Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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.
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?
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...)
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.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The FBI should just install google desktop. Problem solved.
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
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.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
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