tons and tons of redaction. redaction, redaction, redaction. here is a page where the mayor of bernal heights, informally known, the home office and cellphone redacted. he died a year prior to our getting this document. yet here it is, redacted. we were told this was to protect the privacy of the people involved. that is not open government. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. but the episodes are coming up on the dance party. that is on kofy. also metv. coming up soon, sundays at 8:00, cable 13. welcome to year of the dragon. i found this at the flea market. i do not know if it is meeting right yet -- meteorite yet. but it is a dinosaur. and i found this great book. that brings me to my public comment. the bells of san francisco. i did not know what was sunshine week. what should we say? ♪ let the sunshine let the city sunshine and the sunshine in ♪ and with this book -- ♪ you can ring my city bell ring my bell dangling -- ding a ling you can make it swell. bring me said witches and food as well. -- sandwiche

tons and tons of redaction. redaction, redaction, redaction. here is a page where the mayor of bernal heights, informally known, the home office and cellphone redacted. he died a year prior to our getting this document. yet here it is, redacted. we were told this was to protect the privacy of the people involved. that is not open government. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker.

by redaction level. the cia has this wonderful policy and they actually, they have a document in their reading room that talks about this policy, that if you get 100-page cia document, it will have at the top of the first page of the document b1, b3, b5, b6, b7, c, and then it will have 8 million redactions, none of which are marked, because the cia believes that it only has to identify redactions on a document level, and that this is not specific to any particular document, that this is a policy you do not have to identify individual redactions. they also have a policy that says if they withhold documents in their entirety, they don't have to tell you anything about them, and that means they don't even have to tell you how many there are. there's pretty well-established foia case law that says that an agency has to estimate the number, the pages, the number of documentation, the square feet in a drawer, something of the records withheld in their entirety and the cia says no, we don't. and they will do t

tons and tons of redaction. redaction, redaction, redaction. here is a page where the mayor of bernal heights, informally known, the home office and cellphone redacted. he died a year prior to our getting this document. yet here it is, redacted. we were told this was to protect the privacy of the people involved. that is not open government. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. but the episodes are coming up on the dance party. that is on kofy. also metv. coming up soon, sundays at 8:00, cable 13. welcome to year of the dragon. i found this at the

this box that was redacted then had no notation for why it was redacted. when they rereleased the document, they invoked 7d, the exemption for confidential informant situation. so judge jackson said, yeah, you released it once. then you released it again. not only released it again, but you said this is confidential information redacted. she said no, that's official confirmation by the fbi. no statutory language requires the content. she also quoted the dictionary definition. it does not mean a confirmation. it means a fact has been established. not formally or purposesfully announced. think said it also doesn't alter the result. specifically here in high profile requests like this one where you're talking about a confidential informant who was in the same room as martin luther king junior during civil rights movement taking pictures but also giving the fbi information. they needed to take the utmost care in responding to the request. and it should have invoke d different one. this was the soul subject of their request. so the production was not that large

if you send us documents that are redacted or in litigation that's pending send redacted documents, you're not being forthcoming. that's not the here's what your government did. >> of course, i disagree with you on that. we'll try to be as forthcoming as we can. every action we took has been four separate independent bodies oversight, established by congress to oversee our actions. all the actions we took in the auto context were reviewed and validated by the courts. checks and balances in our country. >> no, sir. the one with the delphi employees is still pending. >> the secretary can summarize his answer. >> i just want to point out that we have provided an incredible level of transparency over every decision we made with the taxpayers' money that context. rules you described to me are rules congress gave me and my predecessors. there is no conflict in those rules. we have checks and balances, appropriately so, in this country that gives you the authority and the right to oversee everything we've done in this context and i respect and honor that process. >> gentleman's time has expired.

