FBI Will Revert To Using Fax Machines, Snail Mail For FOIA Requests (dailydot.com)

blottsie writes: Starting next month, the FBI will no longer accept Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests via email. Instead, the U.S. agency will largely require requests be made via fax machine or the U.S. Postal Service. [The FBI will also accept a small number of requests via an online portal, "provided users agree to a terms-of-service agreement and are willing to provide the FBI with personal information, including a phone number and physical address."] The Daily Dot reports: "It's a huge step backwards for the FBI to switch from a proven, ubiquitous, user-friendly technology like email to a portal that has consistently shown problems, ranging from restricting how often citizens can access their right to government oversight to legitimate privacy concerns," says Michael Morisy, co-founder of MuckRock, a nonprofit that has helped people file over 28,271 public records requests at more than 6,690 state, federal, and local agencies. "Given that email has worked well for millions of requests over the years, this seems like a move designed to reduce participation and transparency, and we hope that the FBI will reverse course," Morisy added.

Comments

This is not surprising

[HangingChad]

After their interference in the last election where the FBI was on the same side of a US election as the GRU, is this any real surprise? The perception it creates is an image of a law enforcement agency that's gone off the rails. Snooping without a warrant and the nearly unchecked expansion of surveillance powers makes me wonder where this country is headed and whether the FBI needs a reboot.

Re: This is not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

That fact it never went to trial means she was never cleared. Its pretty plain to most people that she most likely violated federal laws for handling classified documents; but because it never went to trial we can't say she was proven guilty.

Posting AC to avoid burning mods.

So what you are saying is that she is not clears, therfore guilty, until there is an actual criminal trial?

So I can accuse you of being a child molester, and until you submit to a trial - you are, because until you go on trial, you are an uncleared child molester.

Where on earth is the law like that? I'm certain you want the law to have people thrown in jail on rumors, but that might take another year or two. Always be careful what you wish for because you might get it.

Also, can you name the specific laws that were violated by her? My own research based on experience, is that the issue raises to the level of a security violation, which in itself is not a criminal act unless accompanied by purposeful disclosure.

But I suspect that you know the specific law she violated. Educate me,

Re: This is not surprising

[AmiMoJo]

And yet, now Trump is president, having promised to put her in jail and now followed through on other even more outrageous and legally dubious promises, she remains free. They aren't even investigating any more.

FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?"

[duckintheface]

The FBI is asking for irrelevant information. It does not matter who wants to know. What matters is that the operations of government are transparent to everyone. I want to ask the FBI the question they always ask when they are seeking information from people who are suspicious of their motives. "What is your problem with answering our questions... unless you have something to hide?" (This line should be delivered with an arrogant leer)

Re: FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?"

[flink]

Someone with a clearance and a need to know would not come in through a FOIA request. The claim that the GP made: "Except that due to the nature of classified information the FBI handles on a routine basis, they often actually DO have things to hide, and legitimately so.", is ludicrous on its face as a justification gathering identifying information on requesters. If it's fit to release as a FOIA response, it is fit to print on the front page of the New York Times, end of story.