
NSA Rejecting FOIA Requests by US Citizens - jmtame
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221694/-NSA-Rejecting-Every-FOIA-Request-Made-by-U-S-Citizens
======
downandout
In case you didn't read the whole letter, it basically tells him that the
government makes the rules, that the rules say that these widely-publicized
programs are classified, and that if he wants to know what they have on him he
can f@@k off. We should be outraged by these responses, but not particularly
surprised. They are taking the only stance they can take: you found us out,
but you can't do anything about it. The only thing that we can do is assume
that every electronic communication we make is being monitored, stored, and
analyzed, and conduct ourselves accordingly.

~~~
ims
One of the basic exceptions to FOIA is classified material. If that weren't
the case, there would be no point in having classified material.

To my knowledge, every government in the world has some sort of state secrets
program. If you are against this, then that is at least consistent. But it
makes no sense to say that the NSA should be releasing classified information
under FOIA.

~~~
downandout
I am not of the opinion that classified information should necessarily be
disclosed under FOIA. However, one could make a strong argument that because
these programs have been officially acknowledged (which is inconsistent with
the procedures for handling classified information), that their existence is
no longer classified. NSA didn't have to make any public comment on the leaks
at all; nevertheless, they chose to not only acknowledge the programs but also
release a fair number of details, which would seem to have the effect of
declassification. There is a similar principle in trademark law: failure to
enforce the trademark results in a waiver of any rights granted by it.

~~~
arh68
The fact remains that as more and more information about the programs is
leaked to 'adversaries', the more pointless the program becomes. You wouldn't
play hide and seek if everyone could see you, right? Or if anyone shouts
"Marco, FOIA!" they have to respond "Polo, docs!"

Most of the specifics here are still under wraps (who's being targeted, what
specific patterns they search, etc) so the programs are still in pretty good
shape. It's far too early to throw in the everyone-knows-everything-already
towel. What's maddening is that the leaks on Capitol Hill are exactly the
same, criminally, but are usually pre-filtered, pro-US and condoned by the
Administration.

~~~
unclebucknasty
If leaks are condoned by the administration, then it has to make you wonder
how much of the professed value these programs actually have.

------
andridk
What bothers me most is that Americans can actually file these petitions and
receive answers. What about Europeans (and others) who have been spied on by a
foreign state?

Not so long ago, this would've been considered an act of war, to spy on your
allies on such a grand scale. The sad part is, that our governments or either
in on it, or running their own spy programs.

I really don't feel like I am living in a "free world" any more.

~~~
alan_cx
The obvious question is you why you believed were living in a free world while
the US was kidnapping and torturing foreigners, while threatening countries by
telling them they'd be bombed back in to the stone age?

I do very much agree with your points, but I don't understand why this issues
is a tipping point. Since I began to understand politics, I have been as wary
and skeptical of the US government as I have been impressed by the good
achievements of the US. I've not believed in the idea that the US leads any
sort of free world for years.

Or, if you are honest, is this the first issue that you feel affects you? Were
you confident that you wouldn't be rendered, bombed or drone struck? But now
you can be sure the NSA have your data and that it might actually matter?

If so, Im not judging you in any way. Its just I think a lot of people are
possibly in that boat too, and it also might highlight why still a most people
seem to dismiss this. They think it isnt or wont be a problem for them.

What has been blown for me by all this is the notion of freedom of speech.
While we in Europe seem to have given that up, I used to think the US hadn't.

~~~
clicks
For me, this actually _was_ the tipping point. In social groups I hung out I
was usually the guy who'd defend America on numerous accounts, but in the last
few weeks I've been bombarded by a load of information which I find to be
truly chilling.

