Congress takes a shot at secrecy

[Ivan Seeking]

...The bill passed last week would strengthen penalties for federal agencies that don't respond to a request for information within 20 days. If they don't meet the deadline, they will have to refund the requester's search and copy fees, and the money would come out of their agency budgets.

Considering that it's not unusual for federal agencies to delay requests for months or even years, this modification has the potential to vastly improve the system.

Along with delays, it's also not uncommon to make a FOIA request and receive document copies with large portions blacked out or redacted. The bill would require federal officials to explain the redactions by citing which exemption in law they are relying on to withhold information. [continued]

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7794950

This is refreshing to say the least. I understand the need for some secrecy in government, but it has gone way too far. And even within the existing FOIA released documents, some have been blacked-out to the point of absurdity. For example, many official defense deparrtment papers discussing UFO encounters have 80% or more of the information deleted, which understandably leads to distrust and conspiracy theories.

In defense of the government, one problem is the shear volume of classified information left over from the cold war. It has been estimated that over one-billion documents await review for declassification. I can only imagine how the war on terror has affected this issue.

 

[edward]

Ironically the Bush administration has been pushing to reclassify older documents that had been made public in the past. The CIA started the reclassification program during the last year of the Clinton administration. After 911 they went off the deep end with the idea.

One reclassified document in Mr. Aid's files, for instance, gives the C.I.A.'s assessment on Oct. 12, 1950, that Chinese intervention in the Korean War was "not probable in 1950." Just two weeks later, on Oct. 27, some 300,000 Chinese troops crossed into Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/p...gin&adxnnlx=1198610222-ZxkTGTECTgjJO8yppRilSg

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not familiar with the details FOIA (and the document is too imposing to read right now)...

And even within the existing FOIA released documents, some have been blacked-out to the point of absurdity.

Are agencies simply allowed to outright deny a request? Or is it far easier to satisfy a request in this manner than it is to deny the request? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', then your criticism is entirely unfair.

Along with delays, it's also not uncommon to make a FOIA request and receive document copies with large portions blacked out or redacted. The bill would require federal officials to explain the redactions by citing which exemption in law they are relying on to withhold information.

How specific are the exemptions? I am fairly worried about this opening up a back-door for obtaining information (or partial information) that should be protected from disclosure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not familiar with the details FOIA (and the document is too imposing to read right now)...



Are agencies simply allowed to outright deny a request? Or is it far easier to satisfy a request in this manner than it is to deny the request? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', then your criticism is entirely unfair.

If I understand the law correctly, they must release any documentation that in doing so does not threaten national security. In my experience it appears that much of the information blacked-out contains the names of individuals, countries, or politically sensitive information. Privacy rights may sometimes require that the information is kept secret [note that some previously blacked out documents were later released in their entirety]. And they could still do this, but at least it would require an explanation.

One really has to wonder what information contained in a 1950s DOD document could possibly affect national security today.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a good example found online.
http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00013.pdf

Note that we can't even determine the date.

 

[edward]

I am really curious the decision made to reclassify documents dating back to 1948.

Washington, D.C., February 21, 2006 - The CIA and other federal agencies have secretly reclassified over 55,000 pages of records taken from the open shelves at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), according to a report published today on the World Wide Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Matthew Aid, author of the report and a visiting fellow at the Archive, discovered this secret program through his wide-ranging research in intelligence, military, and diplomatic records at NARA and found that the CIA and military agencies have reviewed millions of pages at an unknown cost to taxpayers in order to sequester documents from collections that had been open for years.

The briefing book that the Archive published today includes 50 year old documents that CIA had impounded at NARA but which have already been published in the State Department's historical series, Foreign Relations of the United States, or have been declassified elsewhere. These documents concern such innocuous matters as the State Department's map and foreign periodicals procurement programs on behalf of the U.S. intelligence community or the State Department's open source intelligence research efforts during 1948.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/


Either they want to try to rebury our sins of the past or they are going through an extreme episode of mission creep.

Perhaps they do have something to hide the George washington Security Archive is easily searchable, yet no documnets will be found concerning UFO's. I can only assume that no documents were ever declassified.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

 

[Hurkyl]

Either they want to try to rebury our sins of the past or they are going through an extreme episode of mission creep.

Because, of course, it couldn't possibly be because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It belongs to us, not them. We are entitled to an explanation.

There has been far to much secrecy; esp with this adminstration.

 

[edward]

This is a good example found online.
http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00013.pdf

Note that we can't even determine the date.

Here is another one

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00045.pdf

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a UFO researcher name Stanton Friedman who has requested and obtained a good amount of this sort of information, and he can show you page after page of nothing but black ink in some of the documents that he has received. It reaches the point of being a bad joke.

People need to understand that ALL of this information belongs to us; not some government agency.

