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."
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.
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.
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
A little learning never hurt anyone.
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.
I know the guy (Mark A Miller) being described in this article. I use IRC mostly as a contact list, and have a channel for users of my unremarkable non-profit server. Mark has been a regular in my small (under 20 people) channel for months. I know this is the same guy as the Mark Miller in this article because the user in my channel talked incessantly about these freedom of information act requests, months ago.
[04/13 00:16] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Ah.
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> District Attorney Office. Forgot to go by that.
[04/13 00:17] <@dyfrgi> Why do you want/need to?
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To file a writ of mandumus against UT Austin.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They are ignoring one of my open records request.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To find out how much they pay for their Internet service.
[04/13 00:18] <@mspencer> "one of"?
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Okay, several of.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They initiall complied.
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Now they're ignoring me hoping I'll go away.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> I'm surprised you've filed even one open records request, let alone several.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> What are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Er?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Why are you suprised?
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> I mean, as long as you're being adult about it, and making sure your need for the data is worth the time they need to put into filling those requests.
[04/13 00:20] <@dyfrgi> Writ of Mandumus?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> mspencer,
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> So what are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To satiate my curiousity.
[04/13 00:21] <@Mirell[Mobile]> I'm not sure if that's how you spell it, dyfrgi.
[04/13 00:21] <@mspencer> Do you think those requests are having any kind of negative effect on the University or its staff?
[04/13 00:21] <@dyfrgi> I'm just wondering what it is.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Let's see...I requested initially any contracts or invoices detailing the cost the University entails in gaining Internet connectivity.
[04/13 00:22] <@dyfrgi> Mm. I assume you want to file a petition for a writ of madamus.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then I filed another one for something they withheld on an invoice.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then another one for another thing they left out..
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Classroom Web Cams they deny knowledge of
[04/13 00:23] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Information Security Council briefs, since we had the Social Security Number scare.
[04/13 00:24] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say by "Negative Affect" when they have a position who's sole purpose is to manage Open Records Requests.
[04/13 00:25] <@dyfrgi> I think he is implying that you should not ask, because it costs money for them to tell you.
[04/13 00:25] <@mspencer> I was deliberately vague: any effect, emotional or financial or otherwise, that is more significant than the benefit you get from satisfying your curiosity.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> No.
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> hopefully there isn't one, but if there is, I'd like to think you considered that.
[04/13 00:26] <@bl0d> i dunno, i'd really be curious about the Webcam one...that's just fucked up...
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> Ah, OK then.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=620962
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They pull crap like this as well.
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And this: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=657367
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[
FOIA = government honey pot?
Think about it.
You know I'm right.
I'm an undergrad at Caltech and here at least it's really popular to illegally enter the underground tunnel system for various reasons. There are all sorts of reasons for it -- you can get to classes when it's raining, you can get into buildings that would normally be locked at odd hours to turn in homework, etc. Also, some of our parties and other events have components in the tunnels and there's a bit of a cultural legacy associated with them as well -- people who attend the school are often given midnight tours highlighting various murals and the like. I've heard that this is popular at Carnegie Mellon as well.
I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
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.
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
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.
"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~
I used to be a resident of the UT system and heard all about the tunnels - even got to pass through one between ENS and RLM on a tour once. Would have loved to have gotten a big map of the tunnels to overlay the standard UT map just to see how quickly I COULD get from RLM to anywhere else but never thought to file a FOIA request ... Duh!
.. not surprised the SS got involved ... Y'all know one of the Bush twins attends UT right ... The SS has been all over UT since summer of 2000. They're discrete but not exactly in hiding.
But
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.
If an Agent Knocks - Federal Investigators and Your Rights
People opposing U.S. policies in Central America, giving sanctuary to refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador, struggling for Black liberation, and against nuclear weapons, are today more than ever likely to receive visits from FBI agents or other federal investigators. Increasingly, agents are also visiting the families, friends, and employers of these activists.
This pamphlet is designed to answer the most frequent questions asked by people and groups experiencing government scrutiny, and to help them develop practical responses.
What is political intelligence?
Political intelligence is information collected by the government about individuals and groups. Files secured under the Freedom of Information Act disclose that government officials have long been interested in all forms of data. Information gathered by government agents ranges from the most personal data about sexual liaisons and preferences to estimates of the strength of groups opposing U.S. policies. Over the years, groups and individuals have developed various ways of limiting the collection of information and preventing such intelligence gathering from harming their work.
