FBI Will Revert To Using Fax Machines, Snail Mail For FOIA Requests (dailydot.com) 245
blottsie writes: Starting next month, the FBI will no longer accept Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests via email. Instead, the U.S. agency will largely require requests be made via fax machine or the U.S. Postal Service. [The FBI will also accept a small number of requests via an online portal, "provided users agree to a terms-of-service agreement and are willing to provide the FBI with personal information, including a phone number and physical address."] The Daily Dot reports: "It's a huge step backwards for the FBI to switch from a proven, ubiquitous, user-friendly technology like email to a portal that has consistently shown problems, ranging from restricting how often citizens can access their right to government oversight to legitimate privacy concerns," says Michael Morisy, co-founder of MuckRock, a nonprofit that has helped people file over 28,271 public records requests at more than 6,690 state, federal, and local agencies. "Given that email has worked well for millions of requests over the years, this seems like a move designed to reduce participation and transparency, and we hope that the FBI will reverse course," Morisy added.
google should adopt this (Score:5, Funny)
for dmca takedown notices :D
Re:google should adopt this (Score:5, Funny)
An inspirational example is below. But one thing it makes clear. Our country is deeply divided. Not just two toxic political parties bitterly fighting (through the people who support each), but also how the government (which is made of people) are divided against the citizens. Also how the divide between rich and poor is increasing. Neither side in any of these divisions even makes a pretense of playing fair, clean or by the rules anymore. But now the example of obfuscating . .
“But the plans were on display”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Re:google should adopt this (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly I tend to think the driving force of all the division is what I've come to call "the clicks". They've got to do everything to get the clicks. The media, none of it, even remotely pretends to present things in a fair and impartial light. They spin everything as much as they can and make headlines as inflammatory as possible to try to get the clicks. And whether you want to admit it or not, the media has a huge influence on everybody. They fundamentally set the mood of everything. And since they've decided that the clicks are more important than providing fair level headed articles, and riling people up is the best way to get the clicks, we end up with the atmosphere we have. Everybody is divided based on if they agree or disagree with the headlines.
The part that annoys me the most is how the media seems to staunchly refuse to accept their responsibility in most of this. As far as I can tell, CNN elected Trump, but they'll refuse it staunchly. They spent years covering every little terrorist attack and making things that really weren't that big of a deal all you heard about because it got them the clicks. This created a sense of fear which Trump then played to and took advantage of. And now CNN is pissed that he took advantage of something they created and now rather than covering things fairly, they're playing up how awful everything he does is. Note how they don't cover any of the positives he's done, and only the stuff their reader base will be outraged by. Again. For the clicks.
Re:google should adopt this (Score:4, Insightful)
They've got to do everything to get the clicks. ~. The part that annoys me the most is how the media seems to staunchly refuse to accept their responsibility in most of this.
It is the reality of the situation. Print media (the ones who used to do investigations and in-depth reporting) is dead. TV news is too short (30 minute programs) and on too long (multiple times a day to 24hrs) to present anything but irrelevant and entertaining one-liner stories.
How did this happen? With print, it was the death of print advertising. Future historians, if they can piece together any records will note that Print died when Craigslist took off. The newspapers failed to see that the print classifieds model was dead and lost that war without a fight. Other print revenue soon followed.
What we are left with is the stupid headline that links to a 30-page slideshow (29x the ads a normal 1-pager would have!). Adblock destroys that model. 30 pages of annoying clicking reduces traffic. Death Spiral continues
Re:google should adopt this (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly I tend to think the driving force of all the division is what I've come to call "the clicks". They've got to do everything to get the clicks. The media, none of it, even remotely pretends to present things in a fair and impartial light. They spin everything as much as they can and make headlines as inflammatory as possible to try to get the clicks. And whether you want to admit it or not, the media has a huge influence on everybody. They fundamentally set the mood of everything. And since they've decided that the clicks are more important than providing fair level headed articles, and riling people up is the best way to get the clicks, we end up with the atmosphere we have.
If the "atmosphere" we have today is one of bullshit hype and information deemed corrosive at best, then perhaps we need to find a way to stop fucking feeding it. In other words, stop creating and funding revenue streams based on nothing more than "the clicks". Petition to make turning a human into the product illegal. Start to give a shit about privacy again.
Sadly, that will never happen, so our atmosphere will continue to devolve. Capitalism often does not makes sense due to it being perverted by corruption and greed. I can start a tobacco company today and help contribute the the killing of hundreds of thousands of Americans every year (far worse a death toll than anything we're currently rioting in the streets over), but I'll be arrested if I sell marijuana, because it's "harmful".
