
FOIA Improvement Act Signed into Law - rl3
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2016/07/foia-improvement/
======
lettergram
Having done a ridiculous number of FOIA requests myself[1], this isn't even
the largest issue.

The largest issue with FOIA requests is that we don't know what to request,
and literally anyone can just make up a reason to deny them.

Hell, even after stuff is released publicly, sometimes the government decides
to label it secret.

[1] [http://austingwalters.com/foia-
requesting-100-universities/](http://austingwalters.com/foia-
requesting-100-universities/)

~~~
nhebb
The DoJ filed a motion on Wednesday to delay the release of the Clinton
Foundation emails for 27 months. The reason cited was that there were errors
in how the search was conducted.

Given that, it sounds like there is also a fundamental problem in how
information is stored and classified. The FOIA requests were for emails, so I
would think that the retrieval would be simple. They must be vetting each
email for sensitive (secret) information, otherwise I can't imagine how it
would take 2.25 years to fulfill that request.

I can't tell if this is a stonewalling effort or a technology shortfall in the
FOIA process.

~~~
rhino369
I'm vetting FIOA-like request emails right now and yes each email is vetted
for sensitive information. And not just secret info, there are a bunch of
exemptions you have to watch out for. If anything the list of exemptions is
too short. A lot of stuff that seems like it's private isn't exempted.

It's incredibly time consuming and very very expensive. I'm working one
person's emails from a 4 month span and we have ~dozen people working on it
for a week.

The more specific request the easier it is. The ones asking for "everything"
are just hard as hell.

~~~
Zigurd
Cry me a river. It's hard only because there is too much utterly worthless,
indeed counterproductive, secrecy. A more open government could not do some
things. Good. It shouldn't.

~~~
cm2012
The constitution of the United States + the Bill of Rights were all designed
and argued about in secrecy. This was so the politicians in the room could
actually be honest and negotiate rather than pander to their states short
sighted interests.

~~~
srtjstjsj
No, the framer published articles and books putting forth there arguments,
then briefly privately discussed a proposal to vote on.

You may recall something called the Three-Fifths compromise, which pandered to
the states' short-sighted interests.

~~~
marcoperaza
"Briefly" is an interesting way to describe four months.

------
chipperyman573
The article says there is now a 25 year limit on redacting, if I read it
right. Obviously the DoD isn't going to play, so how are they getting around
it? Is there a generic "security can trump this law"?

~~~
forgottenpass
_The Act places a 25 year limit on the use of the deliberative process
exemption_

Deliberative process is just one type of exemption and is entirely separate
from the national security exemption.

[https://www.foia.gov/faq.html#exemptions](https://www.foia.gov/faq.html#exemptions)

~~~
SapphireSun
Geological information on wells? Everything else seemed very abstract and
logical and then there's this one specific thing.

~~~
dahdum
Made me curious too, here's a law blog that explains why.
[https://smithblawg.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-wells-
exploring-...](https://smithblawg.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-wells-exploring-
freedom-of.html)

"This category was added after witnesses testified that geological maps based
on explorations by private oil companies were not covered by “trade secrets”
provisions of present laws. Details of oil and gas findings must be filed with
Federal agencies by companies which want to lease Government-owned land.
Current regulations of the Bureau of Land Management prohibit disclosure of
these details only if the disclosure “would be prejudicial to the Government”
(43 CFR, pt. 2). Witnesses contended that disclosure of seismic reports and
other exploratory findings of oil companies would give speculators an unfair
advantage over the companies which spent millions of dollars in exploration."

------
r00fus
So it's another bill that has no funding to implement it (likely because of
"budget hawks" who take any chance they can get to tighten government
spending... well, at least government spending not benefitting their
district/state directly).

When will we get sane legislation back? Or are unfunded mandates the future of
all such improvements?

~~~
massysett
That's not the way the appropriations process works. Congress does not set
aside money for FOIA or for this bill. Generally appropriations are made to
each agency, and each agency must carry out its operations in a manner
consistent with all laws, including FOIA.

~~~
r00fus
Are you saying legislators are forbidden from earmarking allocations for a
specific executive branch agency for specific expansion of scope?

~~~
massysett
They could, and occasionally they do, but not for a small peanuts law like
FOIA--and FOIA is peanuts in the overall scheme of federal programs.

------
kerkeslager
This is an improvement, but ultimately we will not have an open government
until the following conditions are met:

1\. _Openness must be the default, assumed state._ When our founding fathers
addressed the problem of unfair imprisonment, they didn't do so by giving
people tools to prove their innocence. Instead, they started from the
assumption of innocence, putting the burden of proving guilt on the
prosecution. An open government will not be achieved by giving people tools to
open the government. Instead we should start from the assumption of openness,
publishing _everything_ by default, and place the burden of proving a need for
secrecy on members of our government. One example of why this is necessary is
that we don't even know what to request; FOIA powers are only useful for
opening up known unknowns.

2\. _Openness must be checked and balanced._ Who watches the watchmen? Right
now, no one. The honor system doesn't work here: members of government often
have strong incentives to hide information from the public, and these are
often the instances where openness is most important. Yet members of
government can deny FOIA requests for all sorts of reasons, and requesters
have little recourse. Without an impartial third party to assess whether
secrecy is needed, members of government can simply claim anything needs
secrecy, and there is no one to investigate whether this is actually true. One
example of why this is necessary is the content of the Snowden leaks: the NSA,
operating in secrecy with no oversight, has denied requests for information
which we now know only because Snowden blew the whistle.

3\. _Openness must be a technical requirement._ In order for openness to be
the default, we need to change the way the government stores and distributes
information. Software projects recognize this need for their projects, which
is why systems like Git store every action. The technical requirements as I
see them are: a) _Accessibility_ Often members of government obstruct FOIA
requests by distributing large amounts of data in unusable formats such as
PDF. Distribution in a format which can be searched and analyzed is a
necessity. b) _Reliability_ There have been a few high-profile cases recently
where data has been "lost" in hard drive crashes, accidental deletions, etc.
We have no way of knowing whether these data losses were the result of actual
technical problems or foul play. Data should be stored and backed up
sufficiently that technical failure can't be used as plausible deniability for
foul play. c) _Distribution_ A recent FOIA request for Clinton Foundation
emails has recently been delayed by 27 months. Whether this is stonewalling or
technological failure is unknown but the effect is the same. If we started
from the assumption of openness, the emails should easy to retrieve, and in
fact should be published to an RSS feed or similar on a tight deadline. These
technologies already exist; we should be applying them to government.

4\. _Openness must be incentivized._ Currently, all the incentives are for
members of government to obstruct openness. Wrongdoers obviously have
incentives to hide their wrongdoing, but the problem goes deeper.
Whistleblowers are ostracized when they aren't outright jailed. And there are
no incentives that counteract these. Members of government delay requests,
deny requests without justification, provide data in unusable formats, cover
up wrongdoing, or even in some cases outright counterattack the person asking
for information, and these members of government are never punished with more
than slap on the wrist. In fact, they are often rewarded. We need to provide
strong incentives for openness. Whistleblowers should have strong protections.
Data should be released on a tight deadline and in a usable format with fines
and firings for failure--even if there are technical reasons, because people
unable to meet the openness requirements of their jobs should not hold those
jobs. People who cover up wrongdoing in government should be prosecuted along
with the wrongdoers (by an impartial third party, since checks and balances
are needed). Any set of laws intended to promote openness will be ineffective
if it doesn't have teeth.

