Is The DOJ Using Obsolete Software To Subvert FOIA Requests? (theguardian.com)

"A new lawsuit alleges that the U.S. Department of Justice intentionally conducts inadequate searches of its records using a decades-old computer system when queried by citizens looking for records that should be available to the public," reports The Guardian. Slashdot reader Bruce66423 writes: An MIT PhD student has filed a suit in Federal court alleging that the use of a 21-year-old, IBM green screen controlled search software to search the Department of Justice databases...constitutes a deliberate failure to provide the data that should be being produced.
Ryan Shapiro's lawsuit alleges "failure by design," saying that the Justice Department records are inadequately indexed -- and that they fail to search the full text of their records when responding to requests "When few or no records are returned, Shapiro said, the FBI effectively responds 'sorry, we tried' without making use of the much more sophisticated search tools at the disposal of internal requestors." The FBI has a $425 million software system to handle FOIA requests, but refuses to use it, saying that would be "needlessly duplicative...and wasteful of Bureau resources."

Comments

Re:intent or consequence?

[drinkypoo]

When the Federal government is invloved, don't blame on intentional malice that which can be explained by consequences of Republican budget cuts.

No. This is wrong. They already have the tools to do better. They simply refuse to use them. If they had to buy some new software, you'd have a point. They don't, so you don't.

Re:intent or consequence?

[Sarten-X]

Political flamebait works both ways. The other side of the coin is that Democrats set up overly complicated systems that can't work without an ever-increasing price tag, then complain (loudly) that they just aren't getting the support they need.

Let's move on.

When the Federal government is [involved], don't blame on intentional malice that which can be explained by...

...anything else.

Bureaucracy in general is a breeding ground for unintentional malice. There are literally thousands of people in the federal government with the ability to influence programs like this, and they often have conflicting priorities. Some are mostly concerned about the economic cost, thinking that a strong economy is the clearest path to "general welfare". Others want social support services, being of the opinion that minimizing hardship makes everyone's lives better. Some think that government should do as little as possible, allowing individuals to decide for themselves how to pursue happiness, while still others believe that a life led according to religious principles leads to a better eternity.

Those are only a few examples, and not terribly nuanced, either. People can have multiple opinions, conflicting opinions, and even different opinions for different subjects derived from the same principles. The representative government reflects the opinions of the people, and in a country of over 300 million people, it is perfectly reasonable to have a very complicated set of opinions in government.

The most that we as individuals can hope for is that occasionally, enough people agree on an issue that they'll do something matching one of our strong opinions.

Not a surprise-

[dfenstrate]

The DoJ is one of many departments these days that are run for the benefit of the of the administration, not to serve justice or even the American people.

Clinton's emails?

[Chris453]

One point that keeps getting lost on the whole Clinton email fiasco is FOIA requests. Shouldn't she be in jail for violating that law? She was running a private server that contained official government records subject to this Act. She controlled the information that could be "lost" or "not found" whenever she wanted. That was legal but this isnt?

The Guardian again ...

[swell]

Frequent posts from The Guardian and BBC cover important events in the US that local media fail to report. This should make us wonder why American news media aren't on top of these stories.

Of course tight budgets constrain many traditional news outlets and restrict the ability to really investigate anything. The de-funding of Public Broadcasting was a disaster in American history, forcing a dependence on advertising and fund raising.

But those of us who entertain conspiracy theories may suspect that the 'free press' in the US is heavily influenced by various pressures from government and advertisers. For instance, many media are now forbidden at Trump rallies because they have offended The Donald by asking serious questions. Some media are unwelcome at White House briefings. Your local city/state politicians also have preferred, cooperative, outlets for their announcements. Cooperation with big advertisers is also important for American media to survive financially. Evil Monsanto stories go on page 3 or nowhere at all.

Most US publishers share with their readers the political posturing of government officials and the promotional 'news' of advertisers but fail to investigate anything. The remainder of US news is crime, weather, celebrities, a smattering of drama about terrorist activity, and no mention of large parts of the world like Latin America.

So, thanks Guardian and BBC, for a fresh look at the world and my own country.

Re:Clever Grad Student

[BlueStrat]

By requesting a search that should have netted his own earlier FOIA requests, and didn't, Ryan Shapiro was able to demonstrate the inadequacy of the index-term search the FBI is using. Clever.

He'd better hope they don't decide to make an example of him and charge him under CFAA or some other law, regulation, or Act for exposing the inadequacy of a government computer system or something along those lines. It wouldn't even matter if they knew beforehand that they couldn't get a conviction, the process is the punishment.

The Rule of Law is dead in the US. The "law" now depends on who you are, who you know (and what you know about them), and how much money and power you have.

Strat