We we support, is what we ultimately get.
Re:google should adopt this (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when CNN closed their foreign bureaus. Fired their investigative journalists. At the time, a friend and I wondered how CNN would continue to operate. Now it is clear. Pretend news. Infotainment. It's mostly editorial. Regurgitating government hand outs. The government figured out with 9/11 that it could seize control of the news media with "embedded journalists". They could simultaneously sanitize the war news coverage while also holding the news media hostage to the deliciously addictive handouts of news bits from the government as long as journalists play nice and don't get their access revoked. You can see this today in the white house press briefing room.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone voted 94% Democrat in 1964. (Except the South, where a lot of whites were pissed that the Dems were trying to give blacks equal rights, and a lot of blacks couldn't vote.)
Re: (Score:2)
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Ever thought of going into advertising :D (The last bit of the quote you missed off!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Noooo, the MAFIAA will cut down every forest in the land just to send their billions of take-down notices a year! You will end up like Easter Island!
Re: (Score:2)
oh wow, that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!!
but its so marvelously clever, too. it would halt the abuse of dmca since the 'bots' can't really just auto-fax or snail mail so easily.
it will also COST THEM REAL MONEY. and that's just icing on the cake.
FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" (Score:5, Interesting)
The FBI is asking for irrelevant information. It does not matter who wants to know. What matters is that the operations of government are transparent to everyone. I want to ask the FBI the question they always ask when they are seeking information from people who are suspicious of their motives. "What is your problem with answering our questions... unless you have something to hide?" (This line should be delivered with an arrogant leer)
Re: FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" (Score:2)
Except that due to the nature of classified information the FBI handles on a routine basis, they often actually DO have things to hide, and legitimately so.
Re: FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Due to the nature of humanity, the rest of us also have things to hide. Some are bad but not illegal, like cheating on a partner, some are benign but still secret, like whether or not you are bluffing in a game of poker, and some and simply personal, like what the person looks like naked.
Things the FBI legitimately needs to hide aren't subject to FOIA requests, so the question is still irrelevant. They're going to withhold the information no matter what the answer is.
Re: (Score:2)
"Honey, where is my super-suit??"
'Why do you want to know??!'
Re: (Score:3)
Which is a surprise to no one. Of course they can't release every little bit of information they have ever gathered - if they could, it would be directly accessible and searchable online.
But why do they need your name? They should default to "Public knowledge" if they don't know whether they're talking to someone with a security clearance.
Re: FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone with a clearance and a need to know would not come in through a FOIA request. The claim that the GP made: "Except that due to the nature of classified information the FBI handles on a routine basis, they often actually DO have things to hide, and legitimately so.", is ludicrous on its face as a justification gathering identifying information on requesters. If it's fit to release as a FOIA response, it is fit to print on the front page of the New York Times, end of story.
Re:FBI to FOIA requesters: "Who wants to know?" (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if that email request is coming from China or Russia?
Validating the source of the request is perfectly legitimate. It's a shame that they have to take a step backwards, technology-wise, but their reasoning is sound.
Their reasoning is not sound. FOIA responses are public record. Meaning the person who receives the information can turn around and publish it online or print it in the paper.
Do you think a foreign government would be incapable of recruiting an American citizen to make requests and deliver the responses to them? Of course not. But why would they bother? Anything the USG cares so little about that they don't redact from a FOIA response and has any strategic value whatsoever has already probably long been known by competent intel agencies the world over.
deliberate attempt to stall the process (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They're actually increasing the processing cost by not doing it electronically.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you believe this is 'expensive' is why we have tax policy like we do lol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are suggesting that every document in government is sitting around in pdf format pre-redacted... really?
This is not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That fact it never went to trial means she was never cleared. Its pretty plain to most people that she most likely violated federal laws for handling classified documents; but because it never went to trial we can't say she was proven guilty. It remains technically speaking an open question.
How serious an infraction it was, and how likely prosecution would have been successful, what the likely sentences could have been are all questions and largely matters of opinion for which you will find different ones
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That fact it never went to trial means she was never cleared. Its pretty plain to most people that she most likely violated federal laws for handling classified documents; but because it never went to trial we can't say she was proven guilty.
Posting AC to avoid burning mods.
So what you are saying is that she is not clears, therfore guilty, until there is an actual criminal trial?
So I can accuse you of being a child molester, and until you submit to a trial - you are, because until you go on trial, you are an uncleared child molester.
