Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the read-the-fine-print dept.

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.

48 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. google should adopt this by someone1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

    for dmca takedown notices :D

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:google should adopt this by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Funny

      How far can such stalling and obfuscating be stretched? What are the limits?
      An inspirational example is below. But one thing it makes clear. Our country is deeply divided. Not just two toxic political parties bitterly fighting (through the people who support each), but also how the government (which is made of people) are divided against the citizens. Also how the divide between rich and poor is increasing. Neither side in any of these divisions even makes a pretense of playing fair, clean or by the rules anymore. But now the example of obfuscating . . .


      “But the plans were on display”
      “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
      “That’s the display department.”
      “With a flashlight.”
      “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
      “So had the stairs.”
      “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
      “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

      Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:google should adopt this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Noooo, the MAFIAA will cut down every forest in the land just to send their billions of take-down notices a year! You will end up like Easter Island!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:google should adopt this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly I tend to think the driving force of all the division is what I've come to call "the clicks". They've got to do everything to get the clicks. The media, none of it, even remotely pretends to present things in a fair and impartial light. They spin everything as much as they can and make headlines as inflammatory as possible to try to get the clicks. And whether you want to admit it or not, the media has a huge influence on everybody. They fundamentally set the mood of everything. And since they've decided that the clicks are more important than providing fair level headed articles, and riling people up is the best way to get the clicks, we end up with the atmosphere we have. Everybody is divided based on if they agree or disagree with the headlines.

      The part that annoys me the most is how the media seems to staunchly refuse to accept their responsibility in most of this. As far as I can tell, CNN elected Trump, but they'll refuse it staunchly. They spent years covering every little terrorist attack and making things that really weren't that big of a deal all you heard about because it got them the clicks. This created a sense of fear which Trump then played to and took advantage of. And now CNN is pissed that he took advantage of something they created and now rather than covering things fairly, they're playing up how awful everything he does is. Note how they don't cover any of the positives he's done, and only the stuff their reader base will be outraged by. Again. For the clicks.

    4. Re:google should adopt this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They've got to do everything to get the clicks. ~. The part that annoys me the most is how the media seems to staunchly refuse to accept their responsibility in most of this.

      It is the reality of the situation. Print media (the ones who used to do investigations and in-depth reporting) is dead. TV news is too short (30 minute programs) and on too long (multiple times a day to 24hrs) to present anything but irrelevant and entertaining one-liner stories.

      How did this happen? With print, it was the death of print advertising. Future historians, if they can piece together any records will note that Print died when Craigslist took off. The newspapers failed to see that the print classifieds model was dead and lost that war without a fight. Other print revenue soon followed.

      What we are left with is the stupid headline that links to a 30-page slideshow (29x the ads a normal 1-pager would have!). Adblock destroys that model. 30 pages of annoying clicking reduces traffic. Death Spiral continues

    5. Re:google should adopt this by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly I tend to think the driving force of all the division is what I've come to call "the clicks". They've got to do everything to get the clicks. The media, none of it, even remotely pretends to present things in a fair and impartial light. They spin everything as much as they can and make headlines as inflammatory as possible to try to get the clicks. And whether you want to admit it or not, the media has a huge influence on everybody. They fundamentally set the mood of everything. And since they've decided that the clicks are more important than providing fair level headed articles, and riling people up is the best way to get the clicks, we end up with the atmosphere we have.

      If the "atmosphere" we have today is one of bullshit hype and information deemed corrosive at best, then perhaps we need to find a way to stop fucking feeding it. In other words, stop creating and funding revenue streams based on nothing more than "the clicks". Petition to make turning a human into the product illegal. Start to give a shit about privacy again.

      Sadly, that will never happen, so our atmosphere will continue to devolve. Capitalism often does not makes sense due to it being perverted by corruption and greed. I can start a tobacco company today and help contribute the the killing of hundreds of thousands of Americans every year (far worse a death toll than anything we're currently rioting in the streets over), but I'll be arrested if I sell marijuana, because it's "harmful".

      We we support, is what we ultimately get.

    6. Re:google should adopt this by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. The media is largely responsible. I remember when CNN was respectable. It was about real news. I watched it deteriorate over decades. They got rid of Headline News. Replaced it with basically gossip and fluff. Stopped doing real analysis. The invasion of the Talking Heads. Sound Bites.

