FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 1

FRINGE SPITTING * A monthly journal with freedom of information news*

* Editor: Roger Vleugels - roger.vleugels@planet.nl *

* Donations are very welcome, see colophon *

* Year 13 - No. 221 – August 2015 *

Content minus The Netherlands 02► US DoJ Releases 2015 FOIA Reports 02► Chile Pinochet Docs 03► UK more and more Secretive 04► Draft for new Pakistan FOIA Ranks nr 1 05► Publishing FOIA’d Docs 07► Open Data and Verification of Treaties 08► Obama Should Release MH-17 Intel 11► Obstructing the Church Committee 12► A Reverse-FOIA Action 12► UK: Crackdown on the Right to Know 13► India Wants more Active Disclosure 14► Spain: FOIA further Limited 14► Docs on Iran's Nuclear Program 14► US Intel Docs on Europe, 1945-1995 15► New Rosenberg Docs 15► Malta: A Contract Disclosed 16► India: 39 RTI-Activists Killed in 10 Years 17► Tunisia: FOIA Draft Shelved? 18► Not vexatious 18► Release for One, Release to All 19► Hungary OKs a more Regressive FOIA 20► India: 4.5 Million RTI Requests per Year 20► UK Government FOI Proposals 22► The Pentagon's Spies Docs 23► Police Discipline Files 24► Hungary: Fees & Double Response Time 24► World Bank Access Policy 25► Srebrenica Docs

Content on The Netherlands 26► Moet Nederland gaan oppassen? 26► Archief Frans Kluiters 27► MIVD directieberaad docs 27► Fringe Shop 30► Fringe Colophon

Message for Dutch subscribers

De Basis Cursus Wob, 3x3 uur, geef ik dit jaar nog tweemaal. Beide in de avonduren in Utrecht. Je kunt kiezen uit oktober [woensdagavonden] of november [dinsdagavonden].

Kosten: 400,00 euro per cursist, dit is inclusief btw, een digitale Toolkit, het indienen van één

Wob-verzoek per cursist en consumpties.

Uitgebreide toelichting en informatie over hoe aan te melden in de apart bij deze Fringe mailing gevoegde folder.

Wees er snel bij: Vol is vol.

In die folder ook informatie over de in company varianten van deze cursus. Deze zijn het hele jaar

door te bestellen.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 2

►►►► FRINGE FOIA worldwide Interested in this topic? Consider joining the Linked In group: FOIA specialists

US DOJ RELEASES 2015 FOIA REPORTS ► www.epic.org ► EPIC Jul 31 2015 ► Jul 31. The US Department of Justice has released the 2015 assessment of federal agencies' Freedom of Information Act compliance reports. The DOJ compiles annual agency reports and grades agencies' performance in complying with the FOIA. The DOJ's annual FOIA assessment grades an agency's progress in five areas: (1) applying the presumption of openness; (2) use of effective and responsive systems; (3) proactive disclosures; (4) utilizing technology; and (5) reducing backlogs and improving response times. The 2015 assessment shows that agencies were the most effective in Area I and least effective in Area V, in which few agencies received a high grade. The assessment is guided by two Obama Administration documents: the President's 2009 memo on the FOIA and former Attorney General Eric Holder's FOIA guidelines. On his first full day in office, President Obama directed federal agencies to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure. The FOIA, wrote the President, "is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike." To that end, the President instructed the AG to issue new FOIA guidelines. These guidelines, which expand on President Obama's memo, serve as the other guiding document for the DOJ's annual assessment. In 2014, EPIC and other open government groups called on the White House to strengthen the FOIA. The groups urged the President to commit to a "presumption of openness" and to endorse the "fore-seeable harm" standard mandated by the Attorney General. The groups also urged the President to support narrowing the "communication privilege" and end withholding docs more than 25 years old. DOJ OIP: Press Release on 2015 FOIA Report (Jul. 24, 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/073115-foia-press-release.html DOJ: 2015 Annual Agency FOIA Assessment (Jul. 2015) https://epic.org/redirect/073115-oip-foia-assessment.html DOJ: President Obama's 2009 FOIA Memorandum (Jan. 21, 2009) https://epic.org/redirect/073115-obama-2009-foia-memo.html DOJ: Attorney General Holder's 2009 FOIA Guidelines (Mar. 19, 2009) https://epic.org/redirect/073115-holder-2009-foia-guidelines.html EPIC: Recommendations for FOIA Reform http://foia.rocks/recommendations.html EPIC: FOIA Cases https://epic.org/foia/ EPIC: Open Government https://www.epic.org/open_gov/ EPIC: FOIA.ROCKS http://foia.rocks/

