FBI Responds To ACLU GPS Tracking Complaint 146
Nerdolicious writes "Ars Technica reports that the ACLU has received a response from the FBI after a formal legal complaint was filed to release documents related to warrantless GPS tracking data. But, as you can see from the two memos the ACLU posted to its website, they have unsurprisingly been redacted to uselessness, consisting almost entirely of large black blocks covering full pages."
This is wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
What the FBI does is wrong.
And they know it, that is why they hide it.
Inform your congressman.
Re:This is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please. That's so naive.
Re:This is wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Become your congressman.
Re:This is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to become a congressperson is to sell out to the very interests you seek to destroy by becoming a congress person.
Mod. Parent. Up! (Score:1)
Mod. Parent. Up!
Re:This is wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
and then do a about turn once you have become one.
Unfortunately by then, you have forgotten your original agenda and become complacent with bribes.. um ah.. I mean lobby donations.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, along the way to getting support, you will have had to do a number of legally questionable things (or they stop the train). If you about face once you're in office, suddenly those things will come to light and you'll be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to become a congressperson is to sell out to the very interests you seek to destroy by becoming a congress person.
CONgressPERSON, FTFY
Re:This is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we can play this game all day, but let's remember that we live in a democracy, so this is really all on us. The only reason you have to sell out and act like a dickhole to be in Congress is because that's what voters are demanding right now.
I would argue that voters are demanding this right now because they have been convinced to do so by a vast array of corporate control media that selectively suppresses some news, grossly distorts other news, and gives a far-reaching public stage to people that are clearly either uninformed idiots, completely unhinged mental cases, or corporate shills.
Go back to pre-1980's rules about about media outlet ownership and equal-time, and you might stand a chance of cutting the head off the snake.
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to pre-1980's rules about about media outlet ownership and equal-time, and you might stand a chance of cutting the head off the snake.
Media ownership yes, equal time NO for reasons that should be obvious: Guaranteeing a broadcast-level soapbox to every crackpot and scoundrel is a recipe for intensifying the crazy-making obfuscation we have today.
Cut the conglomerates down to size, hold them to a standard of reporting significant events accurately (and don't renew their licenses if they don't), and move the cable infrastructure under the same rules as used for broadcasting over the air (based on the public right-of-way and investment that
Re: (Score:2)
We don't live in a democracy. We don't even live in a democratic republic anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
We currently live in a Corporate Sponsored quasi-totalitarian State with a long running reality program televised from its National Capitol called CSPAN. The occupants of the twin house bicker and feud and fulminate over all kinds of ridiculous trivialities in a loud and desperate attempt to distract the general populous from discovering that their nation's formal process and guarantees of liberty have been flushed into the Chesapeake.
This is because the Executive Branch has been given virtually unlimited p
More like (Score:5, Insightful)
Donate millions of dollars to your congressman. Then they'll really be working for you.
Re:More like (Score:5, Informative)
Donate millions of dollars to your congressman. Then they'll really be working for you.
They're not honest crooks. They don't stay bought.
Remember the opening of the Stasi archives a few years ago? Well, it looks like the US agencies are worse, with even more files, less openness and accountability. It's time to quit joking about police states when you live in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Letting you joke about it is how they convince the populace that they're still free. Say what you want about us; We're thick skinned. We bought our thick skins with your freedoms and your taxes. Thanks!
I've given this some thought, and especially in light of the nasty overreaction of the police to Occupy Wall St and its branches, I've come to a conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, but all of that magnanimity lasts only as long as people feel the cornucopia is still spilling forth its riches. We are indeed a police state (otherwise the police would not revel in surveillance and militarization), but one that hasn't recently experienced hard, systemic resistance from a population that sympathizes with radicals.
After
Re:This is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. That's so naive.
