FBI Wants To Limit Document Searches

An anonymous reader writes "In what seems to be in opposition to the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI is seeking to limit document searches. It seems since now that a lot of documents are in electronic form, searching them is much easier than before, and for that reason the FBI is taking this action."

Comments

Not so bad, but not so good either

[the_mad_poster]

That's not exactly what's going on here. The FBI is in hot water because they didn't dig up already-released documents in a later FOIA request. Their argument is that the search was sufficient, not that they shouldn't have had to do it at all.

While they may be intentionally stunting their software search capabilities, it seems less likely that this is some malicious attempt on our freedoms and very likely that it's pure laziness on their part. The government has never been too happy about having to handle FOIA requests because they take time and money. When someone comes along and makes one, it's often easier for them to fight it than to use the resources required to dig up the info.

Re:Not so bad, but not so good either

[medelliadegray]

While you could attribute this to laziness. I would not like the government to be in the position of deciding what point a FOIA request is sufficently fulfilled, especially if it skips over previously released FOIA docs. Just because a doc is released under the FOIA act, it does not necessarly become released to the public unless the requestor makes it available.

Now, if they limited it to not retrieving the same document twice for the SAME requestor in which two requests overlapped. that i think would be acceptable. so long as there's still a "hi i lost said documents i previously requested, can i get another copy" kind of fallback.

call me paranoid, but if the govt filtered any document previously relesed... they just have to have someone with close ties to the govt request said document which they do not want in public hands, and it'd never get released again. woot, easy coverup!

Re:Not so bad, but not so good either

[ScentCone]

Yeah, of course that's the reason. Not that they have anything to hide. After all, everyone knows the government HATES to spend money, right?

You don't actually spend much time understanding how agencies work or are funded, huh? There really isn't much of an entity called "the government." Each agency or department operates with funding that is dictated from the outside (usually with congressional authority, sometimes with some discretionary authority from the executive branch). Even when the judicial branch orders that the other branches do something, normal funding procedures have to kick in.

The point is, each agency has a budget. They can't exceed it. A single FOI inquiry can occupy several or even dozens of federal employees for days or weeks. One request, from one person. Now: every time some activist organization sends its troops to DC to make a stink about something, you end up with dozens or hundreds of requests for much the same data/documents, but all worded a litte differently, and requiring redundent attention. Essentially, every agency of the government has had to hugely expand its staff, filing, IT, etc., for the sole purpose of honoring these requests.

Note: I don't think that's a bad thing - the government's operations should always err on the side of transparency, except where doing so would jeopardize lives or important strategic issues surrounding defense, security, and personal privacy. But: the very same people that like to bitch about the government are also happy to spend thousands and thousands of all of our dollars doing what amounts to Denial Of Service Attack on the agency they're nagging. They should ask for information they rationally need, but they should also consider this:

If a typical FOI request to, say, the DOD (perhaps for "all records related to person X and his immediate supervisors/command") occupies half a dozen record clerks for several man-hours each, plus communications/infrastructure costs and the other overhead... the person making that request has probably just "spent" more money than they even paid in federal taxes that year. People who make dozens of such requests during a year are basically forcing dozens of us taxpayers to put all of our taxable effort into covering those requests. To the extent that many of them are frivalous, that's something those people should keep in mind. Of course, those are often the same people that keep thinking "it's only the government's money" (when it's really yours and mine), and then also bitch about budget deficits. Moderation in all things, please, and please note that the conspiratorial tone doesn't sound as pursuasive without the X-Files soundtrack playing in the background. Watch less TV and read some actual information - it will make you want to vote for people that are trying to streamline and minimize the government, not bloat it more and more to service interests that don't actually produce anything.

Re:Not so bad, but not so good either

[demachina]

"I still can't get over this Abu Graib thing."

Maybe you should be locked up in a prison on suspicion of a crime, especially a crime you didn't commit, and be tortured and sexually humiliated in front of a camera and then have those pictures shown to your friends and family if not the whole world.

