Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Is the Worst FOIA Performer

Posted by kdawson on from the mind-the-gap dept.

krou writes "The National Security Archive at George Washington University has awarded its 2009 Rosemary Award to the FBI for worst freedom of information performance (PDF of the award). Previous winners have been the CIA and the Treasury. The NSA notes that 'The FBI's reports to Congress show that the Bureau is unable to find any records in response to two-thirds of its incoming FOIA requests on average over the past four years, when the other major government agencies averaged only a 13% "no records" response to public requests.' The FBI's explanation, according to the NSA, is that 'files are indexed only by reference terms that have to be manually applied by individual agents,' and even then, 'agents don't always index all relevant terms.' Furthermore, 'unless a requester specifically asks for a broader search, the FBI will only look in a central database of electronic file names at FBI headquarters in Washington.' Any search will therefore 'miss any internal or cross-references to people who are not the subject of an investigation, any records stored at other FBI offices around the country, and any records created before 1970.'"

92 comments

  1. maybe they need a search appliance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like the need to buy one of those Google search appliances.....

    1. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sounds like the need to buy one of those Google search appliances...

      Yeah, but then they would have to hire someone to censor all of the search results manually, and would no longer have a good reason to deny FOIA requests.

      On a side note, this explains how so much intel falls through the cracks of our nation's intelligence agencies, only to be discovered after something tragic occurs.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Good god, I hope this doesn't become a long-running meme (especially the misspelling of "heard"). If it does, I will make an effort to show up in every /. thread to post a reply to these saying "Wurst. Meme. EVAR. </comic book guy>"

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
    3. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's funny. :)

    4. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already been a meme for at least like, over 9000 years.

    5. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      Falls through the cracks or is created after the fact as if to appear that they "could have done something if only they had more funding". I hate to be critical, but our intelligence agencies seem less focused on foreign terrorists than they are about citizens who may disagree with the government.

    6. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?!? Over 9000!!!???

    7. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SUP DAWG

    8. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Ninnle+Labs,+LLC · · Score: 1

      (especially the misspelling of "heard").

      Sorry, I meant to spell it Hurd.

    9. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Good god, I hope this doesn't become a long-running meme (especially the misspelling of "heard").

      GNU too?

    10. Re:maybe they need a search appliance... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      The meme's been running for at least a year at a certain other website.

      The only good one is Xzibit's face shopped onto Isaac Newton's head+wig with the caption "Sup dawg I herd u like calculus so we put a function inside yo function so you can derive while you derive."

      The pun is on "drive" because Xzibit mods cars so crazily on his TV show that he might one day put a car in a car so you can drive while you drive.

      In the show, there was once an energy drink dispenser that would only fit red bull or something and a popcorn machine installed in the cab so you could get energy and eat snacks while driving.

      I think by explaining the joke, I've made it all the less funny... :(

  2. So basically... by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the FBI can't find anything, because their agents didn't tag their reports.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:So basically... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dilemma, both options bad: Either

      The FBI's recordkeeping and information handling internally are as poor as for FOIA requests, which would mean that it has no coherent idea what is going on, and is thus only effective in cases where minimally coordinated local offices can do the job.

      Or,

      The FBI finds it convenient to know nothing when those pesky people with their "rights" come knocking; which would mean that they are a cabal of hooverite scum and a threat to liberty and transparency.

    2. Re:So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI's recordkeeping and information handling internally are as poor as for FOIA requests, which would mean that it has no coherent idea what is going on, and is thus only effective in cases where minimally coordinated local offices can do the job.

      That sounds like the modern FBI exactly.

      The Hooverite scum was mostly kicked to the curb by Nixon, who appreciated operating in the shadows himself and didn't want people horning in on his turf.

    3. Re:So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The Hooverite scum are still much in power. The Watergate scandal was "deep throat" manipulating Woodward & company to destroy the President, to show who was really in power.

      Consider also the Clinton Travelgate, Ruby Ridge, the super-quick Waco coverup -who was *really* in charge? Janet Reno? Right...

      No, the FBI is still the US's Praetorian Guard.

    4. Re:So basically... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dilemma, both options bad: Either The FBI's recordkeeping and information handling internally are as poor as for FOIA requests, which would mean that it has no coherent idea what is going on, and is thus only effective in cases where minimally coordinated local offices can do the job.

