CIA Redacted 'Off The Record, No Comment' From Released Documents

from the huh? dept

Over at The Intercept, there's an article claiming that the AP's national security reporter Ken Dilanian had a too cozy relationship with the CIA while he was at the Tribune Company. It's an interesting read, based on pages upon pages of emails between reporters and the CIA that were released under a FOIA request. However, what caught my attention, more than the full story, was something in all of those emails, spotted by Katherine Hawkins. And it's that, on page 363, it seems clear that the CIA, when releasing these emails, redacted the line "Off the record, no comment." It's rather obvious, because Dilanian immediately repeats that line right back, somewhat angrily at the ridiculousness of it.
Rather than using the all purpose b(5) redaction, it appears that the CIA is claiming a b(3) and b(6) reason for this comment being "redacted" (even though they left it in in Dilanian's reply). b(3) is for documents "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute" and b(6) is for documents "personnel and medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

I'm curious how "off the record, no comment" qualifies as either. It appears to be redactions for redactions' sake.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 7:48am

    I'm curious how "off the record, no comment" qualifies as either. It appears to be redactions for redactions' sake.

    They don't line the sheets and spray black ink with a hose because it would be too blatant. Incidentally that's why they pretend to follow some judicial orders.

    At this point what prevents them from completely forging communications and other documents to release as FOIA responses anyway?

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

  • identicon
    DavidL, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:15am

    They even redact the name of their freaking public relations officer. Because god forbid THAT crucial bit of national security info should be released to the public.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:34am

    REDACTED

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:38am

    Something smells and it ain't the petunias. 🌼

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

  • icon
    LduN (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:39am

    #1 best comment ever

    [redacted]

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:57am

    Why is anything redacted?

    Why is anything redacted (including names)? If it was confidential, then they shouldn't have been revealing it to a reporter and whoever did should be prosecuted. Right?

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

    • identicon
      DavidL, 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:16am

      Re: Why is anything redacted?

      Under the third-party doctrine, anything in that e-mail should be available to whoever wants to ask, right?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:24am

    Are you sure?

    I suspect that "Off the record, no comment" isn't what was actually said, but instead something like "Off the record, we have been told not to talk about X or acknowledge its existence" -- which was then angrily summarized as "Off the record, no comment."

    The size of the redaction space kind of bears this out too.

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 12:29pm

    Contempt of the people.

    On the lower level, the redacting officer has been advised to over-redact than under-redact, so he's covering his ass.

    And then the upper level officer rubber stamps it nominal consideration.

    On both levels: Contempt of the people. Why can't they just trust us and let us do our jobs, those F[REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED]kwits?

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

  • icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 1:29pm

    how

    I'm more curious how *any* reply given to a reporter can be considered sensitive/classified enough to later be redacted on a FOIA request.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 2:03pm

    kinds of redactions?

    "Rather than using the all purpose b(5) redaction, it appears that the CIA is claiming a b(3) and b(6) reason for this comment being "redacted""

    Sounds like more of a b(s) redaction to me...

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

  • icon
    average_joe (profile), 8 Sep 2014 @ 7:35am

    test

    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
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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