remember this one? the four carefully crafted retorts?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:52 AM, coderman <[email protected]> wrote: >... > less interesting reply, but a more interesting response on my part: > > FBI claiming privacy interest to refuse ALL of my FOIA regarding the > Sklyarov / Elcomsoft incident years back: > https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/freedmitry-21209/ > > this is my first attempt to argue compelling public interest against a > privacy exemption, > it is as follows; > > > Please recognize the public interest in this request for responsive > records as follows: > > First and foremost, extensive media attention during this period was > generated due to the intersection of "hacking" and "reverse > engineering" combined with the DMCA provisions deeming some > technologies illegal at interest to the information technology > industry as a whole. This reason alone is sufficient and compelling > justification for transparency in a watershed case, however, I shall > continue. > > Second, this case involved not a US citizen, but a foreign national. > As has recently been scoured in the technical press, Wassenar with its > incumbent BIS obligations has brought discussion of the risks > foreigners face visiting the EU and US, in addition to US citizens > abroad who now find themselves subject to severe technical controls > due to their industry participation. I feel that surely this must > provide beyond sufficient justification for public interest in > documents responsive to this request, yet I shall continue to exhaust > the relevant perspectives in my quiver of inquiry. > > Thus thirdly, the conference venue, DEF CON security conference, > itself of notoriety and high esteem in the technical community, was > the operating domain for the closing moves of this investigation. The > logistics and technical considerations for operating in this domain > thus also compounds the public interest in the activity for which the > records responsive to this request have been requested. > > Fourthly, and there is a fourthly for sure, the activities undertaken > by the agency were at risk of alienating a talent pool the Bureau has > increasingly courted and pursued for their invaluable skills in > digital forensic analysis, reverse engineering, and information > security. Balancing actions before a critical group who also interacts > frequently with the agency, and from whom the Bureau itself draws > professional talent, amplifies the interest and relevance of this > inquiry, and the need for unrestrained transparency when identifying > documents responsive to this request. > > Lastly and finally, yet not to diminish the inherent privacy rights > afforded to all earth humans, inalienable, with justice for all, the > privacy rights which this agency has cited in justification for > limiting the documents responsive to this request, please note that > the privacy exemptions provided by law are specific and limited to > situations where there is a compelling personal privacy interest. The > agency has not provided any compelling privacy interest on behalf of > the fine Mr. Sklyarov, and his foreign status removes the common > privacy concerns of an individual within a domestic community at issue > in responsive documents. It is fully reasonable, per Department of > Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, that the FBI > may provide documents detailing "what they were up to" in this > investigation, without undue burden on the privacy rights of a foreign > citizen briefly visiting to attend a public conference in the United > States. > > Please do recognize and acquiescence to the public interest so broadly in > view. it worked, flawlessly! see attached response with minimal redactions: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/freedmitry-21209/#comm-204252 best regards,