By the way, it is interesting to note how we separate our past history from
our active perceptions of the place. America's early history is not too bright
-- we did some of the most batshit evil stuff you could think of: _genocide_
of Red Indians, _slavery_ (which to me when I really sit down and think deep
about, sometimes, seems worse than just killing a person -- it's fucking
killing the very dignity and respect every human being is owed, it's depriving
them of any and all pleasures to life). I don't think we've made much amends
for it -- the cycle of poverty still persists for a lot of African American
folks, there are rather few social programs that really try to help them in
meaningfully substantive ways. There are folks alive to this very day who
faced system institutional racism _from our government_.

We did some pretty evil stuff during and after the Cold war too -- someone
linked this in another post yesterday:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States)
\-- this one truly shocked me:

    
    
        Researchers in the United States have performed thousands of human 
        radiation experiments to determine the effects of atomic radiation and 
        radioactive contamination on the human body, generally on people who were 
        poor, sick, or powerless.
    

It has suddenly become a lot more uncomfortable for me living in America in
these few weeks after some reading (especially as I'm actually a foreigner to
this land -- I escaped a different country through asylum some while back). It
is apparently completely uncontroversial that United States experimented on
poor people with radioactive contamination... how do I know the US won't
poison me with some biological weapon as an experiment, or because I'm
currently unemployed (and thus poor)?

~~~
ims
The history of human civilization in general has been one of force and
savagery, gradually (and not monotonically) becoming more civilized.

It's an interesting idea that a country (that is, the people living in a
certain country) should have some kind of "original sin" for things that
happened before they were born. Ask a German how they feel about that idea.
Even so, there is nothing special about the United States in the respects that
you mentioned. Learning about history is the antidote to that belief.

~~~
mpyne
> It's an interesting idea that a country (that is, the people living in a
> certain country) should have some kind of "original sin" for things that
> happened before they were born.

Interesting, but not at all controversial, especially here.

------
Svip
This sort of illustrates the striking difference between the American
intelligence programmes and the European ones. While the Europeans are not
necessarily better, they are at least public and - yes - you can request the
information if you so please (of course, you cannot ask them to remove it).

I am not advocating the European logging of internet traffic, but I will give
them the very least credit they deserve: Being public. The Swedish FRA, the
Danish Logningsbekendtgørelse, the German Vorratsdatenspeicherung, etc.; while
bad themselves, they are at least public knowledge.

~~~
lispm
Especially since the German Verfassungsgericht has ruled the
'Vorratsdatenspeicherung' to be unconstitutional and had ordered that saved
data has to be deleted.

In many recent rulings we Germans have the impression that the
Verfassungsgericht has defended and also slightly extended our basic law
(Grundgesetz) against the politicians and in favour of people's rights. This
gives the Verfassungsgericht high respect.

~~~
kzrdude
Yes. Sweden needs a constitutional court.

------
pivnicek
"Trust us" will never be good enough. Not when accused are not able to know
the charges against them. Not when you can be held indefinitely without
judicial recourse. Not when prosecutors demand ludicrous sentences for
accessing a public API. Not when the executive has the apparently legal
ability to assassinate opponents without oversight.

No. Sorry, there can be no trust in such an arrangement. You want trust? Don't
have secret courts.

~~~
mtgx
What's even their reasoning for having the Court _secret_? That terrorists
will threaten them or attack them? Come on, that has the be the fear every
single judge has to live with, and I think a normal judge who has to decide on
a drug lord's case has a lot more to fear than some random terrorists, just
because they agree to letting the NSA spying on everyone.

I think being secret has a lot more to do with them being able to abuse the
laws, and not letting the public know about it. There's no good reason to keep
the FISA Court secret.

~~~
Amadou
The court was created during the cold war. It has basically been repurposed
for the war on terror. The original foe had sophisticated intelligence
agencies and keeping the rulings secret was at least a plausible argument in
the spy-vs-spy mindset of the era.

But the war on terror involves a handful of college kids and peasants. They
don't have anything more than the ability to do google searches. Joe Paranoid
doesn't need confirmation from guys like Snowden, he just assumes the worst
and goes from there.

