You would think that this would work, but it doesn't. This is actually a policy being challenged in a current lawsuit brought by MuckRock against CIA (disclosure: I am their lawyer in that case). When they say "to" or "from," that's not "people in this office." That's names.
Problem is, CIA won't give out the names of its employees, or even their titles. To be fair, it doesn't have to; there's a statute that allows them to withhold that information called the CIA Act of 1949.
One of the requests in the lawsuit should demonstrate the extremity of this practice. There are two mailing lists used in IMS (Information Management Services, the CIA FOIA office) called CIO-IMS-STAFF and CIO-IMS-ALL. MuckRock filed a FOIA request for "[a]ll email messages (and attachments) sent to the CIO-IMS-STAFF or CIO-IMS-ALL mailing lists by the Director or Deputy Director of IMS between 9/1/12-12/31/12." There you have a sender, a group of recipients you do not know, and a date range.
CIA's response? "We require requesters seeking any form of 'electronic communications' such as emails, to provide the specific 'to' and 'from' recipients, time frame and subject. We note that you have provided the senders and the time frame."
That's not a reasonable determination. And because CIA considers overbroad requests to "not be received," they don't allow you to file an administrative appeal, for whatever minimal good that would do (that's a discussion for another day, though). The only recourse for a person seeking emails who does not know everything about the emails he wants is expensive, protracted litigation.
I'll add two small things and stop here. #1, for those interested, the case is this one -- https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/jun/11/why-were-suing-cia/. #2, CIA uses Lotus Notes for its email system.
There's nothing special about it. It was a simple boilerplate acknowledgement.
Dear Mr. McClanahan:
On 9 February 2012, the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator received your 9 February 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, submitted on behalf of the National Security Counselors, for "an electronic copy of the CIA's copy of its new regulation 32 C.F.R. 1908." We have assigned your request the reference number above. Please use this number when corresponding so that we can identify it easily.
The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. ? 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA. To the extent your request seeks information that is subject to the FOIA, we accept your request, and we will process it in accordance with the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. ? 552, as amended. We will search for records up to and including the date the Agency starts its search. In accordance with our regulation, as a matter of administrative discretion, the Agency has waived the fees for this request.
2) I think you think I meant something I didn't, so I apologize for any ambiguity. I'm not saying they are required to post the regs on their website; I was merely pointing out that the version on their website isn't the most recent version, in response to Oblate's 6:44 AM comment. I'm not suing them for failing to post the amendment, I'm actually suing them because the amendment itself is improper (for a handful of reasons I won't go into here).
6) You assume correctly. If you appeal a decision, the response is "We affirm our initial determination, Love, CIA." Nobody explains anything to the requester until you sue.
7) Agreed, and I wasn't saying that they were required to process the document. I was only saying that since they always have processed such documents, it's really poor form to deviate from that practice and not tell the requester that they're deviating. Not a legal argument, just more ranting about their stubborn refusal to say anything, no matter how minor, that they don't think they are absolutely required to say by law. True, there are plenty of times that they are required by law to say something and they don't, and I have no compunctions about suing them over those, but I agree that this isn't one of them.
8) I think you picked the wrong conclusion I jumped to. I believe you when you say that FOIA processors get just as annoyed with 60-lb boxes of paper as I do. I'm saying that she really doesn't have a right to get as annoyed at having to process a FOIA request for one 3-page document as I get at receiving these boxes when the Agency is supposed to be sending me CDs.
Re: ranting about being a FOIA processor, believe me, I've heard it all, and I do sincerely feel for you guys. The conscientious ones, at least. You are caught in the middle between agency people who want to keep everything secret and treat you like the enemy and the public whose real problem is with the aforementioned agency people, but you're the ones they get to deal with, so you're the ones who get the brunt of their frustration.
Re: annoying the FOIA processor, I do agree that she was probably annoyed when she got this. However, I am confident that her annoyance pales in comparison to what I feel when I receive a 60-lb box of paper, stapled every 2-5 pages, that I have to unstaple and scan to post on the web (or even to be able to do searches through). And those pages are printouts of completely unclassified documents. True story. Think about how many pages are in a 60-lb box. Then think about how sad it is that this has happened significantly more than once. Just saying...
Hello, I'm the requester. I can address most of the questions raised in the comments:
1) The full text of the request was "This is a FOIA request for an electronic copy of the CIA?s copy of its new regulation 32 C.F.R. 1908. A paper record will not satisfy this request." Followed by our office address. No joke.
2) The copy you linked to on the CIA's website is an old version. The CIA amended 32 C.F.R. 1908 in September but have not updated their website. (In fact, I'm currently suing them over one of their amendments - see http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/national-security-counselors-sue-the-cia-for-ignoring-freedom-of-information-laws/).
3) Despite the clear statutory requirement that agencies must release records in electronic format if the requester so requests, the CIA has adopted a practice of refusing to do so across the board (with very few exceptions). Agencies are allowed to refuse to release specific records in electronic format if that record is deemed "not readily reproducible in electronic format," but the CIA argues that none of its records are readily reproducible in electronic format (because it implemented a FOIA processing system that resides solely on its classified network, requiring FOIA analysts to upload unclassified documents to the classified network to process them, and then saying that because they're on the classified network, they can only be printed). For more information go to our litigation webpage at http://www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/litigation.html and read the briefs about a "status conference" for Civil Action No. 11-443 (BAH).
4) I admit that it seems somewhat silly to make a FOIA request for something I could find in Google. I made this request to prove exactly how asinine the CIA's policy described in (3) is. I did not expect to be told they could find no responsive records. I haven't the slightest idea how they reached that result.
5) If they have used the fact that I have asked for an electronic copy as grounds to say that no records exist because they can't give me an electronic copy (for reasons described above), then this is a new escalation of this policy that should not be allowed to stand. It is patently unreasonable to give a "no records" response simply because a requester asked for electronic records, unless you say that's the reason.
6) Which brings us to the heart of another problem with CIA responses. They regularly apply very narrow interpretations of the scope of requests, but never tell the requester that the reason no records were found is because of this narrow interpretation. Only if you sue will you learn how the Agency read your request.
7) This applies to the issue of "not being able to request Federal Register thing" as well. If that was the reason they reached this decision, they need to say that, not just assure the requester that the search was thorough. This especially applies in this case, where they have consistently processed copies of Federal Register documents in response to FOIA requests in the past. In fact, if you file a request for all records about some CIA policy, often all you'll get is a copy of the regulation published in the Federal Register.
I hope this explains some of the apparent inconsistencies.
Kel
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Kel McClanahan.
Re: FOIA request
You would think that this would work, but it doesn't. This is actually a policy being challenged in a current lawsuit brought by MuckRock against CIA (disclosure: I am their lawyer in that case). When they say "to" or "from," that's not "people in this office." That's names.
Problem is, CIA won't give out the names of its employees, or even their titles. To be fair, it doesn't have to; there's a statute that allows them to withhold that information called the CIA Act of 1949.
One of the requests in the lawsuit should demonstrate the extremity of this practice. There are two mailing lists used in IMS (Information Management Services, the CIA FOIA office) called CIO-IMS-STAFF and CIO-IMS-ALL. MuckRock filed a FOIA request for "[a]ll email messages (and attachments) sent to the CIO-IMS-STAFF or CIO-IMS-ALL mailing lists by the Director or Deputy Director of IMS between 9/1/12-12/31/12." There you have a sender, a group of recipients you do not know, and a date range.
CIA's response? "We require requesters seeking any form of 'electronic communications' such as emails, to provide the specific 'to' and 'from' recipients, time frame and subject. We note that you have provided the senders and the time frame."
That's not a reasonable determination. And because CIA considers overbroad requests to "not be received," they don't allow you to file an administrative appeal, for whatever minimal good that would do (that's a discussion for another day, though). The only recourse for a person seeking emails who does not know everything about the emails he wants is expensive, protracted litigation.
I'll add two small things and stop here. #1, for those interested, the case is this one -- https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/jun/11/why-were-suing-cia/. #2, CIA uses Lotus Notes for its email system.
Re:
There's nothing special about it. It was a simple boilerplate acknowledgement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answers to most of your questions
1) Lol, well played.
2) I think you think I meant something I didn't, so I apologize for any ambiguity. I'm not saying they are required to post the regs on their website; I was merely pointing out that the version on their website isn't the most recent version, in response to Oblate's 6:44 AM comment. I'm not suing them for failing to post the amendment, I'm actually suing them because the amendment itself is improper (for a handful of reasons I won't go into here).
6) You assume correctly. If you appeal a decision, the response is "We affirm our initial determination, Love, CIA." Nobody explains anything to the requester until you sue.
7) Agreed, and I wasn't saying that they were required to process the document. I was only saying that since they always have processed such documents, it's really poor form to deviate from that practice and not tell the requester that they're deviating. Not a legal argument, just more ranting about their stubborn refusal to say anything, no matter how minor, that they don't think they are absolutely required to say by law. True, there are plenty of times that they are required by law to say something and they don't, and I have no compunctions about suing them over those, but I agree that this isn't one of them.
8) I think you picked the wrong conclusion I jumped to. I believe you when you say that FOIA processors get just as annoyed with 60-lb boxes of paper as I do. I'm saying that she really doesn't have a right to get as annoyed at having to process a FOIA request for one 3-page document as I get at receiving these boxes when the Agency is supposed to be sending me CDs.
Re: ranting about being a FOIA processor, believe me, I've heard it all, and I do sincerely feel for you guys. The conscientious ones, at least. You are caught in the middle between agency people who want to keep everything secret and treat you like the enemy and the public whose real problem is with the aforementioned agency people, but you're the ones they get to deal with, so you're the ones who get the brunt of their frustration.
Re: Re: Re: Answers to most of your questions
Re: annoying the FOIA processor, I do agree that she was probably annoyed when she got this. However, I am confident that her annoyance pales in comparison to what I feel when I receive a 60-lb box of paper, stapled every 2-5 pages, that I have to unstaple and scan to post on the web (or even to be able to do searches through). And those pages are printouts of completely unclassified documents. True story. Think about how many pages are in a 60-lb box. Then think about how sad it is that this has happened significantly more than once. Just saying...
Re: Re: Answers to most of your questions
Hello, I'm the requester. I can address most of the questions raised in the comments:
1) The full text of the request was "This is a FOIA request for an electronic copy of the CIA?s copy of its new regulation 32 C.F.R. 1908. A paper record will not satisfy this request." Followed by our office address. No joke.
2) The copy you linked to on the CIA's website is an old version. The CIA amended 32 C.F.R. 1908 in September but have not updated their website. (In fact, I'm currently suing them over one of their amendments - see http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/national-security-counselors-sue-the-cia-for-ignoring-freedom-of-information-laws/).
3) Despite the clear statutory requirement that agencies must release records in electronic format if the requester so requests, the CIA has adopted a practice of refusing to do so across the board (with very few exceptions). Agencies are allowed to refuse to release specific records in electronic format if that record is deemed "not readily reproducible in electronic format," but the CIA argues that none of its records are readily reproducible in electronic format (because it implemented a FOIA processing system that resides solely on its classified network, requiring FOIA analysts to upload unclassified documents to the classified network to process them, and then saying that because they're on the classified network, they can only be printed). For more information go to our litigation webpage at http://www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/litigation.html and read the briefs about a "status conference" for Civil Action No. 11-443 (BAH).
4) I admit that it seems somewhat silly to make a FOIA request for something I could find in Google. I made this request to prove exactly how asinine the CIA's policy described in (3) is. I did not expect to be told they could find no responsive records. I haven't the slightest idea how they reached that result.
5) If they have used the fact that I have asked for an electronic copy as grounds to say that no records exist because they can't give me an electronic copy (for reasons described above), then this is a new escalation of this policy that should not be allowed to stand. It is patently unreasonable to give a "no records" response simply because a requester asked for electronic records, unless you say that's the reason.
6) Which brings us to the heart of another problem with CIA responses. They regularly apply very narrow interpretations of the scope of requests, but never tell the requester that the reason no records were found is because of this narrow interpretation. Only if you sue will you learn how the Agency read your request.
7) This applies to the issue of "not being able to request Federal Register thing" as well. If that was the reason they reached this decision, they need to say that, not just assure the requester that the search was thorough. This especially applies in this case, where they have consistently processed copies of Federal Register documents in response to FOIA requests in the past. In fact, if you file a request for all records about some CIA policy, often all you'll get is a copy of the regulation published in the Federal Register.
I hope this explains some of the apparent inconsistencies.
Kel