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.'"

15 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
  2. 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. 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/
  4. 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 evan_arrrr! · · Score: 3, Informative

      BABY. PLURAL: BABIES.

  5. 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".
  6. 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)
  7. 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?

  8. 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
  9. 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.