SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
FBI Ordered to Disclose its Surveillance Tactics on Communities
On Monday, a federal district court in San Francisco issued an important ruling for government transparency and accountability. Judge Richard Seeborg disallowed the FBI's attempt to use a "law enforcement exemption" in the Freedom of Information Act to shield from public disclosure details of the agency's surveillance programs.
Mar 24, 2015
On Monday, a federal district court in San Francisco issued an important ruling for government transparency and accountability. Judge Richard Seeborg disallowed the FBI's attempt to use a "law enforcement exemption" in the Freedom of Information Act to shield from public disclosure details of the agency's surveillance programs.
The case originated in 2010, when--concerned about new FBI initiatives like "domain management" and "threat assessments" that do not require a criminal predicate, as well as intense and sometimes frightening efforts to recruit Muslim community members to become "informants"--the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records relating to FBI surveillance of Northern California's Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian ("AMEMSA") communities. Then, with the help of Morrison & Foerster, we filed suit to force release of the records and received over 50,000 pages of documents, many of which revealed troubling practices (see below).
But many of those documents were redacted in part, and many others withheld in full, based on a variety of rationales. One asserted justification--the one that was the sole focus of the court's opinion today--was that the records were "complied for law enforcement purposes," also called exemption 7. We argued that the documents related to surveillance techniques and activities that did not involve enforcement of a particular federal law could not be withheld based on that exemption. We highlighted records describing training to recruit community members to be "informants" unconnected to any actual criminal investigation, documents describing community outreach efforts, and threat assessment and domain management documents, which by definition do not require a criminal predicate. The court agreed with us and held, "Because the FBI's explanation of the link between its law enforcement activities and the particular documents withheld fails to meet the [applicable] 'rational nexus' standard . . ., the FBI is altogether precluded from withholding information under [the law enforcement exemption]." The court confirmed that "'generalized monitoring and information-gathering' are not sufficient justifications to apply Exemption 7." And, in this case, because the FBI failed to show any additional justification and failed to "tether the activities the withheld documents concern to the enforcement of any particular law," the court ruled that the FBI cannot rely on Exemption 7 to withhold the documents at issue.
This ruling well upholds the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act and its limited law enforcement exemption. As the FBI has expanded its activities to include generalized monitoring and surveillance, unconnected to any suspected criminal activity, it is critical that records related to those broad surveillance programs be available for public scrutiny.
Review the documents
Documents that we received through this litigation have shed considerable light on FBI's surveillance activities and biased approach to AMEMSA communities, for example:
- The FBI used "community" outreach to collect and possibly illegally store intelligence information on Americans' political and religious beliefs;
- The FBI engaged in problematic racial profiling and racial "mapping;"
- The FBI had used Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim counterterrorism training materials; and
- The FBI was not as responsive to hate crime complaints from some Northern California AMEMSA communities
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
On Monday, a federal district court in San Francisco issued an important ruling for government transparency and accountability. Judge Richard Seeborg disallowed the FBI's attempt to use a "law enforcement exemption" in the Freedom of Information Act to shield from public disclosure details of the agency's surveillance programs.
The case originated in 2010, when--concerned about new FBI initiatives like "domain management" and "threat assessments" that do not require a criminal predicate, as well as intense and sometimes frightening efforts to recruit Muslim community members to become "informants"--the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records relating to FBI surveillance of Northern California's Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian ("AMEMSA") communities. Then, with the help of Morrison & Foerster, we filed suit to force release of the records and received over 50,000 pages of documents, many of which revealed troubling practices (see below).