Here , read this, its the testimony of one of the people tortured at Abu Graib. He was and is being held on "suspicion" of theft, not terrorism or decapitating people or anything he had been convicted of. Try putting yourself in his shoes while you are reading it and maybe you will stop being such an arrogant American dick.

I don't think ANY of the people tortured in Abu Graib were "terrorists" that had decapitated peoples. Most of them were people arrested for ordinary crimes, especially looting which EVERYONE in Iraq was doing after the invasion, or innocent people just caught up in dragnets when the U.S. was rounding up people looking mostly in vain for insurgents and Saddam loyalists.

Its key, NONE of the people in Abu Ghraib had been "convicted" of anything. They were suspects. You are basicly dropping the bar so low that the U.S. government can arrest and torture anyone, anywhere on suspicion, and maybe torture a confession out of them that isn't worth the paper its printed on. If they aren't found to be guilty of anything how do you justify torturing them?

You are in fact endorsing EXACTLY the same thing the U.S. has been so indignant about Saddam doing and used as an excuse to overthrow him. The stuff you are taking about is the antithesis of the "Freedom and Democracy" the Bush administration cons everyone in to thinking we brought to Iraq. It is a key reason the Iraqi people have become to despise the U.S. occupation force so much because it managed, with ease, to put itself at the same level as Saddam with arbitrary arrests, torture and killing innocent civilians, often women, children and wounded, unarmed combatants.

All in all you should probably turn in your U.S. citizenship because you have NO CLUE what your country is supposed to stand for, in particular due process is the most basic underpinning of the rule of law and if you chose to cast it aside for some people its a matter of time its thrown aside for everyone, you included, and you have a police state no different from Saddam's.

As for Geneva conventions not applying in Iraq they most certainly do. Its legal hair splitting if they apply to Al Qaida but they sure as hell apply to Iraq. When your nation invades and occupies a sovereign nation there are most definitely rules on how you treat the civilian population of that occupied country, they most definitely apply to the U.S. as a signatory no matter how much you and the Bush administration want to pretend they don't. They forbid:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

The U.S. has done EVERY one of these in Iraq.

If you want to cast aside U.S. adherence to the Geneva conventions then DON'T get mad if American's are taken as prisoners of war, in the upcoming war in Iran for example, if they are tortured and sexually humiliated, you've given every American adversary the rationale to do it and the world which just say America is getting what it deserves. You better also hope that you are never in place that is invaded and occupied because again you are giving the invading army a blank check to arrest, torture, sexually humiliate and kill you because you are an American who has chosen to cast aside the Geneva conventions.

Good thing it isn't up to them

[Dancin_Santa]

The government is much more than a little agency like the FBI. I'd rather keep my ability to get information about the comings and goings of my government, thank you very much.

Re:Good thing it isn't up to them

[Mistlefoot]

What is even scarier is the any agency could theoretically electronic archive ONLY materials that they don't mind being shared. Or since you can't convert everything immediatly - archive stuff you want hidden once you've archived everything else. This would actually seem the logical way to do things. Articles that "may" be secret should be read and re-read before being made public. An agency could simply create "3 piles". PUBLIC, TO BE DETERMINED, and SECRET when converting. They could they convert them electronically in that order.

Then if a request is made, do an electronic search, come up with nothing, and claim they 'did their best', while effectively not searching for anything that fit into the second category.

One Question?

[xPosiMattx]

Why should our ability to find the information that is available to use be limited? If this information is public shouldn't we be able to use it how ever or as efficiently as we wish?

Re:One Question?

[Scrameustache]

Why should our ability to find the information that is available to use be limited? If this information is public shouldn't we be able to use it how ever or as efficiently as we wish?

Then you would be watching the watchers, and they don't want that.

the FBI just doesn't get it

[Lawrence_Bird]

The beuraucratic culture at FBI headquarters and regional
offices are to blame for this and many other woes. I know
a retired field agent that was in counter-intel and he has
nothing good to say about agency management.