      Actually, that's not that unusual in large organizations; and is acerbated by government bureaucracy and funding methods. For eh really serious stuff, organizations are generally good at coordination, but there's a lot of other lower level stuff that gets done pretty much on a local level and never is seen elsewhere; so unless you know it exists through experience or an informal network (let me call Bob in New York and see what he knows) it is lost to the broader organization. Most government organizations would love google-like access and searching to their files because it would make their job easier and they'd be more effective; the reality is they don't have the money to buy the technology that enables that capability; TV and Movies aside many organizations are years behind the tech curve.

      Or, The FBI finds it convenient to know nothing when those pesky people with their "rights" come knocking; which would mean that they are a cabal of hooverite scum and a threat to liberty and transparency.

      My experience with government organizations is they really care about things like rights and liberty; probably more so than many of their fellow citizens and are willing to risk their lives defending their fellow citizens. Sure, there are a few bad apples, but that's not representative of the whole organization.

      In the end, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by bureaucracy.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:So basically... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      The FBI's recordkeeping and information handling internally are as poor as for FOIA requests, which would mean that it has no coherent idea what is going on, and is thus only effective in cases where minimally coordinated local offices can do the job.

      That'd be it. See this article about the complete failure that came about when SAIC was hired to modernize the FBI's computer systems. $200M spent and nothing to show for it but a smoking crater. Both the FBI and the contractor appear to have screwed this one up big-time. Because of that, the FBI's information management is still basically stone age.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485_pf.html

    6. Re:So basically... by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Semantic FBI!

    7. Re:So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Search Appliance, perhaps?

      http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/

    8. Re:So basically... by ps2os2 · · Score: 1

      When I was in college a "roommate" stole my wallet. I did not notice it until the next day. Needless to say he went on a crime spree and used my ID. Approximately 3 months later the FBI comes looking for me and I talk with them and I assure them I was not in this state or that state and that I was attending school and working on the dates in question. I get the bank (where I worked) to cough up my records and that proves to the FBI that I am not the person.
      Fast forward 40 years and I file an FOI with the FBI to see what information they had on me and they came back ZIPPO. I was wanted in at least 3 states and the FBI tracked me down, yet they have zero on me. Me thinks the FBI has a poor memory.

  3. Move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see here.

  4. congrats by mewshi_nya · · Score: 3, Informative

    At least you won an award for your sucking...

    1. Re:congrats by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hoover would be proud!

    2. Re:congrats by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess you'd know a troll when you see one...

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:congrats by oodaloop · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Dam that's funny.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  5. Why would this surprise anyone? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, would you think the FBI would be willing to let the citizenry know about ******* and ***** and ***** ***** *******? That would pose a massive security risk to ****** **********, and couldn't be allowed under any circumstances.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Why would this surprise anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I love madlibs!

    2. Re:Why would this surprise anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cyfernet.org/4htech/mission/02-08-Bridges/

      Here is a bridge for you to live under. This should be a significant upgrade from the bridge you currently live under (it also appears vacant).

  6. Nice excuses, now fix the problems by qoncept · · Score: 1

    "Great, you've identified the problem. Step 2 is washing it off."

    --
    Whale
  7. what can they find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can they find their asses? ;)

    Kind of worrying for an intelligence agency

  8. Not too surprising by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The FBI has been one of the most technophobic federal agencies, if not THE most, being one of the last to finally get computers. Their regional offices do not coordinate with each other, so that an investigation into a New Orleans drug trafficking network will have no way of knowing about an investigation into a Seattle drug trafficking network involving the same people (which actually happened, IIRC). And it's only been since after 9/11 that they've really tried to have people at the HQ try to put pieces to together. Their focus has been on having field agents run investigations, not analysts like myself. That's just my $.02 anyway, YMMV, etc.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Not too surprising by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd be surprised how easy it is get to sleep after eating a few babies. Knocks me right out. And I work in the intelligence community if that makes any difference to you.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Not too surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it does. Intel people don't bother me nearly as much as cops.

    3. Re:Not too surprising by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their focus has been on having field agents run investigations, not analysts like myself

      I'd be curious to know how (if at all) the FBI's focus has shifted since the new administration came in. I've talked to other people in Federal law enforcement that say the focus shifted too much onto terrorism at the expense of other important missions (counter-intelligence and organized crime to name two). Are you still seeing this or is the new administration seeking a more balanced approach?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Not too surprising by conureman · · Score: 1

      Gee, if I was some government criminal perpetrating injustice on the citizenry, I'd have a similar system in place to maintain plausible deniability and an illusion of competence and integrity. Personal experience supports this interpretation.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    5. Re:Not too surprising by Unordained · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would cops bother you nearly as much if we fixed our laws to legalize what are currently consensual crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.) and eliminate purely discretionary laws and arrest/contact quotas (which lead to cops only arresting public drunks if they annoy them, are someone they don't like, or would help fill that night's quota)? Would you regain your respect for our cops if they were employed protecting you from others, and had time to do that one job well? Would you regain your respect for our legal system if it weren't overburdened with those crap cases, and could take the time to really hear you out -- whichever side of the courtroom you're on?

