Quote:


I suppose it depends upon what "skills and knowledge" to which NSA is referring.

It may be the NSA is claiming "you wouldn't understand why we have these regulations, therefore, providing them to you will not help the public".  This would be solidly based on political considerations (i.e. Antipolygraph and its readers wouldn't necessarily agree with the regulations -- perhaps one must agree with the NSA's position in order to receive a fee waiver?).  

That logic turns FOIA on its head.  Since you obviously intend to make the information as provided to you public and easily available, it is irrelevant whether you personally can turn the information "into a product beneficial to the general public".  There can be no "skills and knowledge" onus on you personally under such circumstances -- that is a smokescreen.  The logical question, then, and the only one consistent with the clear intention of the FOIA, is whether the information itself would be beneficial to the public at large.

The only other "skills and knowledge" requirement might be the ability to disseminate the information publicly.  As you've noted, Antipolygraph.org is a highly public and easily-accessible locale.  Surely a skywriting requirement was not what the crafters of the FOIA intended.

IMHO this is a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid making damaging information public.

Skeptic

Quote:


The only other thing I could think of that they could be referring to is a fear Antipolygraph will provide the information to the public in an out-of-context, distorting manner.  While it's certainly true that Antipolygraph is dedicated to the elimination of the polygraph, everything that has been obtained thus far has been provided to the public verbatim as it has been received.  Any government document may be interpreted out-of-context by individual readers, so the political position of the FOIA requester alone could hardly be a justifiable criterion for the rejection of a request.

For that matter, if that's what they're worried about, they should include other supporting documents to provide context, not deny the request

IMHO, this rationale is either a desperate attempt to stem the anti-polygraph tide, or a canned answer that was obviously poorly matched to the request.

Skeptic

Skeptic,

Be sure to note that the name of this site is "AntiPolygraph.org" (antipolygraph-dot-org). We included the dot-org part as an integral part of the name and logo so that any reference to the website would include the URL in an easy-to-remember form.

Hi,

Here are two good non-Orwellian reasons to charge you the expenses associated with your FOIA request:

1) if you don't pay it, the rest of the taxpayers do

2) if you take an NSA employee away from more important duties (ie catching spies, terrorists, criminals, other scum), those duties don't get done.   

By the way, the $44 per hour rate is probably not what the employee gets paid; it is the cost to the organization in wasted productivity, etc.

-Vance

Vance,

You write:

Quote:


Yes, that's right, assuming it would actually take the NSA two worker-days to locate its own polygraph regulation and any associated rules, regulations, or directives. I'm not confident that the NSA's estimate of the search time for this request was made in good faith.

Note that the Department of Defense's implementing rule for the Freedom of Information Act (DoD 5400.7-R, September 1998) provides (at para. C6.1.5.1) that "[f]ees may not be used to discourage requesters..." (emphasis added)

DoD 5400.7-R contemplates (at para. C6.1.4.3.1) fee waivers for requests where "[d]isclosure of the information 'is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government.'" I think this public interest clause clearly applies to AntiPolygraph.org's request.

Quote:


As Skeptic pointed out, processing a FOIA request does not necessarily mean taking an NSA employee away from intelligence gathering and/or analysis duties. Presumably, the NSA FOIA office staff are competent to locate the requested records.

Quote:


Wrong. Only "direct charges" may be assessed as fees. As defined by DoD 5400.7-R, para. C6.1.2.2, "[t]he term 'direct costs' means those expenditures a Component actually makes in searching for, reviewing (in the case of commercial requesters), and duplicating documents to respond to a FOIA request. Direct costs include, for example, the salary of the employee performing the work (the basic rate of pay for the employee plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits), and the costs of operating duplicating machinery. These factors have been included in the fee rates prescribed at Section C6.2. of this Chapter. Not included in direct costs are overhead expenses such as costs of space, heating or lighting the facility in which the records are stored."

When you speak of "wasted productivity" involved in processing this FOIA request, you seem to imply that it's not important: a frivolous waste of time and taxpayer money. If such is your view, I would strongly disagree.

The NSA operates perhaps the largest polygraph screening program within the U.S. Government, affecting the lives of thousands of U.S. citizens. The requested documents govern that polygraph program. Decisions to hire or not to hire employees, or to grant or deny security clearances to employees and contractors, and are made on the basis thereof.

We know from public source information that the NSA is using the Relevant/Irrelevant polygraph technique -- one that is completely discredited from a scientific viewpoint (you agree, don't you Vance?) -- in making such decisions. The American public (including, especially, those whose lives have been, are, or will be directly affected) by this nonsense ought to have the ability to review the regulations whereby weighty decisions affecting the lives of so many U.S. citizens are being made. At present, such a review is not possible, because the NSA's polygraph regulation is not publicly available. It is, in effect, "secret law."

Once the regulation is released pursuant to AntiPolygraph.org's request, then any member of the public with Internet access will be able to easily locate and review it. It will "contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government."

The NSA has approved AntiPolygraph.org's fee waiver appeal. See the following letter from William B. Black, the NSA's Freedom of Information/Privacy Act appeal authority:

http://antipolygraph.org/foia/foia-011-3.shtml

George,

Another hurdle has been cleared. Let's hope that the NSA doesn't spend another year "processing" the FOIA request.

CONGRATULATIONS !!!!

Fred F.