so any kind of ink enhancement wouldn't give us the redacted names. hmm.o reason why that deposition should have been in the financial papers. somebody wanted us to find it. and in my experience, even when people are very careful with a document, they will typically touch the envelope with their bare hands. it's all yours. thanks. (buzzing) oh, yeah, got something on the clasp. (sighs) okay. ethyl alcohol, isopropanol, glycerin and juniper. that's hand sanitizer. i always carry a bottle with me. not the juniper type, but the other kind. lucky for us, i just met someone who's more ocd than you are. (sighs) i can't tell you his name. it just wouldn't be fair to that poor kid to be just dragged through all of that again. i understand that, but you wouldn't have sent us the deposition if you didn't want us to figure it out. well, yes, i wanted you to, but that's why i slipped it into the file boxes anonymously. all right. well, what about coach hopper? how long do you think he's been taking advantage of the students? wait a minute. wait a minute. i don't know

so any kind of ink enhancement wouldn't give us the redacted names. hmm.o reason why that deposition should have been in the financial papers. somebody wanted us to find it. and in my experience, even when people are very careful with a document, they will typically touch the envelope with their bare hands. it's all yours. thanks. (buzzing) oh, yeah, got something on the clasp. (sighs) okay. ethyl alcohol, isopropanol, glycerin and juniper. that's hand sanitizer. i always carry a bottle with me. not the juniper type, but the other kind. lucky for us, i just met someone who's more ocd than you are. (sighs) i can't tell you his name. it just wouldn't be fair to that poor kid to be just dragged through all of that again. i understand that, but you wouldn't have sent us the deposition if you didn't want us to figure it out. well, yes, i wanted you to, but that's why i slipped it into the file boxes anonymously. all right. well, what about coach hopper? how long do you think he's been taking advantage of the students? wait a minute. wait a minute. i don't know

just have one ncic trained operator on site and then redact the nonconvictions. the notion that we can't do background checks on people who want to do business with the government, people do them all the time for schools, churches, everyone does it. redact the information. go to a law enforcement agency that does track convictions. go to the court clerk's office. there's a way to get that information other than ncic. and if there needs to be an exception to ncic for government agencies that are looking at fraud, i can't speak for the gentleman from maryland but i'll be happy to do that and i don't think law enforcement would resist is one bit. miss fong you mentioned a 50% conviction rate. i would have been run out of office if i had a 50% conviction rate and i don't think mr. cummings would have been hired as often as he was hired if he had one. that strikes me as a low conviction rate. is it because you're negotiating a civil instead of a criminal punishment? does the statute need to be changed? what needs to be done so we don't swing and miss half the time? >>

police redacted ever mission they found from a law- enforcement on the database. if the system was used for political dirt gathering, it will be a federal crime. >> i think the public deserves to not have this distraction. >> many voters we spoke to say they want to hear more about reserving judgment. >> it does not sound right to me. >> it was abusing his power if it is true. >> my request was referred here to the county executive offices where i was told that mr. leopold does not want to talk about it. brad bell, abc 7 news. >> of next, you may want to rush to the cherry blossoms early. find out why getting there could be difficult. >> the blossoms are getting a bit of a head start because of the warm weather. >> the washington redskins got themselves a safety today. the wizards make a trade sending guys will west. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] virtual wallet can help you be that person who's good witmoney. see what's free to spend. move money with a slide. save with a shake. feel good about your decisions. >> virginia tech officials are considering an appeal i

all above board, redacted, properly released. i should make that clear. anyway, through the freedom of information act and picking up the phone and calling, we've gotten hundreds of record that wouldn't otherwise be available and tens of thousands on the illicit arms trade on weapons seed in arms caches. here are some photos of weapons acquired in the process. those are iranian designations. what we confirm through the numbers is they were recently manufacture fd. and the model from the u.s. government and the british government. one of my personal favorites i threw in there because i think it's amusing is the head mounted c 5 k rocket launcher that they recovered in iraq. i think i'll conclude there but i'll be happy to take any questions that you may have. >> okay. thank you very much, matt. researchers, be careful there and don't do any kind of illicit activity. >> not advocating that. >> rachel, please. >> i, too, want to thank sipri, not only for this panel kbu as matt said, as those of us who toil in the arms trade world know if you didn't have the