The massive secrecy around the war on terror (there are now over 4 million
active clearances, nearly 1.5 top-secret clearances, that's twice the
population of DC) is an artifact of the cold-war regulations that provides
little to no tactical advantage but practically eliminate oversight.

~~~
mpyne
> there are now over 4 million active clearances, nearly 1.5 top-secret
> clearances, that's twice the population of DC

Clearances simply represent that someone was screened for access to national
security information within the past 5/10/15 years. They are not all actively
in use, and due to compartmentalization even the active ones do not mean that
they are actually _doing_ work that involves national security.

For instance, the cook on a submarine? He has a SECRET clearance since he may
come across information of that classification in the course of his duties,
but frying eggs and standing "sump" watch does not mean he is personally
oppressing the populace. :P

Likewise, merely _having_ a clearance doesn't eliminate oversight. That
depends entirely on the job being done, and in any event has a simple answer:
Just give whoever is providing oversight equivalent clearances.

Now, you might be thinking that means the whole public can't provide oversight
that way, and you'd be right. But remember the division of responsibility
rule: If _everyone_ is responsible for providing oversight on something, then
_no one_ is responsible for oversight. It's easy for evil to lurk in plain
sight when everyone thinks that someone else is responsible for spotting it.

~~~
Amadou
RE: clearance vs use

Yes, that is correct, there are a small number of people who have clearances
purely for mechanical reasons, like janitors and such. However, it is useful
to recognize that the total number of clearances is at roughly the same level
as at the peak of the cold war. When the enemy was entire countries, not a few
thousand guys living in caves.

RE: secrecy

I was referring to the FISA court's secrecy being an artifact of the cold war,
not the secrecy every single classified program. There is no reason beyond
inertia and the ease that comes with lack of accountability for the FISA court
to be so secretive. However, I am stunned by the leap of logic it requires to
say that public knowledge results in no oversight.

~~~
mpyne
> However, I am stunned by the leap of logic it requires to say that public
> knowledge results in no oversight.

Is that what I actually said?

~~~
Amadou
Please don't be the guy who hides behind literalist excuses.

The intent is clear - to reference the "division of responsibility rule" in
this context and then deny the obvious intent is disingenuous. "I didn't say
public knowledge results in no oversight, I was just randomly pointing out
that if everyone is responsible than no one is responsible. Just throwing that
out there, your conclusions are your own."

~~~
mpyne
The "obvious intent" is to reinforce the idea that oversight is a _function_
like any other business process and there should be organizations whose
_actual responsibility_ is to handle that function.

That doesn't have to mean another government office, it can mean something
like the EFF, ACLU, or some other non-profit dedicated to performing that
function on behalf of the people.

Simply making the glass transparent has no value if no one looks through it.
If we as people don't setup some form of oversight or advocacy (and just wait
for someone else to do it) then it doesn't matter how transparent the
government is.

"If not now, when; if not me, who?"

------
revelation
I'm confused. The NSA has basically unlimited powers under the premise that it
does not spy on US citizens. So if US citiziens ask what data the NSA has on
them, what other legal answer could there be other than 'none'? And what
secrets would be revealed in that answer, given that the NSA has been mandated
not to spy on US citiziens?

~~~
twoodfin
The NSA can intercept US citizens' international communications under roughly
the same theory that allows customs officials to search you at the border
without probable cause.

------
zobzu
I, for one, believe that this kind of tactic is detrimental to the country in
the long run.

Their objective is clear and a "legitimate" even thus not "ethical" attempt to
protect "the country".

However, this only works for a while. While nobody sympathize with your cause
anymore, the artificial barriers and protection are useless, as information
will leak literally everywhere, since everyone wants to you see you fall.

This seems to be a common way for countries to fall after reaching their apex.

