FBI Redacts Letter About Drone Usage That Was Already Published In Full By Sen. Rand Paul

from the redaction-by-random-number-generator dept

The government's overclassification problem has turned its redaction efforts into a farce. When not deploying questionable exceptions to avoid returning responsive documents to FOIA requests, government agencies are cranking out amateurishly redacted pages that leave info exposed in one response and covered up in the next. No wonder they fear the "mosaic" approach to FOIA requests. If they'd just come up with some meaningful redaction guidelines, they could avoid this. Instead, things like the following bit of stupidity happen.

When outgoing director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee last July that the FBI was in the “initial stages” of developing guidelines for its drone program, a handful of privacy hawks in Congress perked up and requested more details. The FBI released correspondence with three members of Congress—Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)—in its latest bundle. Paul had already posted in full the FBI’s answers to questions about the scope and purpose of domestic UAV surveillance, but FBI FOIA officers still saw fit to sanitize them.
Here are the two versions of the same document, with the legislator's clean copy up top and the needlessly redacted version sent to Muckrock below it.




The FBI can't even keep track of what it's already sent out in unredacted form, making a mockery of its own paranoiac "but for criminals/terrorism" tendencies. What makes this even more ridiculous is that the inverse happened just a couple of weeks ago, when Tom Coburn called out the DHS for producing drone documents to Congress that were more heavily redacted than the ones it supplied in response to an EFF FOIA request (which were also rather heavily redacted).
For 2010 alone, my staff has tallied at least 20 instances in which the publicly-released documents appear to contain legible passages which are redacted entirely or in large part from the documents DHS provided the Committee. In other words, DHS appears to have chosen to withhold information from Congress which the DOJ -- and, we must assume, DHS -- has determined was appropriate to share with the American public.
Why these agencies even bother redacting anything at this point is inexplicable. There's obviously no rationale behind what gets released and what gets withheld. It's apparently an arbitrary decision made by each individual employee tasked with handling responses to outside queries. The stated concerns about "security" are obviously a sham. The public already has the information they're choosing to redact, which instantly nullifies any justifications given for the redactions.

If the redactions are essentially meaningless, than every redaction should be challenged. We can't see what's behind the black ink and whiteout, so we're expected to assume the info is "sensitive." But it obviously isn't if it can be revealed elsewhere without the security of the nation collapsing. The truth appears to be that no one in charge of redacting documents has any real idea what the fuck they're doing. That calls into question many of the efforts being made in the name of national security, something made even more depressing when you consider the exponential growth of that area of the government over the last 12 years.

Who watches the watchers? Well, we do. And what we're seeing is a bumbling display of ineptitude, propelled by an outsized sense of paranoia -- a bureaucratic farce where the right hand is completely unaware the left hand even exists, much less has any earthly idea what it's up to.





Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Feb 17th, 2014 @ 10:16am

    How's that feel Senator?

    "appears to have chosen to withhold information from Congress which the DOJ -- and, we must assume, DHS -- has determined was appropriate to share with the American public"

    We 'the public' have the same problem when *you* get information and it's deemed 'we' aren't allowed the same access.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Erik Grant, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 10:56am

    While the process should be standardized with sane guidelines, I think the above redactions are absolutely not without merit. It's completely reasonable for the FBI to want to withhold operational details of drone usage to better leverage them against home-grown nutjobs and terrorists. I think encouraging oversight would be a better solution, rather than apparently advocating the elimination of all redactions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      AjStechd (profile), Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:12am

      Re:

      Trouble is, the FBI and other large government agencies have little to no real oversight. Everything is excused, rubber stamped or glossed over. They routinely destroy lives and property. I'm willing to take my chances with the handful of "nutjobs" any day vs your choice of alphabet agencies.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:27am

      Re:

      it is the overbearing and secret nature of government agencies that create many of the nut jobs in the first place. More transparency reduces the risks to the citizens by debunking many conspiracy theories.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DS, Feb 25th, 2014 @ 11:56pm

      Response to: Erik Grant on Feb 17th, 2014 @ 10:56am

      You pretty much sound like a nut job.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:05am

    The right hand thinks the left hand is a terrorist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:15am

    New plan: submit a dozen different FOIA requests on he same document at the same time. Piece the full thing back from the different redactions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Sunhawk (profile), Feb 17th, 2014 @ 12:13pm

      Re:

      They like to 'ban' you from FOIA requests when you do too many...