But many of those documents were redacted in part, and many others withheld in full, based on a variety of rationales. One asserted justification--the one that was the sole focus of the court's opinion today--was that the records were "complied for law enforcement purposes," also called exemption 7. We argued that the documents related to surveillance techniques and activities that did not involve enforcement of a particular federal law could not be withheld based on that exemption. We highlighted records describing training to recruit community members to be "informants" unconnected to any actual criminal investigation, documents describing community outreach efforts, and threat assessment and domain management documents, which by definition do not require a criminal predicate. The court agreed with us and held, "Because the FBI's explanation of the link between its law enforcement activities and the particular documents withheld fails to meet the [applicable] 'rational nexus' standard . . ., the FBI is altogether precluded from withholding information under [the law enforcement exemption]." The court confirmed that "'generalized monitoring and information-gathering' are not sufficient justifications to apply Exemption 7." And, in this case, because the FBI failed to show any additional justification and failed to "tether the activities the withheld documents concern to the enforcement of any particular law," the court ruled that the FBI cannot rely on Exemption 7 to withhold the documents at issue.
This ruling well upholds the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act and its limited law enforcement exemption. As the FBI has expanded its activities to include generalized monitoring and surveillance, unconnected to any suspected criminal activity, it is critical that records related to those broad surveillance programs be available for public scrutiny.
Review the documents
Documents that we received through this litigation have shed considerable light on FBI's surveillance activities and biased approach to AMEMSA communities, for example:
- The FBI used "community" outreach to collect and possibly illegally store intelligence information on Americans' political and religious beliefs;
- The FBI engaged in problematic racial profiling and racial "mapping;"
- The FBI had used Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim counterterrorism training materials; and
- The FBI was not as responsive to hate crime complaints from some Northern California AMEMSA communities
On Monday, a federal district court in San Francisco issued an important ruling for government transparency and accountability. Judge Richard Seeborg disallowed the FBI's attempt to use a "law enforcement exemption" in the Freedom of Information Act to shield from public disclosure details of the agency's surveillance programs.
The case originated in 2010, when--concerned about new FBI initiatives like "domain management" and "threat assessments" that do not require a criminal predicate, as well as intense and sometimes frightening efforts to recruit Muslim community members to become "informants"--the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records relating to FBI surveillance of Northern California's Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian ("AMEMSA") communities. Then, with the help of Morrison & Foerster, we filed suit to force release of the records and received over 50,000 pages of documents, many of which revealed troubling practices (see below).
But many of those documents were redacted in part, and many others withheld in full, based on a variety of rationales. One asserted justification--the one that was the sole focus of the court's opinion today--was that the records were "complied for law enforcement purposes," also called exemption 7. We argued that the documents related to surveillance techniques and activities that did not involve enforcement of a particular federal law could not be withheld based on that exemption. We highlighted records describing training to recruit community members to be "informants" unconnected to any actual criminal investigation, documents describing community outreach efforts, and threat assessment and domain management documents, which by definition do not require a criminal predicate. The court agreed with us and held, "Because the FBI's explanation of the link between its law enforcement activities and the particular documents withheld fails to meet the [applicable] 'rational nexus' standard . . ., the FBI is altogether precluded from withholding information under [the law enforcement exemption]." The court confirmed that "'generalized monitoring and information-gathering' are not sufficient justifications to apply Exemption 7." And, in this case, because the FBI failed to show any additional justification and failed to "tether the activities the withheld documents concern to the enforcement of any particular law," the court ruled that the FBI cannot rely on Exemption 7 to withhold the documents at issue.
This ruling well upholds the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act and its limited law enforcement exemption. As the FBI has expanded its activities to include generalized monitoring and surveillance, unconnected to any suspected criminal activity, it is critical that records related to those broad surveillance programs be available for public scrutiny.
Review the documents
Documents that we received through this litigation have shed considerable light on FBI's surveillance activities and biased approach to AMEMSA communities, for example:
- The FBI used "community" outreach to collect and possibly illegally store intelligence information on Americans' political and religious beliefs;
- The FBI engaged in problematic racial profiling and racial "mapping;"
- The FBI had used Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim counterterrorism training materials; and
- The FBI was not as responsive to hate crime complaints from some Northern California AMEMSA communities
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.