It Looks Like The FBI Thought About Prosecuting FOIA Requesters After Influx Of Automated Requests
from the nice-optics,-g-men dept
Emma Best of MuckRock has unearthed some disturbing details in an FBI response to an FOIA request: apparently the agency considered — however briefly — the investigation and prosecution of people filing requests.
The nature of the requests may shed some light on the FBI’s thought process because the heavily-redacted email included in the response certainly doesn’t. Each year, the FBI updates its Dead List — the names of people the FBI has files on who have passed away. Death increases the chances of released files because this major life event tends to terminate investigations.
The FBI claims it can’t find its updated Dead List. This seems odd, if not downright unbelievable, but the DOJ has backed the FBI’s claim and FOIA requests for the latest copy are being rejected. No problem, said MuckRock. It went to work with an older version of the list which included 7,000 names.
To accomplish this, the names of the subjects were extracted from the Dead List and a simple script written to submit FOIA requests for them. The requests were submitted on February 29th 2016, with the script and data made available online so that others could make their own requests and trigger the DOJ’s “rule of three” for frequently requested records, which would see the files posted online by the FBI.
Rather than follow its own rule for publication of frequently-requested files, the FBI decided to stop responding altogether.
The FBI acknowledged a large number of them before they began ignoring them. Over a month later (after the Bureau had exceeded legal time limit), the FBI sent a letter stating that they had “received an exceedingly high volume of submissions” which they would not accept.
Which led to this amazing bit of government agency shitposting:
According to the Bureau, fulfilling the FOIA requests would have prevented the FBI from fulfilling FOIA requests. Their letter stated that the “manner of submission interfered with the FBI’s ability to perform its FOIA and PA statutory responsibilities as an agency. Accordingly, the FBI did not accept these submissions on February 29th, 2016.”
A new FOIA request was sent requesting communications discussing the voluminous requests for files on Dead List subjects. That’s when things went from slightly obstructionist to downright ominous.
One of the emails contained in this document dump arrived with all but one word redacted. The FOIA exemption cited for the redaction of the entire body of the email was b(7)e: “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.” All that remained of the email is the word “Options.” Everything underneath it was apparently a discussion about investigating/prosecuting FOIA requesters who participated in MuckRock’s automated FOIA requests. CCed on the email are officials from the Criminal Justice Information Services, which handles the FBI’s multiple criminal/investigation target databases.
No one knows for sure what basis the FBI thought it had for prosecuting FOIA requesters, but it’s pretty easy to imagine it had something to with the CFAA. It’s almost impossible to abuse the FOIA process in a fashion that would result in criminal charges, but give the government some automated computer activity it doesn’t like, and the CFAA can be read imaginatively enough to support at least an investigation. Another email in the batch received by the requester contains a heading that appears to show the mass requests had been passed on to the government’s ESOC (Enterprise Security Operations Center) as “suspicious.”
But this isn’t the end of the FBI’s bad faith FOIA response “efforts.” It took plenty of care to protect the people involved in this prosecution discussion but showed far less interest in protecting FOIA requesters when releasing this batch of documents.
Despite redacting the names and email addresses of the public servants handling the case, the FBI released not only the author’s name and address in the file (technically improper since there was no waiver, albeit understandable) but the name, email address and home address of another requester who also used the script to file requests. Their name along with their email and physical addresses were left unredacted not once, not twice, not thrice – but seven times, not including the email headers, several of which also showed their name and email address.
Given the nature of the FBI’s response to the mass request for Dead List files, this careless redaction effort appears to be no accident.
It’s hard to imagine that the Bureau, which once hung a sign in their FOIA office instructing people that “when in doubt – cross it out” would fail to redact this information so many times by accident. In context, it’s hard to see it as anything but retaliatory.
On top of that, the FBI appears to have deliberately ignored the requester’s supporting info for his fee waiver request, charged the requester duplication fees for documents it had previously compiled and released to other requesters, and stated — with the DOJ’s support — there was no “public interest” in Dead List documents, despite the massive number of requests (the ones the FBI chose to ignore en masse) clearly showing otherwise.
This is nasty, petty stuff and it’s coming from one of the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world. People with access to vast databases of information on American citizens are seeking to leverage this access to chill First Amendment-protected activity. The government as a whole barely fulfills it obligations (and almost never in a timely fashion) when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act. Agencies like the FBI are taking it several steps further, shirking obligations while engaging in small-scale vindictive acts.
Filed Under: chilling effects, fbi, foia, prosecution, transparency
Comments on “It Looks Like The FBI Thought About Prosecuting FOIA Requesters After Influx Of Automated Requests”
Of course Muckrock discovered disturbing details, because they themselves are the ones getting people to ask for this very information:
What Muckrock tries to do is to get many, many people to ask for the same information, hoping that the responsive documents provides will be either non-redacted or will have redacted information in one set revealed in another.
It’s an abusive way to try to circumvent the system. They should be surprised when the FBI (or any other agency) gets tired of playing their version of whac-a-mole.
Muckrock’s campaign is basically the reason that FOIA requests by normal people for normal things are delayed do long. They have literally clogged the piped with their shit.
Or the government could just respond to requests quickly, like they’re legally obliged to, and Muckrock wouldn’t have to try and work around the agencies’ deliberate unresponsiveness?
It’s the FBI that’s started this game. They have clogged the pipe by trashing it, i.e. doing everything to skirt around laws with support by the law makers.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, let’s say that they are busy making tons and tons of the same sort of request, over and over again, trying to trick the agency into disclosing two or three more words that they may forget to redact on a single copy.
Meanwhile, someone is actually trying to do a serious request to further a lawsuit or to track down something signficant. They are in line behind the thousands of near duplicate requests that have to be processed ahead of them.
Muckrock wants to be the kid in the back seat yelling “are we there yet” over and over again until you give in and give them whatever it is they want, no matter how much hard it does to others.
Overloading the system isn’t helping anyone get information. it’s just slowing everything down and making a mockery of the concept.
Automated DMCA’s are okay but F*CK NO to FOIA ??
Why do we even pretend we’re free.
Prosecution would be a criminal act
Title 18, Sections 241 & 242 criminalize retaliation against people for exercising statutory, civil or constitutional rights under color of law.
Prosecuting someone for submitting a FOIA request would be exactly that sort of retaliation, since making a request through proper channels for public information is a statutory right created by the Freedom Of Information Act.
Violating Section 242 can be anything from a misdemeanor to a capital crime, depending on the nature and severity of the rights violation. But bureaucracies (federal or otherwise) rarely involve lone actors, so that brings us to Section 241, the conspiracy against rights under color of law. Unlike 242 violations, ANY 241 violation is automatically at least a felony.
The real irony here though, is that the federal agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting Section 241 & 242 violations is the FBI.
For decades, FBI employees have used every conceivable method to thwart FOIA requests as well as dishonor the spirit of FOIA laws.