    6. Re:Not too surprising by noundi · · Score: 0, Troll

      I would assume that operating on a federal scale, having the entire fucking nation as your workspace, would require a vast amount of communication for coordination. Wait I just downtalked something american, does this make me a troll?

      --
      I am the lawn!
    7. Re:Not too surprising by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd be surprised how easy it is get to sleep after eating a few babies. Knocks me right out. And I work in the intelligence community if that makes any difference to you.

      Damn. What agency do you work for? Our budget for baby's got cut in the last budget cycle. We have to read policy statements to get a good night's rest.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    8. Re:Not too surprising by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 1

      I dunno about the GP, but you've nicely summed up the problems I have with law enforcement in this country.

      And after last night's Jon Stewart interview of Jim Cramer, I've decided that we've got the wrong people in prison.

    9. Re:Not too surprising by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      Their explanation is basically: "We try to put everything in a really good place, but often forget what we did with a thing when we go to look for it." Try that in court when the FBI is investigating you.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    10. Re:Not too surprising by Ninnle+Labs,+LLC · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Leave pubic wigs out of this! They did nothing to you!

    11. Re:Not too surprising by evan_arrrr! · · Score: 3, Informative

      BABY. PLURAL: BABIES.

    12. Re:Not too surprising by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Would cops bother you nearly as much if we fixed our laws to legalize what are currently consensual crimes

      Just take a look at which organizations show up to protest drug legalization or decriminalization movements, and this will tell you all you need to know.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    13. Re:Not too surprising by EtherMonkey · · Score: 1

      Would cops bother you nearly as much if we fixed our laws to legalize what are currently consensual crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.) and eliminate purely discretionary laws and arrest/contact quotas (which lead to cops only arresting public drunks if they annoy them, are someone they don't like, or would help fill that night's quota)?

      Why is this insightful? What makes you think that I consent to allowing prostitution or legal drug distribution in my neighborhood? And why are these called victimless crimes? Anyone unfortunate enough to live or work in an area where there's dealing or prostitution can testify on the destructive, anti-social aspects of these activities. And worse, the family and friends of those who get sucked in to prostitution and/or drug use can more than comment on how their loved ones are victimized by these vices.

      I'm not going to go further off-topic but to ask how you would feel if it was your daughter, sister, girlfriend or wife spreading her legs every night for a dozen sleazy men every night to wind-up with enough money from her pimp to pay for her food, apartment and heroin?

      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
    14. Re:Not too surprising by conureman · · Score: 1

      I could relate an unfortunate number of megillahs regarding my personal experiences with my government servants. This misplacement of documents is one of the pillars of our infrastructure.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    15. Re:Not too surprising by moortak · · Score: 1

      Many of the unsavory aspects of drug distribution stem from its legal status.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    16. Re:Not too surprising by Cathbard · · Score: 1

      But how would the private jail industry make any money if they couldn't fill their buildings with drug dealers? And how could the government cull minority groups from the "democratic" process if they don't have laws to target them? They need these laws don't you know?

      --
      "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
    17. Re:Not too surprising by Cathbard · · Score: 1

      And aren't the laws doing just a bang up job of stopping it? Prohibition is such a great solution, just look at what alcohol prohibition achieved - marvelous. Now that alcohol is regulated instead of illegal it's easier to buy heroin than alcohol if you are a minor, the corner drug dealer doesn't ask for ID. Good thing too, that alcohol stuff is bad news. It's so much better for the youth to be on heroin and make smack dealers rich; I hate publicans (or whatever you americans call those self-opinionated, jumped up drug dealers that own bars). And it's great how making prostitution illegal has stopped that too. Wouldn't it be terrible to have that regulated? Think of the poor pimps; they wouldn't be able to look after their girls so well would they?

      --
      "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
    18. Re:Not too surprising by Unordained · · Score: 1

      I'll respond to you point by point; as to off-topic, well, once a can of worms is opened ...

      Insightful: you're not required to be right to be insightful. You can be insightful to, even by bringing wrong points to the table, just so they can be squashed.