      I remember when CNN closed their foreign bureaus. Fired their investigative journalists. At the time, a friend and I wondered how CNN would continue to operate. Now it is clear. Pretend news. Infotainment. It's mostly editorial. Regurgitating government hand outs. The government figured out with 9/11 that it could seize control of the news media with "embedded journalists". They could simultaneously sanitize the war news coverage while also holding the news media hostage to the deliciously addictive handouts of news bits from the government as long as journalists play nice and don't get their access revoked. You can see this today in the white house press briefing room.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  2. deliberate attempt to stall the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Snowden is correct that the enemy is within.

    1. Re:deliberate attempt to stall the process by sjames · · Score: 2

      They're actually increasing the processing cost by not doing it electronically.

    2. Re:deliberate attempt to stall the process by avandesande · · Score: 2

      This site estimates a half billion a year. http://www.informationdiet.com...
      You are suggesting that every document in government is sitting around in pdf format pre-redacted... really?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  3. This is not surprising by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re: This is not surprising by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Clinton had been a "proven criminal" she'd have been convicted of something. As it was even congressional investigations by a Republican Congress couldn't pin anything on her. The FBI investigations were because people kept making allegations about her, allegations that in many cases the FBI was obliged to investigate.

      I could probably ruin your life by having a group of us continually, for 25 years, make up allegations against you, accusing you of murdering anyone who you have a connection with who's died, pretending that anything that goes wrong that you have a vague relationship to was caused by deliberate actions on your part, looking for cases where standard practices in your industry change over eight years and highlighting cases where you didn't go along, and so on. Eventually you'd end up under multiple investigations.

      Clinton was never a great candidate. She believed too strongly she needed the blessing of those in power to gain power, and she was too much of a hawk on issues related to war. But she wasn't the criminal mastermind her critics pretended she was.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:This is not surprising by Archtech · · Score: 3, Funny

      The GRU is Russia's Military Intelligence organization. It would obviously have absolutely no interest in American elections, let alone in trying to interfere with them.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    3. Re: This is not surprising by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. It remains technically speaking an open question.

      How serious an infraction it was, and how likely prosecution would have been successful, what the likely sentences could have been are all questions and largely matters of opinion for which you will find different ones offered by many qualified people who have experiences in those matters.

      The Clintons were simply party to many scandals over two long a period to be trust worthy. Some of that perception has to do with a concerted partisan effort to to tie them to things, but its also true most of us even most other politicians don't lead such colorful lives.

      She was not a good candidate! That should have been obvious to the big money contributors, it should have obvious to the other politicians that were going to have to back her candidacy, and it should have been obvious to the party. Next you have all the evidence that the DNC deliberately scudded the Sanders campaign, a man who did not have all of Clinton's liabilities.

      I can think of only two reasons to go forward with HRC in the begging (IE when the RNC field was still 12+ people of varied quality)

      1) Usually the incumbent party looses the White House after a two term presidency. So she was always secretly a throw away candidate, it was consider by many to be her turn, and backing her got her out of the way so she would not be around for a 202[04] election they more likely could win.

      2) She really had enough friends and dirt on people to force them to cooperate.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re: This is not surprising by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Informative

      And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.

      But the Republicans were interested! How many hearings and investigations did they carry out? No, seriously, I'm asking. I lost count. And what did they find? Nothing. So what are you talking about?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    5. Re: This is not surprising by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.

      If it was such a clear case of treason, wouldn't you expect that a Republican-controlled Congress would figure that out during their investigation?

    6. Re: This is not surprising by dbIII · · Score: 2

      She used her political power (and I'll presume, dirt she had on other people in power) to quash and subvert investigations

      She has zero power now, so where are those investigations?

      Clear case of treason

      Please elaborate. If Oliver North is not a traitor for giving Hezbolla a large number of classified anti-tank weapons less than a year after they had killed over a hundred US Marines then how is Clinton a traitor?

    7. Re: This is not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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,

    8. Re: This is not surprising by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: This is not surprising by Calydor · · Score: 2

      And if the problem was that they were afraid to do anything with a Democrat President, why hasn't Trump started a new "Real News!" investigation of her? Doesn't Trump want to see justice done?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    10. Re: This is not surprising by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2

      If Clinton had been a "proven criminal" she'd have been convicted of something.