Where on earth is the law like that? I'm certain you want the law to have people thrown in jail on rumors, but that might take another year or two. Always be careful what you wish for because you might get i
Re: (Score:3)
If Clinton had been a "proven criminal" she'd have been convicted of something.
I only skimmed the rest of your post, but this is laughably naive premise to build on. James Clapper was a proven criminal (perjury while under oath before Congress, as revealed by Snowden) and not only was he not arrested, he wasn't even asked to resign.
The sad fact of the matter is white collar crime routinely is not pressed even in the presence of compelling evidence. I've no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Clinton and Trump have committed multiple felonies in their lifetimes and I don't think
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason,
Well it's clear that you're desperate for there to be something terribly wrong with Clinton and you won't let facts get in the way. This is the weird thing about Trumpanzees: so many of them can't actually cine up with reasons why trump is good instead inventive reasons why the opposite choice was worse. I've never seen the case where so many people are so rabidly in favor of someone they can't say anything positive about.
Re: This is not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.
But the Republicans were interested! How many hearings and investigations did they carry out? No, seriously, I'm asking. I lost count. And what did they find? Nothing. So what are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And what did they find? Nothing.
No, they found that the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her boss, Obama, repeatedly, deliberately, and for purely political purposes right before an election where his narrative about terrorists being "on the run" was a central campaign talking point, lied, lied, and lied some more about what happened, why it happened, and how they responded to it. Their were multiple investigations into it because Clinton herself, the State Department, and the rest of the Obama administration were deliberately no
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you don't seem to be able to point to a single lie. All of this innuendo, and no facts. If she really did "lie continuously for months", then there would be a clear record of it. At this point it is clear that your position is not about the truth; you have an enemy and you are going to do everything to damage that enemy, even if you have nothing to go on. That is simply prejudice.
Re: This is not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.
If it was such a clear case of treason, wouldn't you expect that a Republican-controlled Congress would figure that out during their investigation?
Re: (Score:3)
And if the problem was that they were afraid to do anything with a Democrat President, why hasn't Trump started a new "Real News!" investigation of her? Doesn't Trump want to see justice done?
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton clearly dropped the ball with Benghazi. Her negligence had fatal consequences, and her apology did not sound sincere. However, I would not call what she did "treason:"
Re: (Score:3)
She has zero power now, so where are those investigations?
Please elaborate. If Oliver North is not a traitor for giving Hezbolla a large number of classified anti-tank weapons less than a year after they had killed over a hundred US Marines then how is Clinton a traitor?
Re: This is not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet, now Trump is president, having promised to put her in jail and now followed through on other even more outrageous and legally dubious promises, she remains free. They aren't even investigating any more.
Re: (Score:2)
She lost! Get over it!
We all lost.
And both the Democratic and Republican parties are to blame for not having their goddamned houses in order.
Re:This is not surprising (Score:4, Funny)
The GRU is Russia's Military Intelligence organization. It would obviously have absolutely no interest in American elections, let alone in trying to interfere with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very common legal requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very common legal requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. Also, while it may reduce participation, it increases transparency as it forces those doing the requesting to be much more transparent about their location and who they are. Not to mention if you're too lazy to run down to Kinko's to send off a FOIA request you should fuck right off.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinko's - transparency? Isn't that the opposite of the point you're trying to make? If I don't want people to know who I am, I'll perform my electronic comms through Kinko's or a coffee shop, etc. Is it so hard to require a verifiable name and address? I can do my banking online at home, but FOIA needs to be done over unencrypted fax from Kinko's?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... faxes aren't electronic media?
Just because a fax *can* be printed out to paper at the receiving end or may be scanned from paper at the sending end doesn't mean that either end is required to use paper.
I would think that most faxes these days are 100% electronic (e-mail to fax or print to fax and vice versa)
ESIGN Act of 2000. Also UETA in 47 states (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, the federal ESIGN act was passed in 2000, giving digital documents full legal recognition. Wow, it's been seventeen years - it doesn't seem that long.
47 states have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which is similar.
For some types of transactions, one party might be concerned that they can't prove the document hasn't been tampered with, if it's not a cryptographic signature. That can be a legitimate concern, in some types of transactions.
As the DNC learned the hard way a few months ago, many emails have a tamper-proof signature called DKIM automatically applied, so your email may have a signature proving it is legitimate without you even knowing it. I don't see this as an issue the FBI would be concerned with for FOIA requests - I don't think there's a big danger of hackers changing your FOIA requests.
Re: (Score:2)
DKIM authenticates the originating mail server, not the individual user.