      Consent: what makes you think anyone needs your consent to do business in your neighborhood? You don't own the whole neighborhood, do you? You're welcome to tell them to stay off your lawn; in fact, I'll gladly help you protect your private property.

      Victimless: you conflate the crime with the environment. Is the sale of alcohol inherently violent? Before prohibition, some people thought alcohol itself was directly to blame for violence; during prohibition, they realized that the illegality of alcohol was far, far worse. If you are assaulted by someone, whether sober or drunk, and you are not at fault, I will support your position: either they decided to assault you while sober, or they decided to abdicate their ability to make sound decisions by taking their drug of choice -- either way, it's their fault. You must be careful in pinning the blame for crime directly on drugs / guns / video games / whatever else -- people commit crimes, period.

      Family: you have a right to spend money senselessly, even at the detriment of your loved ones. You have a right to become a couch potato, even if it hurts others (indirectly.) You have a right to be a workaholic, too. You have a right to commit suicide, for that matter. You do not, however, have the god-given right to bring the full force of the law (jail, or worse) upon your friends and family because you don't like the side-effects of their vices upon you. Would you appreciate being jailed because your friends and family feel hurt that you're spending more time watching tv than talking to them? Would you consider that appropriate? What if you can't even understand why they feel hurt by it? It's none of their business, but they decide to use their majority (physical power) to act on their belief?

      Sucked into: what does everyone believe these so-called crimes "suck" people in? Did we get "sucked into" the world of IT? Do workers get "sucked into" construction jobs? Did you get "sucked into" watching your favorite show on tv? Did your neighbor get "sucked into" liking anal sex? It's easy to portray something you don't personally like or understand as somehow vicious, underhanded, or exploitative. Then you can say it's not the person's "fault" (which it wasn't anyway, not in that sense) that they're involved, and "help" them get out of it.

      If it were me: how do I even answer that? You've made it clear how you would feel if it were you. I'll let you know how I feel when it is me, in an environment where it's legal and things have stabilized, how about that? But yes, on a logical (not emotional) basis, I would support my daughter's *right* to make that decision for herself. Maybe I would encourage her not to -- but would I approve sending her to jail for it? Hell no. Would I support fining her? No. Would I support having her repeatedly arrested, held for the night, and released, to "teach her a lesson"? No.

      These are our loved ones, our friends, our family -- as you've pointed out -- that we're doing this to. If you want to help them out of concern and love, then do so -- with love, not law.

  9. If by JustOK · · Score: 1

    If they can't find anything then
    how do they know there's nothing to find?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:If by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1
      http://www.fbi.gov/gotcha/archive/got051608.htm

      Mr. Schiff: One of the first times the FBI used computers in an investigation was in the late 70s. Several companies wanting to help build California freeways were involved in rigging bids for concrete beams...

      Mr. Marshall: "It's my understanding that computers are essential in whatever type of investigation you have."

      Mr. Schiff: That's retired FBI Special Agent Hal Marshall...

      Mr. Marshall: "Especially in coordinating information with other offices; information being specifically available in real time rather than trying to quire someone by the telephone or, in those days, we had teletypes."

      Mr. Schiff: Investigators found out about secret meetings. Marshall says telephone records were subpoenaed and then reviewed by hand at first. Then he had a thought...

      Mr. Marshall: "We're moving into a new era, let me call FBI Headquarters. I called FBI Headquarters and talked with the then new computer section and told them what we had and they said, 'Please send them to us so we can help you out.' And that is what happened."

      Mr. Schiff: There were convictions and guilty pleas after computers helped prove anti-trust violations. I'm Neal Schiff of the Bureau and that's the FBI's Closed Case of the Week."

      Yes, those computers... They solve crimes!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  10. Federal Bureau of Investigation? by Aristophrenia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You would think that for an agency, that according to its name, deals with investigations that they would be a bit better at, well, investigating? Makes me wonder how they keep track of things internally as well. All that aside, maybe they should change their priorities. Perhaps putting number 10 a little high up to, you know, successfully perform the FBI's mission. 1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack 2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage 3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes 4. Combat public corruption at all levels 5. Protect civil rights 6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises 7. Combat major white-collar crime 8. Combat significant violent crime 9. Support federal, state, local and international partners 10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission Taken from http://www.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm/

    --
    "Yeah, but by we know yo mama gives EVERYBODY root privilege..." -jpetts (208163)
    1. Re:Federal Bureau of Investigation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think that for an agency, that according to its name, deals with investigations that they would be a bit better at, well, investigating?