I don't think this is so much an overt effort to hide any
one particular document(s) but just a widely prevalent
'we don't give a damn what you want'. Laziness and CYA
mentality are to blame.

UK version

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, our version of the FOIA came into force on 1st January, it has some similar "loopholes".

For a start, just before Christmas, a memo went around whitehall (around government offices, basically) instructing civil servants to delete emails over 3 months old, unless vital. (i.e. just before they become available to the public via the act, destroy them!)

Notably if this 3 month rule had been in force before, the evidence that lost former home secretary David Blunket his post (for misuse of public services, basically) would not have been available to be made public...

Also our version allows as a valid response to a request for information a simple declaration that another government department has that information (i.e. go get it from them). This does NOT have to imply that the original department does not have the requested information; it is a simple buck-pass.

Of course the second department can give the answer that the first department has the information. This counts, under the act, as your request having been satisfactorily dealt with...

(so information in 2 departments can be withheld without being designated as "secret" should the departments wish...)

Wow. Summary couldn't be more wrong.

[daveschroeder]

But kneejerk slashdot sensationalism as usual.

And, the statement "It seems since now that a lot of documents are in electronic form, searching them is much easier than before, and for that reason the FBI is taking this action," is the diametric opposite of what is actually happening.

The story is that an individual made an FOIA request to the FBI for some specific information.

The FBI claimed that no such information was available.

The claimant found out in the meantime that such information WAS available, and, as such, requested a court order the FBI to provide it.

The FBI is arguing that its search was reasonable within department regulations and guidelines, and that it cannot and should not be expected to always undercover every single possible document. It's precisely BECAUSE documents are indexed electronically that is creating the difficulty: the FBI is claiming, essentially, that it can't predict every possibly keyword it should associate with a document for search purposes, and therefore shouldn't be held accountable if it misses documents during a good-faith search.

Whether or not the FBI was intentionally hiding OKBOMB memos, etc., is another story altogether.

Information Act

[nurb432]

Is superseded by the (un)Patriot act..

Think its bad now, wait a few years when even the discussion of what used to be public knowledge will get you tossed in jail:

"remember when the constitution protected....?" and they whisk you away as a terrorist or something.

Whats the answer? Other then a total revolt of the people, i donno. And yes i realize that is unlikely as most of the population are now simply trained sheep, believing what they are fed on TV.

All the FBI Needs is...

[Albinofrenchy]

The FBI should just install google desktop. Problem solved.

A Real Problem

[Thunderstruck]

Actually, all of our wonderful database technology and document scanners have created a problem that goes far beyond the FBI. This is news just because the FBI has tried to do something about it.

The real problem is that over the past 200 years or so, a lot of records have been generated that, while technically public, were never intended to be widely known. Consider for example, court documents. Many states require the social security numbers, home phone numbers, job information, or other very personal stuff to be included in pleadings filed with the courts. This is particularly common in divorce cases.

In the past, it wasn't much of a concern that some identity thief might go to the courthouse, ask for file C-200-87 and make some copies. Now, however, that thief can log on at a library in another state, and often request documents by the truckload without any human involvement.

Perhaps we, and the FBI, need a middle ground. Something like a "quasi-public-information" standard, where you can get the documents, but you have to show up in person and ask for them.

EFF Similar Report

[Me-The-Person]

This report was published earlier this month by http://www.eff.org/

January 14, 2005
Can the FBI Monitor Your Web Browsing Without a Warrant?
EFF Demands Answers from DOJ about PATRIOT Act Surveillance

Washington, DC - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FBI and other offices of the US Department of Justice, seeking the release of documents that would reveal whether the government has been using the USA PATRIOT Act to spy on Internet users' reading habits without a search warrant.

