Hacker News Reader

Comment by thedorkknight | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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]

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants...

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.

Actually as someone who has filed FOIA requests, the default response is the public records I requested within the statutory time period.

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

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.

Yup. Exactly.Epoch times. Slightly less reliable than the National Inquirer.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com