You're right. The real way to change a broken system is to participate in juvenile one-upmanship on Slashdot. That'll show 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing will "show them" but large infusions of cash. That's the way it's worked for decades now, and it shows absolutely no sign of changing. Any remarks in the nature of "write your congress-critter" are coming from the deluded or the intentionally deceptive. It has nothing to do with one-upsmanship, and everything to do with a government wildly out of control. We have fully tran
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress doesn't run the executive agencies. Go to them if you want new legislation passed, or old legislation repealed. Go to the Judicial branch if you want to do something about them violating existing law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.
They can also do a private hearing if the subject is considered a matter of national security then release more of the information through leaks or bringing it up on the floor of congress.
So while you are right in that you go to court over an agency violating existing laws, you can still go to congress to get the answers you are looking for (provided congress is willing to take the matter up).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.
Unless Holder and Obama et al decide to abuse Executive Privilege as in the Fast & Furious fiasco, to prevent Congress and the Judicial from obtaining any evidence and/or documentation.
Or, just simply stonewall. Seems to work for the TSA-related stuff they've been stonewalling on.
They seem to be channeling Andrew Jackson.
"John Marshall (Congress/Courts) has made his (it's/their) decision, now let him enforce it!"
When the government ceases to even pretend to be bound by the Rule of Law or any limitations
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Holder did not do a year in jail for his contempt of Congress is prima facie proof that pretty much all of our congresspeople on both sides of the aisle are either complicit or lack testicular fortitude. Just saying.
Also, until I see proof to the country, I consider every Democrat who voted against holding
Re: (Score:2)
are either complicit
I'm going to go with complicit. After all, their guy will be President some day so they wouldn't want to do anything that would limit their options.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you saying that we should start hunting FBI agents instead of playing angry birds?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet that most would silently cheer if some of their corrupt/treasonous bosses in the FBI/DoJ/DHS/Administration met a nasty fate.
You watch too many movies. Real FBI agents don't think like that. They are pro-authority. They are no different from the STASI agents that have already been mentioned. They don't want to bring down their bosses. They want to be their bosses. And I bet you'd have a very hard time finding an FBI agent who wasn't 100% enthusiastic about warrantless GPS tracking.
Re:This is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress doesn't run the executive agencies. Go to them if you want new legislation passed, or old legislation repealed. Go to the Judicial branch if you want to do something about them violating existing law.
Seems that's what the ACLU did. And we see how far it has gotten them so far.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What the FBI does is wrong.
And they know it, that is why they hide it.
You have no idea just how right you are. I could tell you some insider
stories but I will spare you because you'd have nightmares.
The FBI exists to preserve power for itself and the Feds, and that is the
ONLY thing the FBI is actually concerned with.
The FBI will LIE under oath in order to secure a conviction. I know this because
they did it to me.
If you believe the FBI gives a fuck about the average citizen you are as naive as a young
child.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea just how right you are. I could tell you some insider stories but I will spare you because you'd have nightmares.
I already have nightmares. What's your story?
Re: (Score:1)
I can hardly wait to hear someone try to justify that shit.
It's for the children...
Damn Bush and his warrantless crap (Score:5, Funny)
When can we vote Bush/Cheney out of office?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Quit complaining, or they will redact the FoIA so citizens will quit bothering them.
Re: (Score:2)
How much will the American people take before they rid themselves of BusHitler and his evil?
One shot, two shots, white shot, black shot. [hyperlogos.org]
Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap (Score:5, Interesting)
1. When a non-corrupt political party comes into existence with a chance of winning.
2. When those who commit serious crimes in official capacities are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for them.
3. When those who fund the politicians are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their serious crimes.
I have hopes, but I have to get back to improving porcine aerodynamics first.
Re: (Score:2)
1. When a non-corrupt political party comes into existence with a chance of winning.
In order to get a chance of winning, a party needs traction. In order to get traction, it needs a non-trivial amount of votes. If you refuse to vote for a party that "does not have a chance of winning", you deny them the opportunity of getting that chance.