Note that I just happen to have scoured the archives for the UFO stuff, but it applies to many subjects. Interestingly, in many documents, UFO encounters are described in detail - sometimes vivid detail - so that doesn't seem to be the problem. Of course the true-believers see it differently and therein lies the problem: Secrecy breeds distrust; and rightfully so! Secrecy must be kept to a minimum if a government is to earn the trust of the people.

 

[Hurkyl]

It belongs to us, not them. We are entitled to an explanation.

People need to understand that ALL of this information belongs to us; not some government agency.

I think you need to specify the antecedents of "it", "us", "them", and "this".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"It" is all information that the U.S. government possesses. "Them" is the people and agencies who possesses this information. "Us" is the people - US citizens. "This" [in this case] refers again to all information in possession by the government.

Why did you need clarification?

 

[Hurkyl]

Why did you need clarification?

Because you have adopted a blatantly unreasonable position. I thought it a good idea to let you clarify what you meant, since until now there was a reasonable chance you didn't mean what it looked like you meant.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could you clarify what you think that I'm saying?

You seem to be objecting to the notion of a government of, by, and for the people.

 

[Hurkyl]

Could you clarify what you think that I'm saying?

You seem to be objecting to the notion of a government of, by, and for the people.

I'm objecting to the notion that all information possessed by the government should be publicly available.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't say that. I said that we the people own it - every bit of it. "They" may only keep secrets with "our" approval.

We all agree to certain rules and laws that allow this to happen, but the proper people must constantly scrutinize those who are keeping secrets, and what secrets are kept.

 

[Hurkyl]

I didn't say that. I said that we the people own it - every bit of it. "They" may only keep secrets with "our" approval.

You should be able to appreciate why you are misinterpreted when your objection to 'stuff is being kept secret' is 'the information belongs to us'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps, but it is fundamentally true nonetheless.

I had assumed that this was your objection but wasn't sure. I thought that you may be objecting on other legal grounds.

 

[Hurkyl]

Perhaps, but it is fundamentally true nonetheless.

I had assumed that this was your objection but wasn't sure. I thought that you may be objecting on other legal grounds.

My initial queries were about the legal issues. (which haven't been satisfied)

Post #7 was just a reaction to edwards "the government is doing something. It must be bad!"-style comment, and my subsequent posts have been responding to your "the information belongs to us" comments. (Which are still mystifying, since they were stated like an objection to what I said, which doesn't make sense given your explanation in post #16)

 

[Pelt]

Are agencies simply allowed to outright deny a request?

Short answer, no. See statute governing denial in (a)(6)(F) and (b) for exemptions.

Or is it far easier to satisfy a request in this manner than it is to deny the request? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', then your criticism is entirely unfair.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gao.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgetrpt%3FGAO-07-491T&ei=G8x1R6_tOZyUeKXUlDM&usg=AFQjCNHNWUmOJ46bkXO2dhrs8BGxkQ0BFQ&sig2=2oAQnNQI2T-1QG54AANTfA (don't ask me where the .21 comes from)--dedicated and loaned. For comparison, consider that the IRS has a staff 86,000 thousand to process nearly 60 million filings and conduct over a million audits. If FOIA request processing is assumed to be at least as time consuming as auditing, you'd expect at least some 8600 people throughout the agency who do work on nothing but processing these requests. This is a good assumption, as SSA has 152 people, loan and dedicated, that processed some 90 percent of the full grants in 2005 (19.5 million or so) but only about a tenth of a percent of partials, denials and undisclosed processings.

How specific are the exemptions? I am fairly worried about this opening up a back-door for obtaining information (or partial information) that should be protected from disclosure.

There are 9 enumerated exemptions presently. You can judge for yourself on how specific they are.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't see where your objections are coming from Hurkyl?

 

[Hurkyl]

Short answer, no. See statute governing denial in (a)(6)(F) and (b) for exemptions.

Thank you. I couldn't find it myself; my brain turned into mush long before I reached that passage. (I hate reading these kinds of documents!)

I'm mildly concerned even with the present language -- the naive reading of the the requirements on providing estimates of deleted / denied text sound like they force an agency to admit when the amount of such text is harmful to some interest. I now wonder if (a)(6)(F) can be construed to allow an agency to give the appropriate "no comment"-style response when the actual truth is innocuous but the other possible answers would be harmful.

 

[Pelt]

I'm mildly concerned even with the present language -- the naive reading of the the requirements on providing estimates of deleted / denied text sound like they force an agency to admit when the amount of such text is harmful to some interest. I now wonder if (a)(6)(F) can be construed to allow an agency to give the appropriate "no comment"-style response when the actual truth is innocuous but the other possible answers would be harmful.

(a)(6)(F) processing requirements apply only to records that don't qualify for subsection (b) exemptions. This is awful to read, largely because the statute does not straightforwardly and cohesively address denials. (a)(6)(F) describes the denial procedure, (a)(4) details the procedures available to requesters to appeal administratively and judicially improper withholdings.