      Your list is wrong. Their real charter consists of only three items:

      1. Be paid lots of money to sit on Limewire and other p2p networks all day while looking for kiddy porn and copyright infringers.

      2. Pay crooks $250,000 to rat out other crooks to bungle overzealous "terrorism" investigations.

      3. Be Catholic.

    2. Re:Federal Bureau of Investigation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, brother. Mod that shit up, that's all they do anymore.

      Incidentally, a lot of them are Mormons, too.

  11. In other words, the FBI can't find their butts by swschrad · · Score: 1

    couldn't find their ass if you spotted them both hands. might as well put all their records in shoeboxes and label them "Stuff."

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:In other words, the FBI can't find their butts by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      You would think, eh?

      Thing is, they do keep such a database, which works quite fine for those who have access to it.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  12. The NSA? by rvw · · Score: 1

    The NSA? Is this a joke?

    1. Re:The NSA? by krou · · Score: 3, Informative

      NSA in this context is "National Security Archive", not "National Security Agency".

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    2. Re:The NSA? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      The joke is that you couldn't read the first 4 words of TFS. A new low for /..

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:The NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure there is no such agency.

    4. Re:The NSA? by shentino · · Score: 1

      And what about the TMAA?

      Too Many Acronyms Agency?

      We already have a TLA clash because the NSA and the NSA have the same TLA, so we have TMA.

      I hope we don't have a FDA, we already have an FDA

      (Federal Database of Acronyms, Food and Drug Administration)

  13. Search: X-Files by BiggoronSword · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please expand my search to include "Agent Mulder," "The Smoking Man," and "Circus Freaks." I want to believe.

    --
    interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
    1. Re:Search: X-Files by Dolohov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know this is a joke, but I do wonder how many FOIA requests the FBI gets on subjects that they really don't have information on: UFOs, Batboy, etc. Do trash requests like that get counted?

    2. Re:Search: X-Files by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      "Trash requests"? You work for them, don't you?

      "don't deny your beast inside."

      --
      What?
  14. FOIA Pblm is bad Enough, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... it also means that they have severe trouble finding stuff for INTERNAL use. Sheesh!!!

  15. That's ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kdawson is the worst editor. I guess it goes hand in hand.

  16. Also... by cirby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They can't return anything from an FOIA request if they don't have anything on you.

    I had a friend who was absolutely certain that the FBI had a bunch of stuff on him. He just knew that they were keeping tabs on him so they could "do something" if he ever got out of line.

    The thing is, he'd never done anything. No criminal record, no tax issues, no affiliations with any group. He had some extremely mild anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy views, but didn't even talk about them that much, and never acted on them.

    So when he filed his FOIA request for all records, he got back nothing. Which made him even MORE paranoid. So he filed another one, for all surveillance tapes and records that they'd "hidden" the first time.

    I think he ended up filing three or four FOIA requests, until someone from the FBI came around and explained, very carefully, that he really wasn't very interesting.

    1. Re:Also... by Hordeking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They can't return anything from an FOIA request if they don't have anything on you.

      I had a friend who was absolutely certain that the FBI had a bunch of stuff on him. He just knew that they were keeping tabs on him so they could "do something" if he ever got out of line.

      The thing is, he'd never done anything. No criminal record, no tax issues, no affiliations with any group. He had some extremely mild anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy views, but didn't even talk about them that much, and never acted on them.

      So when he filed his FOIA request for all records, he got back nothing. Which made him even MORE paranoid. So he filed another one, for all surveillance tapes and records that they'd "hidden" the first time.

      I think he ended up filing three or four FOIA requests, until someone from the FBI came around and explained, very carefully, that he really wasn't very interesting.

      Quite an interesting post.

      Unfortunately, this is the necessary result of a culture of secrecy on the part of these organizations. They're assumed to know something, whether or not they really do. And if they claim to not have the information, they're assumed to be lying about not having it. People have good reason to make these assumptions, since these agencies have a history of doing exactly this.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    2. Re:Also... by TheInsaneSicilian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're assumed to know something, whether or not they really do.

      Which is exactly how they want to be viewed.

    3. Re:Also... by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      They're assumed to know something, whether or not they really do.

      Which is exactly how they want to be viewed.

      Of course, that works if they want to keep enemies on their toes. It isn't so great when they get mobbed with requests for info they really don't have, since the requestors don't believe the "no" and request again, sue in court, go to their elected officials, plot against their perceived enemy, etc.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    4. Re:Also... by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      They can't return anything from an FOIA request if they don't have anything on you.