2. When those who commit serious crimes in official capacities are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for them.
3. When those who fund the politicians are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their serious crimes.
For #2 and #3 to become reality, you need to take care of #1 first.
I have hopes, but I have to get back to improving porcine aerodynamics first.
How about spending your time helping the non-corrupt get more influence? The next generation will appreciate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this strategy like searching for your keys under the streetlight because you won't be able to find them anywhere else without a flashlight? Do something utterly useless because there is nothing else you can do? Why not just accept that you are powerless to change national politics on your own? All you can really do is form your own political party which no one will vote for because they think that voting for your candidate would be throwing their vote away, not realizing that their vote is already use
Re: (Score:2)
If you refuse to vote for a party that "does not have a chance of winning", you deny them the opportunity of getting that chance.
I did just vote for a party last November that doesn't have a chance of winning. In a "swing state". It's the least I can do. I took a lot of flak for that from people who are worried that the wrong candidate might have won because of it.
As far as organizing to help the non-corrupt get more influence: I'm not a good political organizer. I know this from experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not necessary, ref RFC 1925 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1925.html [faqs.org] (See Fundamental Truth #3)
Wrong topic (Score:4, Insightful)
This is filed under "Privacy". I feel if would have been more appropriately filed under "Censorship".
Re:Wrong topic (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be filed under "heinous government fuckery."
Unfortunately, in the US government, it's filed under "we'll do whatever we want, to whomever we want, and if you complain, we've got a list we'll put you on."
Re:Wrong topic (Score:4, Insightful)
we've got a list we'll put you on.
Sounds good! Plenty of other countries to vacation to :)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Or were you speaking as someone from another country?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good! Plenty of other countries to vacation to :)
I hear Guantanamo Bay is lovely this time of year.
Re: (Score:1)
Several lists actually. Well, I guess it's a good thing banks and other business in the financial sector have zero scrupules, because, otherwise they'd try to do the right thing, and make sure no terrorists use their services, based on those lists.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your request (Score:1)
Thank you for your request. We are happy to inform you that [redacted], conforming with sections [redacted] of [redacted]
We hope this fully answers your questions. Please feel free to contact [redacted] if you have any further requests.
Glad to have helped you.
Signed [redacted]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Glad to have [redacted] you.
There [R]TFY
Re: (Score:3)
Government believers (Score:5, Interesting)
People who live and work in the system are usually believers. They will always believe that they are trying to do the right thing, that they are helping not hurting. Every time governments start doing evil things and people finally get prosecuted, they always seem to have convinced themselves that they were somehow acting in then best interests of the people.
But, in this case, I just can't seem to figure out what the person who redacted those pages was thinking. Did they actually believe that it was too dangerous to communicate the FBI's policy to the very people they are supposed to be protecting? I just can't figure out what mental twisting they could have used to justify keeping this secret. I can only conclude that they don't actually believe they are acting in the best interests of the people, but in their own interests. Do they really have so much contempt for us?
This is a very good time to point out how much organizations like the ACLU and EFF are needed. Donate if you can, it's tax deductible!
Re:Government believers (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to guess its something like: "If we reveal our policies, then criminals will know our policies and figure out ways around them or loopholes to avoid them".
Complete bullshit, but the kind of thinking that people in the system readily embrace.
Re:Government believers (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to guess its something like: "If we reveal our policies, then criminals will know our policies and figure out ways around them or loopholes to avoid them".
Close. "If we reveal our policies, then the citizens whose behavior we are criminalizing will be aware of our attack on their liberties before it is too late."
Re:Government believers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also the kind of thinking that's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly over the past few millenia.
The phrase "loose lips sink ships" was used to remind WWII soldiers and families that enemies could infer sensitive information (like ship itineraries) from casual conversation (like Cousin Joe getting leave for Christmas). Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.