And if the server authenticates the user (not open (Score:2)
True, DKIM authenticates the server. Most servers, in turn, authenticate the sender of outgoing mail.
So in the entertaining example of the DNC, we have the DNC's server, itself cryptographically authenticated, attesting that Donna Brazile sent those messages, using her password. Theoretically yes, the DNC's own server *could* be lying. Or else a politician is lying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a curious line to draw -- b/c I have personal experience with using fax machines at a very well known international bank, and almost everywhere I've worked has had fax lines digitally tied to e-mail. I can send and receive faxes from my work e-mail in Outlook. I can also ask a customer to scan their document and attach it to any of dozens of free web-based fax services and e-mail to fax services. The line between fax and e-mail is already blurred to where they're nearly indistinguishable. Both
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Denmark, emails are considered legal documents. Doubly so if you digitally sign them with your government provided citizen key.
But from another comment, it seems US does also recognize emails - it's just the FBI that doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
What? It is very easy to spoof a signature (or anything else) on a fax. Signatures are only verifiable in penned ink. Once you digitize it, it's next to useless. Also, that fax is likely travelling unencrypted over the internet like the rest of voice traffic these days (POTS is dead). Unless you're using end-to-end encryption with verified certs, fax is not secure. Man in the middle attacks are very much feasible.
I'm quite disappointed PGP never took off.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the dirty secrets out there is that signatures don't ACTUALLY mean much. The minimum cost to analyse a signature for authenticity is about 10K and even then all you will get is an opinion of the liklihood that the signature is authentic.
They are legally assigned a great deal of weight, but that's a fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]Faxes are considered legal documents. Emails are a very gray area. [/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[quote]Physical signatures with point to point delivery and receipt verification are often required to close a legal business transaction. Emails don't provide that proof.[/quote]
E-mail most certainly CAN provide that proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a problem because anyone using e-mail for contracts/legal stuff is going to use digital signatures. One can even set digital signatures as the default in e-mail clients. EVERY e-mail I send is digitally signed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nonsense. First, as you said, email is a bit of a gray area because case history is not as established as Fax, but that doesn't mean email is insufficient. They'd been accepting emails already, indicating that email was sufficient for this purpose. We're not talking about signed contracts, just a request for information that people have a legal right to access. If there were some particular security issue, they could add some kind of requirement for email requests (e.g. must be submitted in a web
Re: (Score:2)
It has been a very long time since FAX could be considered point to point. Even over a pots line, it has been a long time since it was accomplished by a series of relays connecting copper wire to form a contiguous circuit.
FOIA joke (Score:5, Funny)
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted] the [redacted][redacted][redacted]in [redacted][redacted][redacted] [redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted][redacted] a [redacted][redacted]
What's the use of FOIA requests nowadays anyway. The above is what you're likely to get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cloudscratcher.com/... [cloudscratcher.com]
Your Attitude... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot that cronyism and nepotism aren't swamp-like characteristics...
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the FOIA is to harass federal employees and keep us from doing our damn job
And what is that job, if not ultimately to serve the public? It sounds like y'all need some people to just reply to FOIA requests. Then it'd be their job.
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose of the FOIA is to harass federal employees and keep us from doing our damn job, because every single FOIA requesst is treated like a fucking nuclear emergency (per federal law) and must be responded to immediatly, even if the requestor has sent the exam same request before and is deliberately trying to waste time and money.
How hard is it to respond to the same FOIA request by email twice? If you find this difficult, perhaps you do not deserve to have a job which you talk about on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably almost as hard as responding to it once. They would have to re-do the search in case there are new documents available, and probably review previously-released documents as well in case the redacting needed to be changed (which theoretically should only go in one directly -- removing redacts -- but I seem to recall them being occasionally caught releasing later copies of documents that were more strongly redacted than previous copies, though its hard to necessarily claim its done maliciously when
Um... (Score:4)
restricting how often citizens can access their right to government oversight
So now it's my right to be constantly watched by my government? I've always considered it more of a privilege.
I'm just saying - this can be mis-parsed.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it is probably a response to getting swamped with email requests for FOIAs. And there's nothing stopping the Chinese, Norks, of Vladimir and his thugs from misusing the service.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it any harder to send a fax? You can do it as easy as sending an e-mail (I am sure there are even e-mail to fax gateways out there)...
I get it, it's an old technology. But so is e-mail.
Re: (Score:2)
As if Vlad the Putin needs to submit an FOI request to get that information. Ha!
What is more important: Some requests for publicly available, non-classified information by potentially bad actors, or easy access for citizens so that they may keen an eye on their government? I'd say it's worth throwing resources at to keep the email option.
Not a good look (Score:4, Insightful)
The best weapon of a bad government is secrecy, and like most, ours has a history of behaving badly when the curtain is drawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a good look (Score:5, Insightful)
An agency that no longer exists is an agency that can no longer abuse its power.
Maybe we should address the abuse of power, rather than throwing up our hands. Or don't you like having clean water to drink?
Re:Not a good look (Score:4, Insightful)
You must not remember the 'good ole' days of acid rain, undrinkable water and air quality so bad that most of the year places like LA were in a constant fog of unbreathable air. Sure, the EPA has overstepped their bounds on occasion, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. I prefer the environment NOT going to shit quite as quickly as it did in the last century when business were to dump whatever, whenever, wherever.
Re: (Score:2)
How is fax any more or less restrictive than e-mail?
I am sure that Flowers By Irene are just using a fax to e-mail service anyway so the end result is the same: an e-mail box full of FOIA requests and spam.
Where do they go? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't this announced a year or two ago? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to remember reading this story a year or two ago. Maybe a year ago they announced ahead of time that they would stop accepting FOIA emails in q1 2017? Maybe it was a different federal agency that made the same announcement?
Better way? (Score:2)
Given that email has worked well for millions of requests over the years
There has to be a better way to oversee our government. How much money is expended processing these requests? I'm not saying we need less information about our government, I'm just saying there has to be a better way to get it.
It's a lot easier to "lose" a fax... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You send it registered mail, return receipt requested, or you send it FedEx next-day delivery.
For any legal paperwork this is just good advice. Used registered mail with return receipt a number of times when dealing with a debt collector who screwed the pooch and when dealing with an insurance company that didn't want to pay full market value for a totaled car. Not only does it prevent them from lying about not getting things (which they will do) but it also tends to send a very strong message that you mean business and they better quit fucking around.
Avoid generic NSA tapping? (Score:2)
Precedent (Score:2)
As I recall when the FBI demanded a website hand over their encryption keys the owner printed it in binary on something like 10,000 pieces of paper... I believe he got in some trouble for that.
However if the FBI is going to only allow FOI requests by fax, well it will certainly open themselves up for some serious abuse when others do likewise and when questioned on it simply point to the FBI itself and say that it seems to be an excepted method for them...
Meh. State uses antiquated tech too. (Score:2)
The US State Department STILL requires applications for ITAR export licenses to be submitted using a form system that's a dinosaur from Lotus Notes and uploaded using only Internet Explorer only on Windows.
Hiring freeze? (who is going to process all that?) (Score:2)
Welcome to the era of less transparency (Score:2)
Is anyone actually surprised? (Score:2)
Trump is effectively destroying the little gov't transparency that the US had.
This is just is just more of the same. If they could legally eliminate FOIA entirely, they would. In the mean time, they'll just have to make things more difficult for people, not to mention make it easier for requests to go missing without a track record when someone wants to learn something inconvenient to the gov't.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI notoriously takes years to act on FOIA requests. They are literally the worst agency at it.
Well, before they got overwhelmed by email requests, so it took them forever to catch up with all requests. Now they could easily stream line those requests with a bottle neck they created (with a couple lines of fax?). Great improvement I say. :p
Re:Actually, it will be an improvement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI notoriously takes years to act on FOIA requests. They are literally the worst agency at it.
Well, before they got overwhelmed by email requests, so it took them forever to catch up with all requests. Now they could easily stream line those requests with a bottle neck they created (with a couple lines of fax?). Great improvement I say. :p
Oh, and the fax is out of paper.... (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
True enough, it must be setup as paper only output as well because it is the only way to implement non-repudiation ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If this process change reduces nuisance requests so much the better.
Yeah. Damn those annoying citizens wanting information about how they are governed!
FBI won award for worst FOIA (Score:5, Informative)
'The FBI's reports to Congress show that the Bureau is unable to find any records in response to two-thirds of its incoming FOIA requests on average over the past four years, when the other major government agencies averaged only a 13% "no records" response to public requests.'
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: Set up a not-for-profit FOIA company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are requesting information under FOIA, I would think you would want to actually *get* the information you requested.
Just go to a Kinko's and use their address. The information will be send there...
Same as e-mail. You are trusting a corporation (ISP or e-mail service provider) to provide you with a place to receive the requested information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now THAT's an idea. A tweet to fax service for FBI FOIA requests.