Excellent, Michael...but, may I kindly suggest that you take it further
next time...along the lines I have suggested...(and our other colleagues
who indulge in such practices of course). There is nuffink better than a
bureacrat taking advice from someone likr your goodself and adopting it
as their own with their masters, if you have the inclination and the
time. I promise you, you will find it quite fruitful over time...and
such an approach will build respect for you, as well as being listened
to and your advice will become of value, to both them and us (whoever
them and us are...):-) .
Personally, may I say, how much impressed I am with the way that folks on this mailing list are working and co-ordinating their activities in gathering, collating, storing and spreading information en masse via the FOIA and passing it on to the internet population who are interested in such matters. I particularly like the way in which questions are being posed in such a way that helps the member of staff who is dealing with it, by pre- sifting and sorting the information, so that the requests are more precise and that only the first pages of documents are being requested, which saves much time.
Perhaps one day, we will develop a request algorithm, which delivers positive positives and negative negatives etc...;-) . Benjamin Franklin developed such a system way back in the time of the Founding Fathers, when America was struggling for independence from the English yoke. He called it bootstrapping...way ahead of his time, and still relevant today. And he didn't have a computer at his elbow...just his wits.
On 05/02/2016 22:55, Michael Best wrote:
I appealed the FBI rejection straightaway, saying something to the effect of "if the exact name and number of the file isn't specific enough, than nothing possibly could be."
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:39 PM, douglas rankine <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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,
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
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?
On 05/02/2016 20:52, Michael Best wrote:
I filed a FOIA request about Cryptome with DHS a while
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
by the New York Times.
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*