In computer security, we find it perfectly understandable that phishers will collect certain bits of public information (addresses, names, preferences) then use that information later to execute the actual scam (such as getting Amazon to resend products for free). Why is it so hard to believe that others could do similar assembly and use the established procedures against the FBI? Perhaps exploiting a weakness in the procedure to generate fake exculpatory evidence? Even a trivial procedural note like "GPS reception was poor in <standard position>, so we moved the tracker to <somewhere else>" could be easily turned into a list of places to check (or parts to swap) before using a vehicle.
The expectation that the enemy will use all information they can get doesn't apply only to "believers" or "people in the system". It should apply to everyone with any interest in security. Yes, it'd be nice if the FBI had better oversight with an interest in preserving public freedom, but the make-everything-public ACLU isn't going to be able to provide that. All the ACLU will ever get is 90%-redacted memos. Any organization that is trusted by the FBI to provide such oversight without releasing sensitive information won't be trusted by the gub'mint-hating public.
Re:Government believers (Score:5, Insightful)
> Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.
And these people, citizens or not, still have rights. If you can't enforce the law without violating those rights - then you need to change the law. The are not a country at war with you and cannot be treated like enemy combatants.
But if you meant "terrists" instead of "criminals" then your case is even WEAKER. You have about a 95% higher risk of dying from SUICIDE than from a terrorist attack.
You, personally, is a MUCH higher threat to your safety.
So in this case you are sacrificing essential liberty for NON-EXISTENT temporary safety, to paraphrase Ben Franklin.
tl;dr - There is no freedom more essential than the right to KNOW the laws you live under.
Re: (Score:3)
And these people, citizens or not, still have rights. If you can't enforce the law without violating those rights - then you need to change the law.
Please tell me which Constitutional right is being violated by this redaction. The Fourth Amendment is close, but telling details of how a "search" is performed has little bearing on whether it's reasonable or not.
The are not a country at war with you and cannot be treated like enemy combatants.
Exactly. They are not a foreign nation, so they have widespread access to American infrastructure and resources. Simply having a guest list for a dinner party isn't enough to determine trust. Security measures must be appropriate for the threats at hand - no more and no less. It is ludicrous to ex
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... so in short - you didn't even read the fucking summary ?!?!?
This is NOT about "how they track vehicles". The Judge said "you cannot track vehicles without a warrant" - as a result, the FBI has been falling back on OTHER ways to track people without a warrant. This was a request to reveal what tracking methods they use WITHOUT a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... so in short - you didn't even read the fucking summary ?!?!?
That's a rather interesting argument, since the case details aren't even in the summary. I actually read the article, which was also pretty sparse on details, so I made a post that's not really even about the Jones case, but the constant demand to see what every law enforcement agency is doing.
My argument still stands. Where does the Constitution (or any other legal document) guarantee you the right to know exactly how you're being investigated? Perhaps with more relevance, what guarantees the ACLU the righ
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the constitution does it give the FBI the right to spy on any of us without cause? Is the FBI even allowed under the constitution? The constitution was all about telling the government what they are allowed to do. Anything that it doesn't explicitly allow the government to do is forbidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 [umkc.edu]. The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce among the states, with no stated restrictions. This is the biggest source of Congress' power, including the power to form the Department of Justice in 1870, which formed the FBI in the early 20th century.
The usual test for validity is whether Congress' actions have a cumulative effect on the economy of the states. Given the FBI's budget and employment, it looks like they'd pass that test.
The FBI is still required to ha
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but now there's the questions of what a "search" actually is, what "unreasonable" actually is, what "probable cause" actually is, and how specific "particularly describing" must be.
The first one's the real problem, because the SCOTUS has determined that several things are not searches, primarily things that aren't the subject's own property. If one's not being searched (or having property seized), the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. Even if there is a warrant, the Fourth Amendment doesn't require that t
Re: (Score:2)
There's a fine balance between the freedom of citizens and impeding enforcement, and finding that balance is an ongoing task.
Riiight. Who is searching for such a balance exactly? You?
