mirror


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."

20 of 860 comments (clear)

  1. What's the problem here? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly, some paper-pusher at the university office freaked that somebody was using The Freedom of Information Act to force them to release information about their underground tunnels... most likely because the feds told universities to call them if anybody makes requests for information about campus infrastructure.

    And, let's face it... even though it's perfectly legal to file a Freedom of Information Act request, doing so for topics like this totally out of the blue is certainly suspicious activity.

    One thing to point out is that the agents called and said they wanted to speak with the student, but it doesn't appear they ever arrested him. That means he could have told them that he wasn't interested in meeting with them, or he could have walked out of the room at any time. He also could have at any time brought in a lawyer.

    The moral of the story is that if you ask for some creepy information, and it's not exactly clear why you asked for it, then the FBI and Secret Service are going to have some questions to ask you, and they'll open a file on it. They won't deprive you of any of your freedoms over that alone... being confronted by men with badges who are looking for you may be a scary thing, but he could have just as well told them to leave him alone and they would have had to. He agreed to meet with them, so that's that.

    1. Re:What's the problem here? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Request all the knowledge you want, but just be aware that they are watching you.

      America, land of the secure (formerly the land of the free).

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:What's the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't arrest anyone or deny anyone their freedom or civil rights. They're investigating possible suspicious activity on a campus that has thousands of people on it.

      Are you suggesting the proper thing to do is to wait until something bad happens? Or to investigate completely in secret so as not to hurt the feelings of the principal person involved?

    3. Re:What's the problem here? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government just can't win. I'm not saying this student is a bomber or was planning to shoot up the school but just for argument's sake let's say he was. He gets information on the tunnels and places a bomb in them. The bombs go off and the school blows up. Then the FBI discovers that the student requested information on the tunnels but no one flagged it as unusual. What happens next? All the newspapers are filled with stories about how the FBI are incompetent. I mean look at the inquiry going on now regarding 9/11. Remember Columbine? The sheriff's department there were villified for "not seeing the warning signs." So what kind of solution do you propose? Personally, I don't have a problem with the FBI simply talking to this guy just to clear the situation up before anything happens.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    4. Re:What's the problem here? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm squiggleslash and I approve this message.

      I think a certain degree of discretion is absolutely necessary. Not only does it hurt the reputation of someone to be "under investigation by the FBI" but it's especially unfair to the person under investigation when no crime has even been committed.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:What's the problem here? by ekuns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you are innocent until proven guilty

      With the Patriot Act, this isn't so much true any longer. It depends on whether the FBI was investigating under normal laws or under Patriot Act laws. Consider that the Patriot Act allows our government to hold people without charging them, without admitting they are holding them, and without warrant. This is why people worry about kinds of things like this story.

      All that said, it's reasonable for the FBI to investigate certain kinds of FOIA requests, and this one seems reasonable to at least quickly investigate. If someone bought a couple tons of the kinds of fertilizer that can be used to make weapons, the FBI should at least quickly look into that as well.

      This doensn't mean the student did anything wrong, nor that the FOIA request should be ignored.

      (And I'm not saying you said any of that! I'm just using your post as a jumping off point.)

    6. Re:What's the problem here? by HybridJeff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How many people died in the attacks, and how many people have died in this so called "war on terrorism?"

      Those are lives too (lots of which were innocent).

    7. Re:What's the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The motivation is more along the lines of a script kiddie

      +4 Interesting? what are people actually buying this bull shit?

      Al Qaida aren't fucking script kiddies. They're not doing this for the "thrill" of it. They want to destory Western Culture because it directly conflicts with their radical views Islam.