      Although there isn't a mechanism for legally doing so (ie, claim "national security" and be done with it).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:15am

    This shows why oversight is an overrated as a way to protect the public.

    I am just posting questions.

    How can we be sure the people that oversee the FBI in an elected role are able to see what they need to make intelligent decisions??

    How can we the people be sure that those people that seek to protect us are doing so in the best interest of us the people without effective disclosure?

    So dumb question, but...How can we trust an agency to effectively protect us when they can't do something so simple as coordinate their message and lies?

    Lies, Lies, and Damn Lies. There is a reason someone once said "The Truth will set you free".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 1:19pm

      Re: This shows why oversight is an overrated as a way to protect the public.

      There is a reason someone once said "The Truth will set you free".

      Jesus?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Skeptical Cynic (profile), Feb 17th, 2014 @ 2:35pm

        Re: Re: This shows why oversight is an overrated as a way to protect the public.

        Nah, Jesus was biased.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 4:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: This shows why oversight is an overrated as a way to protect the public.

          Everyone is biased. For example, if you like Coke better than Pepsi, you are biased in favor of Coke.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:18am

    Reminds me for all the world of a little boy standing there with his fingers in his ears hollering NaNaNaNa.

    There is no consistency in dealing with FOIA in one agency office much less all of government. This same sort of idea that plugging your ears equals it doesn't exist was shown off in all its spender when Wikileaks showed the world some of those diplomatic secrets, when the Manning documents went out, and during the Snowden leaks. Blocking sites to prevent their own employees from reading about current world events that made them look bad in the eyes of the public. Yet those same employees could go home, get on their own private internet connections and read all about it.

    Yeah, that made a lot of sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:23am

    I think I know why the public gets infromation that Congress doesn't. It has to do with the phrase, "If you had a brain, you'd be dangerous".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    peter, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 11:50am

    Its all secret......just cos

    Having read the resacted information it is difficult to make up a reasom why any of it is secret or sensitive. We coukd ask, but I suppose the answer would be redacted!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Baron von Robber, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 12:26pm

    Maybe the person doing the redactions has Multiple Personality Disorder and is bi-polar to boot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 12:36pm

    Anyone who drapes themselves in the "National Security" banner, is immune from common sense and public scrutiny, because "Terrorists"!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    any moose cow word, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 12:54pm

    The redaction here is rather ironic. The public might actually support UAVs for those kinds of task, such as finding lost children. Yet, the FBI most likely redacted those details because they didn't support the "war on terror" rhetoric they've been selling. However, the public isn't buying the rhetoric as much theses days, it's been oversold for far too long without any real domestic threat. Unfortunately, it's distracting the FBI from it's real job, where UAVs could be a valuable asset. But the rhetoric has made the pubic associate UAVs with weaponized military drones, it's putting their use for unweaponized task that the FBI should be focusing on in jeopardy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    zip, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 4:19pm

    Isn't the main point of redactions to maintain an aire of secrecy to keep the public at arm's distance from learning about all the idiocy, waste and screwups that federal agencies are notorious for?

    As well as keeping a lid on public expectations: if people started getting ANY un-redacted documents under FOIA, they might start expecting more -- or heaven forbid, start questioning the very need for these redactions in the first place?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lurker Keith, Feb 17th, 2014 @ 10:18pm

    another way to look at it

    What if you're wrong? What if they do know what they're doing? W/ everything they've been doing, I wouldn't put it past them to release stuff to the public, where experts explain what it means, & then, actually understanding it now, deem it damaging to them when Congress asks for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2014 @ 8:06am

    FBI Not Paranoid

    You are crying paranoia here and It doesn't really seem to be the case. The document offers an interesting insight into the inferences one could gather by the definitive descriptions taken from the full document, and the redacted document that clearly attempts to stand down from an allout constriction of its drone program usage by letter of the origional document. It is very interesting to see the mentality in force here.

    The higher ups would definitely not want to be seen as overstepping the outlined, stated public use and capability for its drone program, but neither to be later restricted by this statement of its intent. This must have been redacted by a lawyer on the team with some mighty proactive conceptualizations of its future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2014 @ 8:30am

      Re: FBI Not Paranoid

      In other words, "Let's not have any misguided domestic drone mission statements deployed too soon."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This