Re: (Score:2)
Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.
Excuse me... since when has Congress or Enron or Academi or the FBI been an "underground organization"?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to guess its something like: "If we reveal our policies, then criminals will know our policies and figure out ways around them or loopholes to avoid them".
Some will think that. Others will think: "If we reveal our policies, the public will demand that many of us go to jail for breaking the law."
Re:Government believers (Score:5, Informative)
Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941)
Olmstead et al. vs. United States,
277 U.S. 438, 478, 1928
Re: (Score:2)
Do they really have so much contempt for us?
Does a polar bear shit on ice?
The scary thing is that they probably don't see it as contempt, but have all kinds of justifications they have repeated so often that they truly believe in them. After all, they are the good guys, right? When they plant evidence on you, it's not out of contempt for you or the court, but because they truly believe you are guilty, and that they would do society a disservice by letting you go.
They're paving their road with good intentions.
Re: (Score:3)
The scary thing is that they probably don't see it as contempt, but have all kinds of justifications they have repeated so often that they truly believe in them.
If you asked them, they would probably admit it is contempt. If I have to hear one more cop say "civilian" as if he were a member of the military I will probably brick myself. The same attitude is pervasive in each of these organizations tasked with protecting us, and double for any of them tasked with protecting us from ourselves. When you take the population as a body that's not even an oxymoron, but when people get too high and mighty about it they lose all perspective. If you're not a soldier, you're a
Re: (Score:3)
People who live and work in the system are usually believers. They will always believe that they are trying to do the right thing, that they are helping not hurting. Every time governments start doing evil things and people finally get prosecuted, they always seem to have convinced themselves that they were somehow acting in then best interests of the people.
This is very insightful, and I think you are absolutely correct. It goes a long way toward explaining how people end up taking actions that seem so misguided from the outside.
But, in this case, I just can't seem to figure out what the person who redacted those pages was thinking. Did they actually believe that it was too dangerous to communicate the FBI's policy to the very people they are supposed to be protecting? I just can't figure out what mental twisting they could have used to justify keeping this secret. I can only conclude that they don't actually believe they are acting in the best interests of the people, but in their own interests. Do they really have so much contempt for us?
This is a very good time to point out how much organizations like the ACLU and EFF are needed. Donate if you can, it's tax deductible!
If people see law enforcement as a force for Good, and the War on Terror as a righteous endeavor, they will work to protect the agency that is fighting those fights. They might not appreciate it when an organization like the ACLU comes in and wants to criticize their work. It's like Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men. He was up on that
Re: (Score:1)
I'd wager their thinking is along the lines of "Oh, it's another of these pain-in-the-arse, namby-pamby-whiny-tree-hugging-politically-correct-starbucks-occupying civil liberties / human rights organisations. Well fuck them, always trying to make my job harder by imposing restraints and oversights on my righteous power, I'll send them pages of little black boxes, muahahahah!"
The amount of right-wing dickpots who equate "human rights / civil liberties" with "political correctness / lazy lefties" is ridiculou
Why did they do that? (Score:5, Funny)
Why did the ACLU redact those pages before posting them?
What are they hiding?
Is it aliens?
Re: (Score:1)
What's the point of sharing these redacted files.. (Score:5, Interesting)
... when one is marked as UNCLASSIFIED - sensitive, and the other is not marked with a classification at all (that I saw)? If it's not marked with a classification level the I believe that it is automatically unclassified and deemed suitable for public.
Here is an interesting paper on understanding government classification of information.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bagley.html [fas.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unclassified means it is not Secret or Top Secret. Sensitive means that while it is not Secret it still contains data that could be harmful but not tnecessarily to national security. SSN's are a very good example of data that is not classified but still sensitive, as is all PII data. FOUO usually means it's information that they just don't want spread around but does not warrant being Secret or above and does not warrant the protections that are required for Sensitive data.