------
aclevernickname
Oh man, this is easy. They denied his request because there was no
confirmation that they did or did not have information.

send a "Hi how are you" letter to the NSA chief, naming him as a party, with
an affidavit stating that the NSA does, in fact, have information on you. Give
him 10 days to rebut it. Then give him a second letter, acknowledging his
fault/acquiescence to the affidavit. then 10 days after that, send a third
notice cementing his agreement to the affidavit's truth.

THEN you go do a FOIA request. Include your paperwork with the FOIA request.
They can't refuse, because they'd have to contradict your private agreement
with the NSA Chief first. if they do refuse, you now have legal recourse in
(Secret) courts, because the NSA will now be proven to have obstructed
process.

~~~
pennig
Child's play, really.

~~~
aclevernickname
as my prof once said: "it ain't as easy as 1-2-3, but it is as easy as
1-2-3-4-5-6".

------
mikeash
We're posting and upvoting links to dailykos.com on HN now?

Flagged for linking to blogspam on a site filled with nonsense.

Is it that hard to click the "Originally published at" link?
[http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2013/07/06/nsa-
rejecting-e...](http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2013/07/06/nsa-rejecting-
every-foia-request-made-by-u-s-citizens/)

~~~
ics
David Harris-Gershon is a writer for both blogs. They were published to both
sources on the same day. He is also following comments on the Daily Kos post,
which is obviously targeted to a broader audience. I agree that original
sources are best, but in this case there is no value lost.

------
davidp
I'm no fan of the recent fourth amendment violations, but the NSA's response
is actually reasonable here given its proper mission. Re-read this section,
but imagine the requester was asking for information on whether the NSA had
collected information about his communications and movements during his recent
trip to China:

    
    
        Any positive or negative response on a request-by-request basis
        would allow our adversaries [China] to accumulate information
        and draw conclusions about NSA's technical capabilities, sources,
        and methods.  Our adversaries are likely to evaluate all public
        responses related to these programs.  Were we to provide positive
        or negative responses to requests such as yours, our adversaries'
        compilation of the information provided would reasonably be expected
        to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
    

This is completely accurate. If the NSA actually responded to these requests,
it would be trivial for an adversary (e.g. China) to probe the extent and
nature of the information the NSA collects, just by having their agents
regularly file FOIA requests.

My main problem with these programs is the lack of oversight and any kind of
public controls to prevent abuse by bad actors. I don't mind when judges issue
warrants to gather private information; that's oversight, with a level of
public visibility eventually involved. Warrants are accounted for right there
in the fourth amendment.

But these programs are known, thanks to Edward Snowden, to have shoddy
controls over individual analyst access to the information. That alone reveals
an institutional bias inside the NSA against respecting citizens' privacy; if
they treated it as a really big deal then Snowden wouldn't have been able to
gain access to individual information as he has claimed. Consequently I have
little faith that justice would be served on analysts or departments who use
the information for their own purposes, and that's the core problem for me.

We know the FBI treated Martin Luther King as a potential terrorist. If the
NSA's information had been available to them, why _wouldn 't_ they have asked
for it, formally or otherwise, if there were no negative consequences?

What does that mean for political activism given today's more tightly
integrated Department of Homeland Security?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
The Glomar Response is getting a little tiresome given that nearly everyone is
now aware of the surveillance program.

WRT China, the NSA has had a listening post inside China, in cooperation with
the Chinese, ever since shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.
While the missions are different, it should leave no doubts in the minds of
the Chinese intelligence people as to the technical capabilities of the NSA.
Between that and the fact that the Chinese are no slouches themselves in
communications (their public communications infrastructure is vastly larger
than in the US), or in spying on their citizens. I doubt the Chinese have much
to learn from these press releases.

------
eli
I agree with the NSA here. Any data they give you about yourself would
necessarily tell you what sort of data collection methods they use, which
would make it harder to collect data about anyone.

~~~
Asparagirl
That's a feature, not a bug.