CHILE PINOCHET DOCS Los Quemados: Chile's Pinochet Covered up Human Rights Atrocity Chilean Dictator Rejected Police Report Identifying Army Units which Burned Alive Teenage Protesters in 1986 ► http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB523-Los-Quemados-Chiles-Pinochet-Covered-up-Human-Rights-Atrocity/ ► National Security Archive / by Peter Kornbluh Jul 31 2015 ► Jul 31. General Augusto Pinochet refused to accept a police report identifying his own military as responsible for burning two teenage protesters alive in July 1986, according to declassified

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 3

U.S. documents posted today by the National Security Archive. Pinochet's action initiated a high-level cover-up of the infamous human rights atrocity known as the case of "Los Quemados" - the burned ones - which killed 19-year old Rodrigo Rojas de Negri and severely disfigured 18-year old Carmen Gloria Quintana. The cover-up, which lasted almost three decades, included kidnapping and intimidation of witnesses and pressure on Chilean judges and lawyers, according to top secret White House, CIA and Defense Department records. Yesterday, a Chilean judge ordered the arrest of an Army officer and four members of his patrol, in addition to seven others detained last week, for dousing Rojas and Quintana with a flammable liquid, setting them on fire and dumping them in a ditch to die, following a street protest against military rule on July 2, 1986. Both initially survived; but Rojas, sequestered by the military in a clinic with inadequate facilities, died from burns over 60 percent of his body four days later. Only five days after Rojas died, according to a detailed State Department cable, General Rodolfo Stange, chief of the Chilean police and also a member of Pinochet's ruling junta, presented him with an investigative report identifying the army units responsible for the atrocity. "President Pinochet told General Stange that he did not believe the report, and he refused to receive the report," according to the declassified cable. Stange subsequently provided the report to one of Pinochet's deputies, Army vice-commander Santiago Sinclair, who promised an investigation "within 48 hours." Instead of acting on the report, however, Sinclair oversaw intense efforts to silence witnesses and bury evidence, according to a soldier who recently broke his years of silence. "One eyewitness was briefly kidnapped, blindfolded, and threatened if he did not change his testimony," the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency reported in an intelligence assessment classified TOP SECRET RUFF UMBRA. "Some members of the government will quite likely continue to intimidate the witnesses in order to persuade them to change their testimony, thereby clearing the military." According to a heavily censored CIA intelligence report, titled "Government of Chile Pressure to Drop Investigation and Prosecution of Rojas Case," regime officials intimidated judges and lawyers and intervened to stall legal efforts in the courts to bring those responsible to justice. The case of Los Quemados received significant attention in the United States because Rojas was a resident of Washington D.C., where he lived with his exiled mother, Veronica de Negri. President Ronald Reagan received a secret briefing paper on the atrocity, which stated that Chile's own intelligence service "has fingered Army personnel as clearly involved." The murder of Rojas "drove the final wedge between Washington and the Pinochet regime," according to The Pinochet File, written by National Security Archive analyst Peter Kornbluh, and contributed to Reagan's decision to withdraw support for the regime and press for a return to civilian rule. According to Kornbluh, who obtained the Rojas documents for his book, the U.S. records could bolster the testimony of witnesses in Chile and provide evidence in the upcoming prosecution. "Carmen Quintana and Rodrigo Rojas, who I watched grow up in Washington, deserve legal and historical justice," he noted. "The declassified U.S. records can advance both international memory of the victims and, after so many years, legal accountability for the atrocity committed against them."

UK MORE AND MORE SECRETIVE UK faces more secret government with clampdown on information Ministers join civil servants in attack on Freedom of Information Act ► www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2015/jul/22/uk-faces-more-secret-government-with-clampdown-on-information ► The Guardian / by Richard Norton-Taylor ► Stringer: Kees Kalkman / VDAmok / Utrecht NL / kees@amok.antenna.nl Jul 24 2015 ► Jul 22. Whitehall mandarins - the permanent government - are fighting back, with the enthusiastic support of present and former cabinet ministers. The 2000 Freedom of Information Act was introduced by a new Blair government despite opposition from senior civil servants. It will now be watered down, making it even more difficult for the public and the media to discover the truth. From the start, Whitehall managed to introduce a host of exceptions in the act, including the activities of the security and intelligence agencies and anything relating to “national security”, a term I have mentioned before covers a multitude of sins. To cite one example relating to events many decades ago: in a preface to The Defence of the Realm, his official history of MI5, Christopher Andrew says “one significant excision” demanded by Whitehall was “hard to justify”.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 4