On top of all that just because so
Incomplete work (Score:2)
"should not exist in a democratic society" (Score:2)
Ah -- but could that premise be wrong?
Read between the lines! (Score:5, Funny)
If you print out all the pages and lay them vertically edge to edge, the redacted black resembles a big middle finger.
Whew! Cliff avoided. (Score:1)
GOD DAMN GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS SPYING INFRASTRU...
wait, n/m.
We are happy with bipartisanship breaking logjams.
So they're just FUCKING with us (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much longer are we going to take this fucking bullshit?
Forever, basically.
Because nobody wants to take a personal responsibility for doing something about it.
OPEN Government? (Score:1)
According to the OPEN Government Act of 2007, they are required to specify the reason for each redaction. I would really like to see their explanation for blocking out an entire document.
Have a little fun with this! (Score:2)
Reproduce the content now blacked out. So it's not what is in the FBI's copy? Oh well, let them prove otherwise. Imagine the fun--making up stuff about how the FBI is abusing other rights and planning to plant evidence. Go wild! Just make sure it fits in with what little text they do provide.
Can you rise to the challenge?
That's what I love about FOI requests (Score:1)
Dear Redacted (Score:2)
More Please (Score:2)
Hopefully this is merely the first step in a process towards getting this stuff out in the open.
I am sure the ACLU isn't going to give up after just a sing FOIA request.
What the ACLU needs is more support. Along with similar organizations that actually are working along these lines.
While this is the executive branch it still is worth writing to your elected overlord. They do hold the purse strings after all. And the fact that their voters are identifying this as an issue people care about will register.
It's just as likely (Score:1)
The FBI didn't even create a response. They just cut-n-pasted some intern summary of the court's decision and surrounded it by large black boxes to give the effect of redacted text. The second document containing only black boxes was a nice touch, though.
Cheap and effective.
Mad Libs (Score:3)
The next time they do this, the ACLU should just freely publish the FOIA response with all the redacted bits filled in with whatever they like. Make it as incriminating as possible.
If the FBI files some sort of libel suit, the ACLU can say "Gee, that's what the documents we recieved said. Do you have some sort of evidence to the contrary you'd like to enter into record?"
It would get some fine media attention, if nothing else.
It's a test. (Score:1)
This is where we learn that the Government's response is written in their version of inverted Mindfuck.
They want to see who's smart enough to figure it out.
The Onion explains! (Score:1)
It's all redacted (Score:1)
The ENTIRE DOCUMENT is redacted. This is the sort of thing that screams 'Well, here you go motherfucker! We have to give it to you, but we get to decide what parts are redacted, don't we?'
Re:What are you 12 years old? Its called redaction (Score:4)
Wow, you seem so wise. Please, oh enlightened one, tell use what exactly the hippies knew about FOIA in the 70's.
What the hippies knew in the 70's. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The hippies would have had those bankers on their knees begging for mercy.
I don't think hippie means quite what you think it does. And FWIW I actually lived through those times, as I rather strongly suspect you did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any actual "journalists" at geekwire? Redactions, advertorials - you kiddies act like you just found out how reporting and journalism works in the last 12 hours. Take a news reporting class at your local community college - you'll learn a thing or two that the hippies knew all about regarding the FOIA in the 70's. Or read a stinking "Reporting for Dummies" book.
I see, so a group submits a request for information that the government refuses to release by way of redaction, and that's called Journalism? Thanks for clearing that up.
Re:Fuck you I'm gone (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you can use your new language better than you can use English.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you keep your US citizenship?
Re: (Score:1)
Nice to see you, Mr. McAfee.
Re:But the courts... (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's more like a game. A law is created, then the FBI "interprets" how that law applies to them and they create policy to comply. Then it is taken to the courts and the judges publish a decision about how the law should be interpreted. Then the FBI "interprets" the implication of that decision and sets policy again.
So, we need organizations like the ACLU to keep applying pressure to force the agencies to comply with the intention of the law. Donate today!