FOUO, FOIA, and other Letters from DHS

It definitely raises our eyebrows when government employees working in a public disclosure office sign secrecy agreements.

In late August, POGO learned that two employees in DHS's FOIA office had signed non-disclosure agreements (pdf). These agreements bind the signatory to protect FOUO information from disclosure or possibly face punishment (note: DHS modified its non-disclosure agreement so it does not apply to employees anymore).

Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded (pdf) to POGO's concerns about its Management Directive on "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) Information (pdf).

One of POGO's key points in its letter to DHS was that "DHS has created a rule requiring the DHS community to steadfastly protect the same information that FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] officers may release to the public." 

DHS's response signed by Under Secretary for Management Janet Hale is, "The directive on FOUO allows our employees to recognize and safeguard potentially exploitable sensitive information, while also complying with the Freedom of Information Act."  This response is bureacratic gobbledy gook which obscures the reality of the situation.

One of the problems with DHS's stance is that many FOIA requests stem from disclosure by agency employees, consultants and contractors.  If these persons fear criminal, civil and/or administrative punishment then they may not talk to reporters and the public at all. Because the directive allows almost any piece of information to be defined as FOUO and even states that unmarked information may be considered FOUO and should be protected as such, then the lines of communication allowing for specific and informed FOIA requests could be curtailed.

Comments

It's horrifying to think that the government is hiding behind unclassified designations that have no checks or balances. In essense, agencies are throwing a blanket of secrecy over nearly all agency info. How can I learn about how our government works if government personnel can only share info with people with a "need to know" (which does not include the public, media, and Congress)? Moreover, who inside the government is ensuring that the info so designated is truly worth protecting?