------
Sharlin
Sending a FOIA request is probably a nice way of guaranteeing you _will_ be
given some special attention from now on, even if they didn't have a file of
you beforehand.

~~~
mathgladiator
Perhaps, but perhaps we should have a bunch of different types of people
making these requests to add some noise to their filters.

~~~
mb0
I imagine most of the people who have sent FOIA requests are people who take
their privacy seriously. Regular people don't 1) know that they can do this,
2) know the procedure for filing a request, 3) don't have time to do it, or
think that they don't have enough time. Maybe a campaign could be organized to
have hundreds or thousands of of regular people send requests. Get the
required paperwork setup in an easy template, organize free postage for the
letters, people just have to provide some basic information, sign a sheet of
paper, and provide a return address. A lot more unrest would build up if the
NSA refused to give information to more people, and their refusals could
become big news.

~~~
otisfunkmeyer
Can anyone provide links for information about FOIAs... I know I know I should
RTFM and Google it--but if someone has some knowledge about this already, I'd
really appreciate it.

I'm interested in the possibility of working to set this up. This seems like a
very very good idea. Nothing would be more glaring to me personally than to
receive a letter back from the government saying I can't know what they have
on me. I think many people would feel similarly.

But I think it will only work if it really is as easy as filling out a form or
a fairly easy PDF/etc.

If so, perhaps something as simple as a nice domain and a pretty WP theme with
some well-written copy could turn this idea to reality...

Any other takers?

~~~
AaronI
A good place to start is [http://www.foia.gov/](http://www.foia.gov/)

The specific information required for a request varies by agency, as do any
fees. Most of them now provide online forms on their sites.

While I was the FOIA/Privacy Act coordinator/liaison for one of the commands I
was attached to while in the Navy, we generally accepted any form of written
request, provided the person included their full name, postal address, phone
number and a detailed enough description of the information they were
requesting.

------
thezach
I'm going to play devils advocate... if the NSA released what information they
collect on me seeing that information might show more details on the manner
that they collect the data. If more details on the manner that they collect
data were to become public then the people the NSA should be targeting such as
Al Queda and foreign countries might develop techniques to stop us from
monitoring them.

The argument about we know it exists so tell us more because we already know
its there really does not add up. I know that Obama's limo has some really
cool protective measures, but you know very well that they won't tell me what
they are or what they are not. Theres a reason for it.

~~~
innguest
Security through Obscurity? I thought we disliked that.

------
anuraj
In spite of the outrage, where is the occupy NSA, occupy washington movements?
States are not going to reduce surveillance - they have the power and means to
do so - and would like to perpetuate the same. Want to preserve your privacy?
"Come on!Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!"

~~~
orthecreedence
Did you attend the Restore the 4th protests on July 4th? That's the main
movement right now to fight back.

------
ringmaster
When you write an authentication system with username and password you never
display an error like "that password is incorrect", because then the attacker
knows that the username is a valid one.

Why does everyone here assume that it's a vast conspiracy when, if they
returned everything they had on you, it would be a giant red flag to anyone
who was denied that they were being explicitly monitored?

The only way to guarantee secrecy for records that should rightfully be secret
(whether you agree with the collection methods or not) is to deny everyone's
request.

------
herbig
I received the same rejection letter to my request. What's the point of being
able to request it if they can arbitrarily reject it?

------
shmerl
So, NSA became a state within a state with no democratic oversight whatsoever.
Is anyone surprised that they crave more and more power?

------
linuxhansl
Add usually "national security" is used to trump everything. How convenient
for government agencies to hide behind this.

------
tls
In short: Entropy. Facebook, Microsoft, (admittingly have handed this
information with ease), etc.... what we know is too much for you to handle so
for your own protection and the protection drafted by a few is what now
jurisdicts what we can and can not say. We (our govt / those granted amnesty )
can no longer divulge information.

What is key and what is troubling everyone since the jump is what 'they' are
going to do with this information, and what 'they' have been doing.