      None of these people really felt harmed by us, even in their own heads

      That's exactly what they felt! it's why they want to destory western culture, which the U.S is the forefront of. Western culture is in direct conflict with their core beliefs! Almost Everything that defines Western Culture is the anti-thesis of their ideology. From Sex to Freedom of Choices such as Abortion and Religon.
      The guys that flew the plane aren't some 'kiddies' who decided to take a plane and fly it into a building for the 'sheer challenge of defeating America'. They are fucking radicals who believe the U.S is the devil incarnate and they believed they were serving Allah in destroying the devil! Everytime a Macdonalds opens up in the middle east Qaida gets new recruits, not because it's 'fucking cool to blow up stuff'. It's because they believe America is corrupting their society and infecting their people, who they believe are suppose to be following the Koran word for word. Because fundamentalist nuts are like that.
      Why am i even bothering to explain why Al Qaida do what they do? Do i really need to explain the motivation behind Al Qaida? i guess so cause apparently now they are likened to 'script kiddies'...wtf...

      They hate us. Do you understand that concept? they want us destroyed. Not for fun, not cause it's a challenge. They want us gone because our beliefs don't fit with theirs and in fact conflicts with theirs! and they don't want our beliefs and way of life "infecting" their society.
      I mean the church and kings only did the same fucking thing for hundreds of years throughout Europe, That is trying to destroy those that would conflict with their beliefs. Which is why everyone fled to America in the first place. But i guess the Popes back then were just glorified script kiddies.
      The logic of the attacks isn't to cause damage, death, or even really fear. It's more the elegence of the plan itself that's the deciding factor.
      the elegence of flying yourself into a building? or ramming your truck filled up to the hilt with semtex into a building? that's elegant? the deciding factor is that they believe they are doing god's will. The logic of the attack is that they are on a crusade, they are holy warriors. What you're implying is they are like the fucking morons from JackAss!

      Hence the embassies exploding simultaneously and trying to film your exploding tugboats. There's no reason to do that, other than that it's cool.

      other than it's cool? So Al Qaida are determined to destroy western culture cause it's the cool thing to do? or wait...maybe just maybe they are trying to punk'd the U.S.! ...wtf

    8. Re:What's the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry, you mean you take the war on terror seriously?

      Jeez; I wasn't aware that more buildings had been attacked, or that any convictions were made to stick with any of the thousands of detained individuals after the attacks.

      You can walk around being paranoid all the time and letting the SS do whatever they like to you and submit to anal probes too for all I care, but some of us really aren't into having to hide our curiousities.

      I should be allowed to ask about how a tunnel was built; it might be MY life in danger if there's a problem, it might be MY safety.

      Go do some research; how many people in the US die every year from engineering failures, and how many die from terrorist events.

      Get over yourself.

      (I'd love the karma from this; but I'm not into the hatemail from the morons)

  2. Sounds fair to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Consider what people would say if a terrorist requested the information for a tunnel system under a school, and the FBI didn't investigate it? It's not like they were tracking this guy's every move. He requested someone rather unusual, and they checked it out as they should.

  3. So WTF? by ka55ad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So now everytime someone requests info through the FOIA they will be questioned by the FBI or CIA? Is the government trying to discourage this?

    Its kinda usless to have a right if you are harassed every time you use it.

  4. Tinfoil hat time by tool462 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FOIA = government honey pot?

    Think about it.

    You know I'm right.

  5. Re:What'd you expect... by cmdrxizor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But then who is it to determine what a legitimate reason is for wanting the information? After all, someone who is researching the tunnels for a civil engineering paper may have a very valid reason, but is everyone going to think that? The Freedom of Information Act is meant to let you have access to this information without necessarily saying what it is or isn't going to be used for... it prevent's the government from arbitrarily saying "you can't know that" in most cases.

    Granted, in the post-9/11 world, it has become a lot harder to draw the line between security and the free flow of information, but I believe the policy should still basically be one where the government must show why you *don't* need (non-classified, obviously) information, as opposed to you showing why you should be allowed to have it.

  6. Re:What'd you expect... by Fuzion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should the student have to tell you anything? It's his right as an American citizen to make a perfectly legal request under the Freedom Of Information Act, There's no law requiring people to justify their requests, and just because he's not authorized to access them doesn't mean he should be investigated for being curious about their locations.

    He does have perfectly legit reason and he's told them (as stated in the article): he was curious about the underground tunnel network, and wanted to know its dimensions.