Do I have to talk to the FBI?
No. The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions (other than name and address see errata), to permit a search without a warrant, or to otherwise cooperate with an investigation. Agents are usually lawyers, and they are always trained as investigators; they have learned the power of persuasion, the ability to make a person feel scared, guilty, or impolite for refusing their requests for information. So remember, they have no legal authority to force people to do anything -- unless they have obtained an arrest or search warrant. Even when agents do have warrants, you still don't have to answer their questions.
Under what laws do the agents operate?
In 1976, FBI guidelines regulating the investigation of political activities were issued by Attorney General Edward H. Levi. Criticized by liberals and conservatives alike, the guidelines were issued in the wake of a Congressional committee's report of highly questionable activities by the FBI, monitoring the activities of domestic political groups seeking to effect change. The report exposed the FBI's counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) under which the agency infiltrated groups, compiled dossiers on, and directly interfered with individuals engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
The FBI COINTELPRO program was initiated in 1956. Its purpose, as described later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, was "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize activities" of those individuals and organizations whose ideas or goals he opposed. Tactics included: falsely labelling individuals as informants; infiltrating groups with persons instructed to disrupt the group; sending anonymous or forged letters designed to promote strife between groups; initiating politically motivated IRS investigations; carrying out burglaries of offices and unlawful wiretaps; and disseminating to other government agencies and to the media unlawfully obtained derogatory information on individuals and groups.
In 1983, Attorney General William French Smith issued superseding guidelines that authorized "domestic security/ terrorism" investigations against political organizations whenever the FBI had a reasonable belief that these groups might violate a law. The new guidelines permitted the same intrusive techniques the FBI used against organized crime.
The Smith guidelines were justified by the Attorney General's observation that "our citizens are no less threatened by groups which engage in criminal violence for political... purposes that by those which operate lawlessly for financial gain." He concluded: "we must ensure that criminal intelligence resources that have been brought to bear
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
This reminds me of a kid I knew when he was in high school, back in the Vietnam War era (when the internal security systems of the various levels of government in the US had gotten 'WAY out of control).
..."
His use of a university's computer while a high school student (something he got started on as a guinea pig in a University program doing research on learning and teaching) had attracted the attention of the FBI.
A couple years later he decided to use the shiny-new FOIA to see what records the FBI and the state and local cops had on him. And while he was at it, he sent FOIA requests to several other agencies.
The first one he sent to the CIA was a classic self-referential hack: He requested their internal document describing their procedure for responding to FOIA requests. B-) (Obviously useful for generating the next round of requests, too.)
Needless to say the agencies involved didn't respond as required by the law. So with the aid of a Libertarian lawyer he started suing them. He won, and they eventually were ordered to give him what he asked for. Then they flaked on that, too, and he got a contempt citation and more court orders. Eventually he got much of his info (with big chunks blacked out). Then he sued them for his lawyer's fees and won that, too.
After a few iterations of this he was sitting on quite a number of interesting documents. So he started a newspaper to give them wider circulation and created a business of generating FOIA requests and publishing the results. This became quite popular with the CIA watcher, privacy advocate, private detective, and tinfoil-hat sets. Advertising revenue flowed in from such folk as buging and debugging equipment manufacturers.
At one point he got the petty cash records from a New York area CIA office. Items he found in it charged to one project (air compressor, flit guns, briefcase, auto exhaust system, washing a car) led to blowing the lid off a project to obtain information on how a biowarfare plague might spread in an urban environment by exposing the citizens of New York City to a "mostly harmless" bug that caused severe enough respiratory system symptoms that it could be tracked by hospital admissions. (Spread techniques included spraying subways with the bug from the gimmicked briefcase and spraying commuter traffic via the car's exhaust system.)
He also got hold of and published one year's version of the IRS procedures manual. And put out a pamphlet on how to use the FOIA. (Eventually he was enjoined from distributing either of these.)
Eventually the FOIA was modified to give the security agencies some loopholes against such requests.
Bob Dylan had something to say about this: "You have to pay to keep from going through these things twice." Also Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time
He's still out there doing stuff like this, by the way. Last time he looked he had a web site dedicated to exposing personal information trading in the information age.
The above-mentioned kid was part of the Boomer's round. I guess now it's Generation X's (or maybe Y's) turn to pay some dues. (Sigh.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.