      I only skimmed the rest of your post, but this is laughably naive premise to build on. James Clapper was a proven criminal (perjury while under oath before Congress, as revealed by Snowden) and not only was he not arrested, he wasn't even asked to resign.

      The sad fact of the matter is white collar crime routinely is not pressed even in the presence of compelling evidence. I've no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Clinton and Trump have committed multiple felonies in their lifetimes and I don't think Hillary's email server is or was likely to have caused much actual harm in the world, but when you begin your defense by asserting innocence due to a lack of arrest and follow it by saying that because the conservatives have thrown a lot of bullshit at Hillary, that therefore implies that she's innocent... no, just no.

      If you don't understand how ridiculous this argument, consider how very similar logic could be used to defend Trump as well. For example, CNN (through Anderson Cooper), The Guardian, The New York Times and countless other news organizations outright lied about the contents of the Pussygate tape. For example, here is Cooper:

      âoeYou described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals,â said CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. âoeThat is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?â

      But of course "without consent" is a complete fabrication. He said "they let you do it", just a minute earlier he was discussing how he tried to seduce a woman "and failed. I admit it.", and he also said a not-entirely-clear line about magnetism that was clearly intended to mean "women are just attracted to me."

      THEREFORE, TRUMP DID NOT EVER COMMIT THE CRIME OF SEXUAL ASSAULT! Well, no, sorry it doesn't work like that. Just because the mainstream media tried to lie about the tape doesn't mean that his multiple accusers are all lying.

  4. Very common legal requirement by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Faxes are considered legal documents. Emails are a very gray area. Japan is one place where faxes are still serious business machines for this very issue. Physical signatures with point to point delivery and receipt verification are often required to close a legal business transaction. Emails don't provide that proof.

    1. Re:Very common legal requirement by ravenshrike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo. Also, while it may reduce participation, it increases transparency as it forces those doing the requesting to be much more transparent about their location and who they are. Not to mention if you're too lazy to run down to Kinko's to send off a FOIA request you should fuck right off.

  5. FOIA joke by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

    [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted] the [redacted][redacted][redacted]in [redacted][redacted][redacted] [redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted] a [redacted][redacted]

    What's the use of FOIA requests nowadays anyway. The above is what you're likely to get.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:FOIA joke by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The purpose of the FOIA is to harass federal employees and keep us from doing our damn job, because every single FOIA requesst is treated like a fucking nuclear emergency (per federal law) and must be responded to immediatly, even if the requestor has sent the exam same request before and is deliberately trying to waste time and money.

      How hard is it to respond to the same FOIA request by email twice? If you find this difficult, perhaps you do not deserve to have a job which you talk about on Slashdot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:FOIA joke by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Probably almost as hard as responding to it once. They would have to re-do the search in case there are new documents available, and probably review previously-released documents as well in case the redacting needed to be changed (which theoretically should only go in one directly -- removing redacts -- but I seem to recall them being occasionally caught releasing later copies of documents that were more strongly redacted than previous copies, though its hard to necessarily claim its done maliciously when it could simply be two separate people doing the redacting and having differing opinions on what should be hidden.)

  6. Um... by VorpalRodent · · Score: 3

    restricting how often citizens can access their right to government oversight

    So now it's my right to be constantly watched by my government? I've always considered it more of a privilege.

    I'm just saying - this can be mis-parsed.

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    1. Re:Um... by gtall · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is probably a response to getting swamped with email requests for FOIAs. And there's nothing stopping the Chinese, Norks, of Vladimir and his thugs from misusing the service.

  7. Not a good look by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So the FBI will essentially restrict public access to public records while the EPA is being boarded up.

    The best weapon of a bad government is secrecy, and like most, ours has a history of behaving badly when the curtain is drawn.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Not a good look by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An agency that no longer exists is an agency that can no longer abuse its power.

      Maybe we should address the abuse of power, rather than throwing up our hands. Or don't you like having clean water to drink?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:Not a good look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must not remember the 'good ole' days of acid rain, undrinkable water and air quality so bad that most of the year places like LA were in a constant fog of unbreathable air. Sure, the EPA has overstepped their bounds on occasion, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. I prefer the environment NOT going to shit quite as quickly as it did in the last century when business were to dump whatever, whenever, wherever.

