Senators Pushing Legislation Aimed At Reducing The Abuse Of The Most-Used FOIA Exemption

from the a-bit-more-patch-than-fix,-but-still... dept

If anything useful has been redacted from documents obtained with by a FOIA request, chances are the b(5) exemption has been invoked. Theoretically narrow in scope, the exemption has expanded to cover everything from a historical recounting of the CIA's involvement in the Bay of Pigs to someone's hand-scrawled commentary ("What a bunch of crap!") on a bill asking for Pakistan to be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Here's the entirety of the exemption according to FOIA statutes.

Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency
The reality of the situation is that nearly every agency has deployed the exemption to redact information at one point or another. Almost prophetically, the b(5) exemption claims the withheld information can only be released to "agencies in litigation" with the withholding party. And there are certainly plenty of "agencies" engaged in litigation with these government entities, albeit mainly in the form of FOIA lawsuits.

Two senators are hoping to fix this and, at the same time, force the government to start following up on its promised FOIA reform.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Cornyn, the ranking Judiciary Republican, introduced the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014, which would strengthen Obama administration transparency mandates and reform one of the most abused FOIA exemptions.

President Barack Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder directed federal agencies in 2009 to update their FOIA guidelines and operate with a presumption of openness. However, many agencies ignored the directive.

The bill would codify the administration's reform directives and force responsive agencies to limit use of the b(5) exemption to only information that would cause "foreseeable harm" if disclosed. Granted, that still leaves government agencies with plenty of room to maneuver, but it should trim down the number of b(5) redactions applied to documents like a Presidential Policy Directive ordering the State Department to be more transparent.
On the indisputable plus side, documents over 25 years old are no longer subject to this exemption, meaning long-withheld documents like the previously mentioned Bay of Pigs recounting will no longer be withheld for bogus "deliberative" reasons.

If this bill passes the Senate, it will likely be merged with a House FOIA reform bill being shepherded by Darrell Issa and Elijah Cummings. From that point, it will need to emerge mostly unscathed from the sausage-making on its way to the President. If it does survive intact, longtime FOIA offenders may have to find new reasons to apply black bars and withhold pages. Hopefully, this will cut down on the number of FOIA responses containing nothing but page-after-full-page of redactions.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 26th, 2014 @ 4:02pm

    I can't see this ever passing. Governments love their secrecy.

    Secret laws
    Secret trade agreements
    Secret drone killings
    Secret courts
    Secret bank accounts
    Secret black budgets
    Secret interpretations of the law
    Secret Executive order memos
    Secret documents
    Secret political donations though Super Political Action Committees (PAC)
    Secret spying

    I mean the list just goes on and on. We're a nation full of secrets with an unlimited number of things to hide.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jun 26th, 2014 @ 7:34pm

    I keep wondering...

    I just posted this on the wrong article, but here, in a more correct article, I gotta ask.

    What would actually happen if 'they' however you define them, actually know everything (short of humnint identification)? What would happen? What would be different?

    I am not a spook, so maybe some anonymous spook might speak up here to let us know the actual issues of such revelations. And my second question to that (those) person(s) would be, so what? Now that you know that they know, are you unable to use THAT to your advantage? If not, I recommend re-reading Sun Tzu, a few hundred more times than I have read it, which is in the many hundreds (still looking for insight).

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2014 @ 5:09am

    And in related news:

    Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre -private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/


    Overlooking the foia thing, this private swat team thing can not be good at all - it will no doubt result in many disasters.

     

    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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.