      While it is true that there are likely many people requesting their own FBI file, only to discover that it doesn't exist, why didn't the FBI use that as an excuse? Instead, the article notes:

      The FBI's explanation, according to the NSA, is that 'files are indexed only by reference terms that have to be manually applied by individual agents,' and even then, 'agents don't always index all relevant terms.'

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:Also... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I think he ended up filing three or four FOIA requests, until someone from the FBI came around and explained, very carefully, that he really wasn't very interesting.

      I think he can rest assured they have a file on him at this point. Win-win situation!

    6. Re:Also... by EtherMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, when you've had the FBI knock on your door at home and question your employer, you have a right to receive information on the cause and outcome of such investigations. Ditto for instances where the FBI has questioned you as a witness on a matter that might not be related to you personally.

      For the FBI to come back and say it can't find any related records is both disingenuous and frustrating. One can appreciate how this can result in paranoia.

      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
    7. Re:Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he really wasn't very interesting.

      Give me 5 minutes with his hard disk and I'll dig up some interesting stuff!

  17. Nothing Before 1970 = Hoover = Reform Needed by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    If the FOIA won't open up the FBI's OLD OLD OLD files, then reform is needed. The 1940s - 1950s stuff is history. That stuff should be fully open to the public--like a library--unless the FBI specifically claims an exemption for it.

    The historians will index that stuff for the FBI. You can bet on that.

    Such bullshit.

    1. Re:Nothing Before 1970 = Hoover = Reform Needed by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      never happen.
      We might actually find out who shot JFK that way.

  18. Did this for DHS... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

    And so far, so good. Sent off the request (snail mail) January 6th. Got a formal response from them February 5th, acknowledging my request.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1082501&cid=26350959

    --
    +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
  19. This reminds me... by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · · Score: 1

    of an old SNL skit (original cast). As I recall: a man walks into an FBI office and asks for the information they have on him. The agent (I think it was Akroyd) haphazardly looks through some files, and asks for help in the form of further details of what illegal activities he might be involved in. The man offers up several types of minor crime he has engaged in. The agent still finds nothing, then sends him away after getting contact info and assuring him they would let him know if they find anything. As soon as the man leaves, the agent makes an urgent call requesting follow-up on the man and the crimes he mentioned.

  20. FOIA track record could be much better IF ONLY... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    ... people didn't ask for sensitive information.

  21. This is funny and stupid by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    We see on the TV shows FBI agents looking up all sorts of crap on their computers that even Google couldn't find, whereas in reality these idiots barely even have a filing system, let alone any kind of sensible database.

    They can't even find files actually stored in their branch offices! DUH! Most corporations would go out of business if they couldn't do that!

    And this is what, after several multi-hundred million dollar attempts to upgrade their management information systems?

    Your tax dollars at work.

    That, and the fact that most of the time the FBI really doesn't want to release any information for their own reasons.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  22. Stupid FBI by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    The good news is that while being the worst at producing the documents, they also have the cleanest record.

  23. Website Provides Guidemap to FBI Records Requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These two user friendly websites provide a guidemap to submitting a request for records from the FBI:

    http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com

    shows you how to get records on yourself

    http://www.GetGrandpasFBIfile.com

    shows you how to get records on anyone who is deceased, or for that matter a company, organization, event, sports team, criminal case, etc.

  24. FBI FOIA by foiler · · Score: 1

    I tried to be helpful on counter-terrorism a couple of times. Sent a letter to Washington, full return address, phone, etc. Made another suggestion to the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge Authority and got a visit from a special agent of the FBI. Sent him some more stuff by e-mail at his request. All since 9/11. FBI claims to have no record of any of it.

  25. Not sure it's relevant by reddburn · · Score: 1

    I'd be willing to be that they're also the recipient of more FOIA requests than any other two agencies combined. If that's so, then this may be as meaningless a statistic as any other. In addition, I'm sure that many of the requests relate to the late 1960s - which won't be found anyway.

    --
    "Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
  26. Not a Priority by kjm1984 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the FBI is ok taking a hit for "bad record keeping". I'm happy to contribute my taxes toward their real priorities: 1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack. 2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage. 3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes. 4. Combat public corruption at all levels. 5. Protect civil rights. 6. Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises. 7. Combat major white-collar crime. 8. Combat significant violent crime. 9. Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners. 10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission.