Sometimes, a nicely worded letter to the powers that be at the FBI, (or
other co-responding organisation) i.e. to those who deal with the
problem, pointing out their error, in a most helpful way, and offering
to help, and asking why you have found that the information is available
elsewhere and why didn't they know about it, took account of it, or
develop efficient systems which work on behalf of the taxpayer and
requesters...or, in the alternative, would they have any objection to
you and other researchers, helping them by working alongside them, in a
purely voluntary way, by informing them of where the sources are. In
this way, you and they would be helping the citizens and the
organisations which represent the people and the state, by making
openness and transparancy much cheaper and more informative to the
citizenry in the long run, 1which is only, after all, fulfilling the
President and Congresses wish to inform the people...blah! blah! blah!
Without being recognisably obsequious, of course...:-) .
If you decide to adopt that approach, please let me know, via this
mailing list, how you have got on...:-) .
With kind regards,
Dougie.
On 05/02/2016 21:11, Michael Best wrote:
That's nothing as far as BS rejections go for not being specific enough about the records requested. I requested a FBI from FBI, gave them the name and number of it... and they said it wasn't enough to go on.
File was in NARA as it turned out, but still. WTF, FBI?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Michael Best <themikebest@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:themikebest@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The explanation I finally found buried in there was that the
request was too broad, and that I should specify the subject
matter, a time period and a location. I mean, the request
basically did all three of those so the rejection was completely
wrong, but what they cited exists... it's just kinda like trying
to cite justifiable homicide law for torturing someone. It exists,
but doesn't apply.
Unfortunately because of the way it was buried, it took me until
after the appeal period had passed so I can't appeal. I'll have to
file a fresh FOIA with them and be more vigilant, because
transparency can suck it I guess.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:58 PM, douglas rankine
<douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Do they have the right to close an FOIA request arbitrarily,
without a reason? If so, do you know where such a regulation
or law is, or where it could be found...or is it an
administrative procedure. Is it possible for you to ask them
to point your nose to the provision in law which grants them
this right?
ATB
Dougie.
On 05/02/2016 20:52, Michael Best wrote:
I filed a FOIA request about Cryptome with DHS a while back:
Any records relating to Cryptome, also known by its web
address of Cryptome.org, which posts pictures of
sensitive sites and potential security holes as described
at
www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/nyregion/mapping-natural-gas-lines-advise-the-public-tip-off-the-terrorists.html
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/nyregion/mapping-natural-gas-lines-advise-the-public-tip-off-the-terrorists.html>
by the New York Times.
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/cryptome-dhs-22647/
Sent through MuckRock on December 1, acknowledged on December
2. Also closed on December 2, according to the DHS FOIA
website. No notification or explanation provided, not through
MuckRock or to me directly. I say to me directly because they
also closed another FOIA of mine without explanation,
insisting on opening a new one when I tried to follow up
within the 30 days.
http://www.dhs.gov/foia-status FOIA # *2016-HQFO-00099*
Weird, right?