  8. Where do they go? by Merk42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The fax machine on the receiving end is at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

  9. ESIGN Act of 2000. Also UETA in 47 states by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the US, the federal ESIGN act was passed in 2000, giving digital documents full legal recognition. Wow, it's been seventeen years - it doesn't seem that long.

    47 states have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which is similar.

    For some types of transactions, one party might be concerned that they can't prove the document hasn't been tampered with, if it's not a cryptographic signature. That can be a legitimate concern, in some types of transactions.

    As the DNC learned the hard way a few months ago, many emails have a tamper-proof signature called DKIM automatically applied, so your email may have a signature proving it is legitimate without you even knowing it. I don't see this as an issue the FBI would be concerned with for FOIA requests - I don't think there's a big danger of hackers changing your FOIA requests.

  10. Your Attitude... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is why so many Americans have come to have such a low regard for federal workers, and that in turn is what made Trump's pledge to shrink federal government and "drain the swamp" resonate so strongly with voters.

  11. Wasn't this announced a year or two ago? by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I seem to remember reading this story a year or two ago. Maybe a year ago they announced ahead of time that they would stop accepting FOIA emails in q1 2017? Maybe it was a different federal agency that made the same announcement?

  12. Re:Actually, it will be an improvement by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consider this possibility. If the FBI didn't have so much internal festering decay and oozing slime that needed some disinfecting sunlight then the FBI might not get so many FOIA requests. Just sayin'

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  13. Re:Actually, it will be an improvement by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Responding to FOIA requests is not trivial or inexpensive. If this process change reduces nuisance requests so much the better.

  14. Re:Maybe not that bad? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

    I know where I am and that you're all anti-government conspiracy wackos, but maybe just maybe the FBI doesn't want to receive unstructured requests via email and would instead prefer to have them submitted by a web form which can add some structure to the data and useful business logic. Presumably you fax / postal mail them an actual form as well.

    There is nothing magical about fax / postal mail that'd prevent you from sending unstructured requests, nor is there anything magical about e-mail preventing you from sending pre-made forms. Moving to fax / snail-mail solves nothing.

  15. FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" by duckintheface · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  16. It's a lot easier to "lose" a fax... by thomn8r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..and they won't be machine-searchable

    1. Re:It's a lot easier to "lose" a fax... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      Here's what you do: You don't bother with FAX at all. You send it registered mail, return receipt requested, or you send it FedEx next-day delivery. That way someone at the FBI has to sign for it; you'll have proof it was sent and received and who received it, that will stand up in court.

  17. Re: FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Due to the nature of humanity, the rest of us also have things to hide. Some are bad but not illegal, like cheating on a partner, some are benign but still secret, like whether or not you are bluffing in a game of poker, and some and simply personal, like what the person looks like naked.

    Things the FBI legitimately needs to hide aren't subject to FOIA requests, so the question is still irrelevant. They're going to withhold the information no matter what the answer is.

  18. FBI won award for worst FOIA by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    '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.'

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

  19. Re: FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" by Calydor · · Score: 2

    Which is a surprise to no one. Of course they can't release every little bit of information they have ever gathered - if they could, it would be directly accessible and searchable online.

    But why do they need your name? They should default to "Public knowledge" if they don't know whether they're talking to someone with a security clearance.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  20. Re: FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" by flink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  21. Re:Actually, it will be an improvement by zerocommazero · · Score: 2

    Maybe if they worked on the problem thats causing the tons of FOIA request, it would be a better solution?!

  22. Re:FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" by flink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what if that email request is coming from China or Russia?

    Validating the source of the request is perfectly legitimate. It's a shame that they have to take a step backwards, technology-wise, but their reasoning is sound.

    Their reasoning is not sound. FOIA responses are public record. Meaning the person who receives the information can turn around and publish it online or print it in the paper.

    Do you think a foreign government would be incapable of recruiting an American citizen to make requests and deliver the responses to them? Of course not. But why would they bother? Anything the USG cares so little about that they don't redact from a FOIA response and has any strategic value whatsoever has already probably long been known by competent intel agencies the world over.

  23. Re:Actually, it will be an improvement by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    If this process change reduces nuisance requests so much the better.

    Yeah. Damn those annoying citizens wanting information about how they are governed!