obviously in a first-person request, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have an outside the scope redaction. then it is within the scope of the request, there may be another basis for exempting it, but it wouldn't be that one. in addition i have concerns about the adequacy of the search. therefore saug more data bases. i don't want to get into details. as often happens, there were cross motions for summery motions. then they held a hearing that is obviously very common in the cases. after we had an argument to which the district court suggested he was inclined to believe that the searches were inadequate and there were problems with that. then there's another one. we tried to get more information. basically we're told that nothing more could be told to us at this time. i would love to know what happened in those hearings. at some poin during the hearings, the judge must have come to realize that the government was invoking section 5022 drrks or otherwise making statements not truthful. and the district judge here, a good judge has a reputation for being a conservative judge. in the santa an

but in many cases, the names of those making those opposing recommendations were redacted so we can'tyou who they were. derek. >> thank you, gary. >>> well, virginia tech will no longer have to pay a $55,000 fine over its response to the deadly 2007 shootings at that school. the university was issued that fine because the department of education said the school violated the cleary act. that's a federal law which requires schools to give timely warnings about campus threats. but today the department of education judge overturned that decision. >>> we're just four days away until campaign 2012 kicks off here in the district. on tuesday dc will pick nominees for everything from council state to president. but voters don't have to wait until then to cast their ballots. there is one more day of early voting in the district of columbia. the board of elections had 8 early voting centers. one in each ward. and they'll be open from 8:30 a.m. until 7:00 tomorrow night. we have a complete list at wusa9.com. click on campaign 2012. again, maryland also has its primary on tuesday. >>> and you say

finding documents, redacting documents and ultimately releasing documents.nd what we know about the past is always subject to reassessment when new information arises. the reason we look forward to events like this conference today is they provide a wonderful opportunity to re-examine the narratives that accompany pivotal events in our nation's history. the document collection that we're talking about today challenges some of the most persistent misconceptions about intelligence leading up to the end of the cold war. the myth, for example, that president ronald reagan was an unsophisticated consumer of intelligence provided by the cia. or the contention that u.s. the fall of the soviet union due to a failure of intelligence. when you arrived you were given a booklet. on the back page of that booklet you'll find a dvd. that dvd contains all of the declassified documents from today's event. it also contains a variety of videos that were produced for president reagan, photographs, maps and a variety of other things. it is a treasure trove of information, and i

. >> given the time it has taken to produce these documents they've probably been busy redacting these documents and there won't be much there to glean much from it. this is a way to keep a law that they believe means one thing very secret, and they're doing a god job of it. >> clearly senators wyden and udall think they know what they think they know, and they must be disturbed to want to go public in this way. a, will we ever find out what alarmed them. b, what do you think alarmed them? >> i think they do get briefings as part of the oversight committee, so they probably have a pretty good sense of what is going on. while they don't want to disclose sources and methods they're seeing a product that is chilling them. and we have some canaryies right there in the shaft who are singing still, and we don't often have that in these situations. the fact that they're being ignored by people who should be listening to them is startling. whether we'll ever know, history teaches us that we will know. every president who has tried to do this by his own interpretation of the law since the intel

sometimes we got heavily redacted pdf formats that were not searchable. so many agencies were not tracking key information. some of them were missing tracking information. the tracking number that's legally required to be put on foia requests that are open more than ten days. some agencies did very well. some departments did very well. the treasury department, we were impressed that they were actually using consistent formats across all of their components, which was something that was very rare. many agencies were producing 10 or 15 logs for their components, and they were all completely different formats, and that's something we were looking at as well, although we graded each log based on its individual information. another report that we are working on is an update to the citizen's guide fought freedom of information act and the privacy act. that report as many of you know has not been updated since 2005. it's a report from our committee that's been released every two or three years since 1977. it gives people information on how to use foia and privac

according to reports who were investigated opposed releasing the report and their names have been redacted. i want to ask you if any of those prosecutors are still in the justice department system? >> i have to check that just to make sure, but i believe all the prosecutors who were involved i department. i believe that's true. i'm not totally sure on that. >> does that trouble you that there would be findings of misconduct in such a sensitive area that they would still be that you would not let them go outside of our justice system? >> it depends on the nat the misconduct, what it is that they did, the mistakes that were made. i think one has to look at the be released combined with the opr report and the recommendations for sanctions o report to look at what exactly should happen to these people. was the incident an isolated one. how serious was it? what is the nature -- >> are you going to do that, mr. attorney general? are you going to make a decision regarding people who have clearly exhibited that they do not have the integrity to prosecute in this sensitive area? will you tell the c

redacted documents have been provided if at all. most recently, which have the pbcsg saying that you have been involved there is this sense of how do we have this system through bailout for a person like yourself would have the three roles that conflict exists and get congress have no ability for oversight? individuals who lost their pensions, who do not have an ability to hold you or treasury accountable in seeking additional information? this comes at a significant price. we have the $1.3 billion loss in the chrysler deal, the $25 billion or so in the gm bailout. when we looked at the european issue, how can we be assured, looking at the performance of what occurred in the prior bill , that we will not have this issue of conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, that there will be open as, that congress and people impacted by this will have access to this information? i sit here as a member of congress knowing that treasury is not answering the basic questions about the decision making that occurred with the delphi pension re

redacting information, go to a law enforcement agency that does track convictions, go to the clerk of courts office, there's a way to get that information other than ncic. and is a need an exception to ncic, for government agencies that are looking at fraud, i can't speak for the gentleman from maryland but i will be happy. to do that, and adobe law enforcement would resist it one bit. ms. fong, you mentioned a 50% conviction rate. i would have been run out of office if i had a 50% conviction rate, and i don't think mr. cummings would have been hired as often if he had one. that strikes me as a low conviction rate. is it because you're negotiating a civil punishment instead of a criminal punishment? does the statute needs to be changed? what needs to be done so we don't swing and miss half the time? >> let me take a look at that data, because i want to make sure that i get to the right percentage, and i will provide that for the record. and when we do that we will also provide you with our insights on the. >> all right. and my final question for you is this. if i wrote the numbers dow

if you look at the report it is redact asked we cannot identify the authors and i cannot question themnd i don't know if it is the same software, what voteable and country so we have no way to tell what the study says. how does it compare to the machines that look at you in your birthday suit? >>guest: there is another machine that does not offer radiation and by the own guidelines which is as low as achievable, if there is an alternative to radiation that should be used and there is an alternative which is shown as safe committee effective but not widely used. >>neil: you are a genius i don't understand what you are saying but you sound smart so we have to be worried. and now something from the t.s.a., a quote, all the scientific testing shows the technology is in the national standards safe for all passengers. it is back to your point "well in conservative standards now." that is what worries you. >>guest: yes. it is safe for the first person but the one in ten president of developing a potential problem the same odds as getting hit by lightning and winning the lottery and each year

we have to redact a lot of it, it's a more graphic description than what was up at spreadingsantorum.n fact, stunningly graphic. why the search results page is constantly changing is at this point unclear. google released a statement wednesday saying, we make more than 500 changes to our algorithms in a typical year. with each of those changes, sites will shuffle the different positions in our search results, we have not manually taken action to change the ranking of the site. so with this added dose of unpredictability in terms of what your results are going to be, i think rick santorum's google problem if it didn't get worse, got a lot more interesting. now there's more of a reason to keep typing the word santorum into s

redacted documents have been provided if at all. most recently, which have the pbcsg saying that you have been involved there is this sense of how do we have this system through bailout for a person like yourself would have the three roles that conflict exists and get congress have no ability for oversight? individuals who lost their pensions, who do not have an ability to hold you or treasury accountable in seeking additional information? this comes at a significant price. we have the $1.3 billion loss in the chrysler deal, the $25 billion or so in the gm bailout. when we looked at the european issue, how can we be assured, looking at the performance of what occurred in the prior bill that we will not have this issue of conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, that there will be open as, that congress and people impacted by this will have access to this information? i sit here as a member of congress knowing that treasury is not answering the basic questions about the decision making that occurred with the delphi pension reti

-- jonathan capehart pointed this out -- includes trayvon martin's full name, date of birth, his redacted street address and phone number. however, trayvon martin -- and that report was filed and closed, according to the report, on the night, february 27th at 3:07 in the morning. but the family says that trayvon martin's body was tagged as john doe. both those things can not be true. if you have all of his information, where he lives, his telephone number, he's not a john doe. now, the other thing -- the fishy part about that, there's a part on the police report that says, "is there a juvenile involved?" if you know that he is born on february 5th, 1995, you know he's 17 years old, that box should have been yes. it is no. i asked the family if they could verify somebody else, independent of them, could verify whether or not he was listed as a john doe because the medical examiner would not do it and the funeral parlor, out of ft. lauderdale, florida, said they could not pick up that body for three days because it was listed as a john doe. >> so listed as a john doe, but it's very clear th

and the example that they cite is that you decided to release afghan documents without redacting theople who had provided intelligence to the u.s. government. >> there's no evidence or any credible allegation or even any allegation from an official body that we have caused any individual at any time to come to harm in the past four years. >> the pentagon said that they've gone through all of these documents and they found the names of 300 people. >> well, that's new public information to us. it's possible that there are 300 names in the publicly released afghan material. we don't pretend that that process is absolutely perfect. we did hold back one in five documents for extra harm minimization review and we also improved our process. so when iraq came around, there was not even a single name in it. >> i mean, there have been reports of people quoting taliban leaders, saying that they had the names of these people and that they were going to take retribution. >> the taliban is not a coherent outfit. but we don't say that it is absolutely impossible that anything we ever publish will e

and if they do, whether it will be redacted.e're stuck with a good faith offering from the district attorney it will be fully presented. >> kenneth chamberlain, jr., tell us about your father. >> when people ask me about that, i tell people that he was a father like anyone else. he agreed with some things you did and disagreed with others. but my father would never hurt anyone intentionally. he would not go after anyone. he was law enforcement himself. he was a marine. i'm sure whatever he scene when he served that that was enough violence for him. and for them to look at my father that way without -- with no regard for his life. i think about that every morning, just the circumstances. i guess maybe around 5:00 in the morning attended think about all of this. it disturbs me about the fact it has not been presented yet because i do know, as my attorney said, if the roles have been reversed, this would have already banned -- into a grand jury. >> when did you hear your father had been killed? i found out from a friend of mine as

we have to redact a lot of it, it's a more graphic description than what was up at spreadingsantorum.arch results page is constantly changing is at this point unclear. google released a statement wednesday saying, we make more than 500 changes to our algorithms in a typical year. with each of those changes, sites will shuffle the different positions in our search results, we have not manually taken action to change the ranking of

maybe they're redacted. a little frightening to me.on: monica, i don't know what the parameters are but my understanding there has to be a reason that you would wind up on this list. it is not like, you know, just because you walk to the corner grocery store and buy a carton of milk. >> no, exactly. what the administration is arguing here is that they have put very strong safeguards for privacy and civil liberties. in these databases so that not just anybody randomly would appear in them the argument the administration has made here is on national security ground. they're saying look, prior to 9/11, we had a very difficult time because of the wall that jamie gorelick and others in the clinton administration put in place to get these intelligence agencies to talk to each other and get them to coordinate and compare databases of possible terrorism suspects. after 9/11, the 9/11 commission came in and said we have to take down this wall and have our intelligence agencies be able to connect the dots. what the administration today has done,

it is redacted, after six years, it will come down. these are not the record copies of the documents. the rules have been approved. i am wondering what the solution would be to the situation. we are demonstrating transparency, at least for two years or six years. according to what is mandated, we take the records out of the electronic reading room. >> want me to take a shot at that one? >> sure. >> it is not really true. after the enactment of the law that created the electronic reading room and the concept of requested records of foia, the government had to confront for the first time -- something is required to be put in the reading room. what we are talking about is having it posted. the rationale for that is, make it available to the public if it has been requested more than once so that people will not have to make foia requests. the other question is, how long do we keep them up? back in the day, they said, the answer is clear. 6 years. no one knows. i am not sure. it is a matter of individual agency judgment. i am not trying to