At issue is PATRIOT Section 216, which expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations using pen registers or trap and trace devices ("pen-traps"). Pen-traps collect information about the numbers dialed on a telephone but do not record the actual content of phone conversations. Because of this limitation, court orders authorizing pen-trap surveillance are easy to get -- instead of having to show probable cause, the government need only certify relevance to its investigation. Also, the government never has to inform people that they are or were the subjects of pen-trap surveillance.

PATRIOT expanded pen-traps to include devices that monitor Internet communications. But the line between non-content and content is a lot blurrier online than it is on phone networks. The DOJ has said openly that the new definitions allow pen-traps to collect email and IP addresses. However, the DOJ has not been so forthcoming about web surveillance. It won't reveal whether it believes URLs can be collected using pen-traps, despite the fact that URLs clearly reveal content by identifying the web pages being read. EFF made its FOIA request specifically to gain access to documents that might reveal whether the DOJ is using pen-traps to monitor web browsing.

"It's been over three years since the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, and the DOJ still hasn't answered the public's simple question: 'Can you see what we're reading on the Web without probable cause?'" said Kevin Bankston, EFF Staff Attorney and Bruce J. Ennis Equal Justice Works Fellow. "Much of PATRIOT is coming up for review this year, but we can never have a full and informed debate of the issues when the DOJ won't explain how it has been using these new surveillance powers."

The law firm of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary assisted EFF in preparing the FOIA request and will help with any litigation if the DOJ fails to respond.

Contact:

Kevin Bankston
Attorney, Equal Justice Works / Bruce J. Ennis Fellow
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bankston@eff.org

Posted at 09:27 AM

Sounds good - no more seizures

[originalhack]

When the FBI wants some record (they sometimes call it "evidence") from me, they can serve me with a subpoena or a warrant. I then perform a cursory check for the evidence they seek and turn the results over to them. I think that sounds much more civilized than many of the current practices.

Oh, wait...

This only applies to lawful requests for them to produce documents.

Google?

[jhines]

Perhaps the FBI needs to hire Google to do the indexing?

DEAR JOE PUBLIC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Joe Public,

We regret to inform you that every right given to you shall only be granted until actually taking advantage of it becomes feasible. At which time we shall revoke said rights on the basis that you might actually use them.

We hope you understand this is for your own safety and is not meant to indicate any wrong doing on the behalf of federal officials.

We apologize in advance for any resulting inconvenience.

Trust us,

Your Local Friendly Federal Agents.

Read about the case behind the request for info

[PureFiction]

The mysterious death of Kenneth Trentadue

The body of Kenneth Trentadue lay in a coffin in an Orange County, Calif., funeral home. His family had been told by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons earlier that week that the man hanged himself with a bed sheet on Aug. 21, 1995, while in federal custody at the Federal Transfer Center (FTC) in Oklahoma City. But Trentadue's family members who viewed his corpse-his wife, mother and sister-doubted the story. ...

the prison had gone to the trouble of putting Kenneth in a suit and applying makeup to his face-departing from the no-frills way the BOP typically releases dead inmates to their families-but had not bothered to mask his slashed throat.

Then the women noticed Kenneth's wrists and knuckles were black and swollen, strange injuries for a hanging.

Trentadue's sister, Donna Sweeney, clutched a camera she had brought with her. Taking a deep breath, she directed an attendant to strip Kenneth's body and scrub the heavy makeup from his face.

What the women saw shocked and disgusted them. Kenneth's head bore three massive wounds, two of which had ruptured the flesh to expose the skull. Below his left arm were fingerprint marks suggesting he had been propped up and held by someone else. Patches of skin had been ripped from his back. Bruises and welts lined the entire body, from his eyelids to the soles of his feet. [cont.]

I wouldn't be surprised if Homeland Security Operations Morning Briefs that we leaked are also part of their inclination to avoid digital record keeping (and comprehensive FOIA searches)

These reports show an interesting view of the domestic intelligence gathering being done at the DHS.

... what happened to the America I used to know?