For a lot of you it is easy hyphothesis what a person can do with this
information, for instance it has made Mark a billioninaire and countless
others rich. It would be a sad state to see this information fall into the
wrong hand(s), so it is my hope that someone somewhere makes the decision that
no one goverment should be privy to it for the true sake of this freedom we so
vicariously fight for.

------
wittysense
I wish all the best for the U.S., but this country has only presented fear and
obstacles to my family, and demands loyalty, recognition. I am a Citizen of
the World, and it will be strictly incidental should I corroborate with the
U.S. in any way. I bring peace and sharing —

But I will not be lied to, and I will not be coerced into a lifestyle not of
my choosing, and I will not be intimidated. I deserve better. The United
States has driven me to a life of constant fear, fear not based in delusion
but in the severe mismanagement of its society. Daily I find myself at the
mercy of its community, whose fear shake the seat of my soul: beliefs of
technological domination, spying, etc. I will no longer provide free
consultation, on doorsteps or coffeeshops; nor will I abide the complaints of
American peoples.

Of this decaying society (U.S.), its peoples will manically accuse anarchism
or even the grossest fictions, due to an untrained intellect. Of this decaying
society (U.S.), its people must find someone to blame — at which point
anarchism becomes indistinguishable from treason.

The United States has mismanaged not only its government; it has injected a
venom against intimacy, intelligence, and true investigation. I cannot trust
the United States to secure my freedom of intimacy, freedom of intelligence,
nor can I trust its integrity or investigation.

I find it disrespectful to myself and undermining to my initiatives to qualify
my identity with "U.S. Citizen."

In any event, most people who look at me assume I do not speak English. You
cannot coerce someone into looking like an American, and a majority of
Americans only look at me with abjection or fear since I have "wild"
dreadlocks, which to them look unkept. In many cities, I am heckled on the
street with terms like "nigger" and "faggot"; and in polite society, potential
peers are taken aback at my personal history ("You can't REALLY be from
there!") or even the mere fact that I am a trained philosopher and Web
developer. In many ways I look like a "primitive" man largely on account of
very matured dreadlocks, and this society is simply too naive, sexually
repressed to allow for people who look like Russell Brand to walk the streets:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJhErmJuoQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJhErmJuoQ).

Every one of my days in public with you Americans reminds me of that
interview. Even yesterday some square approached me to ask if rolling up one
pant-leg was a "new fashion thing." I will not be trapped in a country of
style-vultures-spies-after-our-personal-brands XOR complaint-ridden-poverty-
stricken. I deserve better.

~~~
wavefunction
You sound as close-minded as some of the people you're railing against.

A square? What does "an American" look like? I look pretty "normal" or at
least my outward appearance is intentionally low-key and non-descript.

For me it is the internal that is important though someone who puts a high
priority on external ornamentation as an indicator of personality and
character would never know if you just went by my external appearance.

------
softbuilder
This isn't really that surprising, offensive, or disappointing. I wouldn't
expect them to divulge specific data just because it was discovered that they
were collecting it. In fact it could be a really, really bad idea. The best
outcome here is to get them to stop collecting the data. Neckbeards sending
FOIA requests isn't serving any purpose.

~~~
scottshea
"Neckbeards sending FOIA requests isn't serving any purpose."

Could you be more judgmental? Whomever is sending these requests, shaving
habits aside, may not adhere to your premise that 'The best outcome here is to
get them to stop collecting the data'. It could very well be that they just
want to know what has been collected _on them_.

~~~
softbuilder
>It could very well be that they just want to know what has been collected on
them.

Sophistry. He says he can think of nothing that would require monitoring. So
he's protesting. Nothing wrong with that, just be honest about it. IIRC there
was at least one website set up to automate FOIA requests to the NSA after the
Snowden info came out. Why is this guy's story special? It isn't. Why is this
even a story?

I'm appalled by the NSA activity, I support Snowden, and I want change, but
this story is designed to agitate for political effect and nothing more.

