FBI Claims It Has No Record of Deleting Its Recommendation to Encrypt Phones | Hacker News Reader

FBI Claims It Has No Record of Deleting Its Recommendation to Encrypt Phones

techdirt.com

68 pointsDickingAround18 comments

Info from reddit:

>The page moved. This is the page in question: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams Read the note: For the the latest e-scams and warnings, visit the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. Here's where the one in question is specifically: https://www.ic3.gov/media/2012/121012.aspx Here's the internet archive of the original page where it was removed: https://web.archive.org/web/20150201005359/http://www.fbi.go... The text in the new page is identical! They didn't delete it. Edit: If the author of the article really cared about the truth of the matter, he could have taken 2 minutes to follow the new link they provided and found the page. That's how long it too me to find it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/48gxlq/fbi_claims_...

That isn't a new page. The page on ic3.gov which is still there is the original page which has been present since 2012:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120715000000*/https://www.ic3.g...

The same content was posted to fbi.gov but then replaced with an indirect link to the other site.

Also, if this was so easy to find then why didn't the government find it when responding to the FOIA request?

>Also, if this was so easy to find then why didn't the government find it when responding to the FOIA request?

They didn't ask "where is content about protecting phones to be found?"

Hence TFA:

> And that's part of the problem with the FOIA process. It's something of a guessing game, where if you don't guess exactly the proper way to phrase what you want, they'll just come back with a no responsive documents response.

If a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt.

>If a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt.

Subpoenas need to specify exactly what they want as well. Not sure what you're getting at here.

> Subpoenas need to specify exactly what they want as well. Not sure what you're getting at here.

What I'm getting at is if a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt.

When did you quit beating your wife?

The author didn't, AFAICT, post the FOIA request. But I'll have to assume it was along the lines of "when did you delete the page that recommends users encrypt their phones?" With those assumptions, the FBI's response might not be helpful, but I don't think it's out of line or worthy of outrage.

It's definitely in line with how the government frequently responds to FOIA requests. That's the idea.

edit: relevant link from sandworm101: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/09583531469/how-f...

Repeating yourself does not a point make. In response to what I wrote, how is the FBI's response unreasonable? And I'll warn you ahead of time that another "is so!" is not going to change my mind.

Unless someone can find the actual FOIA request in this case the only thing we can say about it in particular is what is in the article, which is what I quoted.

As for the general case, I point you to sandworm101's link above.

It's also still hosted on the FBI domain here:

https://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2012/smartphone-...

>>> "we conducted a search of the locations or entities where records responsive to your request would reasonably be found. We were unable to locate records responsive to your request."

That's the problem. The OP believes he has described where the data is, but in reality he has only described the change. You need to describe in which of the many FBI databases you want them to look. Funny story... Techdirt is well aware of the problem.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/09583531469/how-f...

I think the author is giving the FBI way too much credit by expecting them to document this. Whether the intent behind taking it down was nefarious or not, I really doubt they would have documented the action.

Does the term WBS mean anything to you? Back when I worked on federally funded stuff, it was used to document every part of a project deliverable, down to the very last flat washer. While the software parts were more loosely specified than that I can tell you that the content of any public facing documents was scrutinized and edited by top level people before being posted.

It's more than that on the DoD things I worked on. Not only did the flat washer's presence have to be documented, you had to have a complete explanation of what standards and the supplier(s) for it. For a part like that, you can point to a document than someone has already produced that specifies the flat washer's properties. There was an occasion where a engineer had to draw up a specification for a post-it note because they were called for in a procedure that was supplied to the federal government.

I suspect there was probably an e-mail from someone (PR?) to "the web team" at some point -- something like "hey, please remove this sentence (...) from this page (<url>)".

I can't say whether the FBI's intent was nefarious or not, but I used to work for the Fed and have some experience in FOIA as well working with them.

First, not all website changes go through some high level review. We had an internal tech team that did our websites. The big stuff would be reviewed, but minor revisions would not necessarily. It's like if you have a personal website and see something that you think could be worded better or weird formatting, you just jump in and change it. It's not clear to me that this is some conspiracy versus someone just cleaning up the page.

Second, I'm not sure how this stuff is documented. If someone had sent me a FOIA request asking for some specific documents, that's easy. But how exactly to find documented deletions, I probably would have gone to IT to see if there was any sort of log and whether those logs were saved. Many things are required to be saved under a required Records Retention Schedule, but I'm not clear whether edits to the website fall under this.

Third, the people I met in FOIA are generally helpful. If something is worded wrong, they don't just throw out the request, they try to understand what the request was actually looking for and contact the requester. There was a customer service aspect to the job of course. I can't speak for everyone at every agency, but that was my experience.

Fourth, in all my experience internally with FOIA and Privacy Act stuff, I never heard once of anyone saying to cover something up or return garbage or anything. Many times something legitimately couldn't be found, but it was never intentional and we tried really hard to make sure things were returned if there was anything responsive.

I flagged this one, since (as documented by ikeboy here, and elsewhere) the recommendation still exists[0]. Maybe it was moved, but it obviously wasn't deleted.

[0] "Depending on the type of phone, the operating system may have encryption available. This can be used to protect the user's personal data in the case of loss or theft."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com