Why on earth is this website asking me who I voted for before letting me read an article?
Why does the headline make it sound like the FBI wants the documents sealed for 66 years rather than accurately conveying that they'll be release the documents at 500 pages per month, and that therefore it will mathematically take 66 years?
>If Mazzant upholds his order, the FBI wants a lengthy period of time to perform the work—66 years, or 500 pages a month.
Oh, it's the Epoch times... I guess that answers both questions
There are FOIA statutes that require federal, state and local governments to release documents and other data in the public interest in a reasonable amount of time. In this case, the statute gives the FBI 14 days. Limiting the release of documents to 500 per month to make the process take 66 years start to finish (IMO) is a violation of this statute. And there are tools the government has to automatically scrub documents of potentially sensitive information and these tools can run at a clip far higher than 500 documents a month. And so far, this district judge appears to agree.
If I could find any other publication covering this court case I would have provided the link.
Similarly, the FDA has asked a court for 55 years to respond to a FOIA request for COVID vaccine data. Assume you won't object to this source. [0]
Look I'm all for massively boosting FOIA funding across the government to improve FOIA compliance. Note that that is not what the Epoch Times is trying to advocate with their deceptive headline here. I'm annoyed when "news" sources - especially ones that are deeply connected to cults - borderline lie in their headlines to get people riled up.
The FBI has an annual budget of $9.7-billion. How much more do you think they need to use tools they already have to scrub a hard drive image of sensitive information and send the rest to this FOIA requester on a thumb drive? FOIA allows the government to set a reasonable price for the labor and equipment involved in processing such a request, but that doesn't appear to be the sticking point here.
State and federal governments arguing "it's really hard and expensive so you shouldn't make us do it" is the default response to pretty much any FOIA request. This instance isn't special.
How large were the documents you requested that needed review? Was it the first time they were being reviewed?
Edit: also, I haven't looked further into this but can almost guarantee you that the FBI was trying to work with the requester to narrow down what they're requesting to something that is slightly more focused than hundreds of thousands of pages that all need review first
Yeah I'm sure that 66 years is actually how much time that should take and not just a delay tactic. I'm also sure that they aren't going to release anything juicy last.
Like I said to the other commentor, I'm all for advocating for massive funding for FOIA for all agencies. However, that is absolutely not what the Epoch times is doing with deceptively edited headlines like this.
If I’m ever murdered, I hope the FBI isn’t forced to hand over the contents of my private laptop to random strangers who file FOIA requests. This whole thing is despicable and you should be ashamed.
What if the FBI seized a personal laptop of yours? Should that be subject to FOIA requests by anyone who wants it?
The Fourth Amendment rights against government seizure of your property should also extend to giving that property to random yahoos who can fill a form out.
at the risk of tying my horse to the epoch times (which I am not trying to do), I think it should be pointed out that the DNC and RNC being in a separate category of scrutiny from government agencies is utter horseshit.
If we lived in a world where a third party had a fighting chance, fine, but these institutions are literally deciding who we get to vote for.
If you wanna make a "the RNC and DNC are subject to FOIA" rule, fine. This isn't how you accomplish it. It wasn't an investigation of the DNC; it was an investigation of Rich's murder, of which there's zero evidence of DNC involvement.
A standard of "if you're the victim of a crime, your personal info is fair game to anyone who wants it" would be a very, very dangerous precedent to set.
Are you implying that this court case and FOIA request don't exist? Or that the FBI did not request 66 years to release documents? It's fine if you don't find Epoch Times to be reputable, just curious what alleged facts you are objecting to. Court filings are typically a matter of public record. Seems like you are just rejecting this information wholesale based solely on the source? Is that the optimal personal filter you are advocating?
As far as I can tell the facts of the matter are that a federal judge with his own agenda attempted to force the FBI to give over all of Seth Rich's personal data and gave them 14 days to comply.
The FBI responded that 14 days was an unreasonable amount of time and asked the judge to either specify exactly what it is they want, or give them time to review the data themselves.
The alt-right media has twisted what the FBI was saying about the time it takes to review documents and trying to paint their rebuttal as 'they want to hide this forever', which is not the case. .. which is why you won't find this "66 years" thing on any reputable website.
> As far as I can tell the facts of the matter are that a federal judge with his own agenda attempted to force the FBI to give over all of Seth Rich's personal data and gave them 14 days to comply.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is law. The judge was following the law here. 14 days is what the statute provides. Seems unfair to call this a personal agenda by the judge?
> The FBI responded that 14 days was an unreasonable amount of time and asked the judge to either specify exactly what it is they want, or give them time to review the data themselves.
14 days is statutory. The FBI responded with an even less reasonable amount of time (66 years from start to finish). Why is that acceptable but 14 days is not?
> The alt-right media has twisted what the FBI was saying about the time it takes to review documents and trying to paint their rebuttal as 'they want to hide this forever', which is not the case. .. which is why you won't find this "66 years" thing on any reputable website.
The 66 years is how long it will take the FBI to release 396,000 documents at a rate of 500 a month. The individuals involved in this case will likely be deceased by the time they are done, which might as well be forever.
The whole point of FOIA is government transparency. If the public is expected to wait until they are long dead to get access to public records, then that is undermining both the spirit and letter of the law.