    And, how exactly should he have "known that'd happen for making such a request without a clear reason for doing so."? What next? Someone being investigated for looking up the whitehouse on a map "without a clear reason for doing so"? Why should anyone who doesn't work there, or is planning to visit, look it up on a map? He was simply curious, and made a legitimate request for the information, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    --
    "Knowledge makes us accountable." - Che Guevara
  7. I want in those tunnels too. :) by nfsilkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I go to utexas.edu. I can vouch for the administrative craziness that all too often plagues this school. :)

    This is the same place where the suits did everything they could to keep the FOIA and other legal mechanisms from revealing information about the post-9/11 surveillance system. UT even went after our state attorney general over this. A friend of mine said it best: "Never sue someone when they have a law school." ;)

    The whole reference to UTWatch in the article creeped me out. UTWatch is a student-run organization which follows up on what the regents and other suits do. Like Ralph Nader in the 70s, its a mere watchdog organization checking if proposed policies will adversely affect the student body at large. Recently they have been very vocal speaking out concerning tuitition deregulation and the involvement of UT managing the Los Alamos laboratories. Not simply fact checkers, UTWatch does get involved when it smells something fishy.

    I applaud what Mark Miller did. There is all sorts of cool things under the ground here at UT. Under ENS and RLM you can find a retired tokamak! More than just he are interested in whats buried. Simply put, what UT did (assuming it did something to spur this) simply lacked honor. ;)

  8. Re:What'd you expect... by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "But, assuming he's not a terrorist, why did this student want to know about the underground tunnels?"

    Replace "underground tunnels" with anything else, and you realize exactly how inane this question is.

    The point is you shouldn't be investigated just because you want some information. You don't see FBI questioning bio majors or chem majors at colleges, do you? (Not happening yet but if this terorism BS keeps up then maybe they'll imprison them).

    There's no good information or bad information. There's just information. The problems arise when you start introducing people.

    If I want to learn about something or want to know something, it's nobody's god damn business other than my own. You don't tell the government when you learn a new programming language, even though you could write viruses in it. You don't tell the government where you're going when you buy a car, even though you could use it to smuggle explosives.

    Your stand-point on this issues is chilling to say the least. Do you actually want to provide a reason to big brother everytime you want some information? Do you want to file a report everytime you search the web for fertilizer?

    ~X~
    "Clues on eBay! Starting bid is $.01!"

    --
    ~X~
  9. What if denied the "right" to fly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now if he is denied the right to board an airplane from this point forward and put on one of the terrorist watch lists the government wishes to share with private industry and hence potential employers, then yes, I would see a VERY SERIOUS issue here.

  10. Sounds like coersion by nonameisgood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The feds should never have been visibly involved in something so trivial unless there was an indication of something else.

    It seems that without another cause, this would constitute coersion in order to deny access to information which is otherwise not secret. Even if they "approve" the request, there is a chilling effect on other requests. Probably the intent.

    --
    Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
    1. Re:Sounds like coersion by jcenters · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because perhaps the primary purpose of our federal "law enforcement" agencies isn't protection of the civilians, but protection of the leaders and political structure?

      I don't mean to make 911 seem insignificant here by any means, but think about this: The thousands that died in the attacks were only a tiny percentage of the US population, but the threat to our leaders stability was enormous.

      So no, the FBI could care less about your money that was stolen (Even though you could be quite impoverished and needed that money to eat that week), but threaten their system, and they bring out the big guns.

      Just giving some food for thought.

      --

      vi ~/.emacs

  11. I want my rights back. by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But if all they did was ask and he volentarily answered then not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.

    The problem there is that we no longer have any real rights. Now, before you dismiss me for taking some kind of extremist view, think of it this way:

    The governemt currently can, at its option, declare you an "enemy combatant", with no due process or judicial review. Then they can detain these "enemy combatants" indefinitely. Hence, if he told them to bugger off when they questioned him, they may see that as being suspicious, and decide he'd make a good Enemy Combatant.

    Rights that can be arbitrarily taken away at any time aren't rights at all. They're an illusion. What it boils down to is that you have a right to due process, except when the government says you don't.