The censored passage relates to a chapter entitled the “Wilson Plot” - a reference to attempts to smear the former Labour prime minister and destablise his government. I asked the Cabinet Office to release the information. It refused, quoting the exemption relating to security matters. Exemptions in the FOI Act are reinforced elsewhere. Whitehall weeders explain the withholding of documents due to be released to the National Archives by referring to section 3(4) of the Public Records Act. This states that official papers can remain secret, indefinitely, “for administrative purposes”, or “for any other special reason”. The person responsible for decisions taken under the Public Records Act is the Lord Chancellor, currently Michael Gove. Gove was reported in the Financial Times last month as saying that “thinking time”, time spent on “considering and redacting” any releases, should be taken into account when calculating how much it costs Whitehall departments to retrieve information under the FOI Act. A visit to the National Archives will tell you just how much time and energy is spent weeding official files, deciding what information should be released, and what kept secret. Official secrecy is expensive; openness much cheaper. Excessive secrecy is even more costly, in more ways than one. The FOI Act has revealed much about government that would otherwise be covered up, including letters written to ministers by the Prince of Wales and, most recently, the disclosure that British pilots have been engaged in strike missions in US or Canadian aircraft over Syria. The government has now set up a commission to review the act, with a remit to consider whether it “adequately recognises the need for a ‘safe space’ for policy development and frank advice”. The body, chaired by former Treasury mandarin Lord Burns, will include Jack Straw, the former Labour foreign and home secretary who (like Blair) has made no secret of his opposition to the FOI Act. The act already exempts from disclosure information relating to policy-making in government, and communications between ministers, and disclosures that “would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice”, or “would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.” These exemptions are subject to a public interest test outweighing the need for such secrecy. As Maurice Frankel, director of the freedom of information campaign, has pointed out, the information commissioner and information tribunal have sometimes ordered disclosure where exchanges are anodyne, the material is old, or the case for openness is overwhelming. “If that balancing test is removed, mistakes, bad decisions, and policy failures caused by deliberately ignoring the evidence, will be concealed”, says Frankel. When the UK government announced the FOI Act review last week, it cited Britain’s first place ranking in the Web Foundation’s open data ranking. The government was confusing open data with open government. Open Government is normally agreed to consist of three main pillars: transparency, participation and collaboration, the foundation points out. Open data, the foundation points out, is data “anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose.” It accuses the government of “misleading the public by blurring the distinction between the two...”. A damning critique.

DRAFT FOR NEW PAKISTAN FOIA RANKS NR 1 IN THE WORLD Pakistan Draft Law Rated Potential Number One ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/pakistan-draft-law-rated-potential-number-one/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 23 2015 ► Jul 23. Pakistan’s draft Right to Information Act has scored an “astonishing 146 points” on the RTI Rating. The score puts the bill 11 points ahead of the best-ranked RTI law in the world, Serbia’s, which got 135 points. The assessment of the Pakistan bill was issued by the Centre for Law and Democracy. The CLD assessment is here and the draft act is available here. The Canadian-based organization suggested a few improvements for the bill, especially by increasing the independence of the proposed three-person Information Commission.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 5

The bill has been pending fore many months without actions, but in early July Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif asked that it be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Federal Cabinet for its approval. (See Freedominfo.org article.) This has no yet occurred. “This is a remarkable draft RTI law,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “It would be wonderful if the government of Pakistan were to pass such a strong law and we would then be very happy to work with them and other stakeholders to support implementation.”

PUBLISHING FOIA’D DOCS DOJ Agnostic on Timing for Publishing FOIA’d Documents ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/doj-agnostic-on-timing-for-publishing-foiad-documents/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 23 2015 ► Jul 21. The Justice Department has no current position on whether first requesters should get a priority look at the documents released before they are made available to the public under a planned “release to one, release to all” policy, according to Melanie Ann Pustay, Director of the Office of Information Policy at the Justice Department. The timing issue popped up quickly as a hot button topic for scoop-jealous journalists after Justice announced its pilot program to assess the value and costs of more online disclosure of documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. (See previous FreedomInfo.org article.) The timing of such online releases will be examined as part of the pilot program being conducted at seven agencies, Pustay said in written answers to questions submitted by FreedomInfo.org. Q: Has Justice made suggestions on the timing of release to requesters vs. release to the public? A. No. This is one of the areas we will be testing during the pilot. In practical terms, there will usually be some lag time between the time that records are turned over to the original requester, and when they can be scanned and coded for posting. But this is certainly an area we want to study, collect data on and get feedback from outside stakeholders, including journalists. We welcome your views. Pustay also provided more detail on the specific units of departments and agencies that will be involved in the six-month-long study. In addition, she described plans for future activities, saying the pilot project is an extension of DOJ efforts to promote proactive disclosure. “In 2009, Attorney General Holder’s FOIA Guidelines encouraged agencies to `readily and systematically post information online in advance of any public request,’ “ she said. “Since 2009, OIP has required agencies to report on the steps taken to increase proactive disclosures, and just this past March our office issued new guidance on this topic.” “So we have been working towards this for some time now by encouraging agencies to post more and more information online proactively,” according to Pustay. She continued: “The idea behind our pilot is to take this even further and to test the feasibility of posting most all FOIA responses so that the records are available to everyone. We think this has real potential to increase transparency and to further the FOIA’s goals of letting the public know what their government is doing.” FreedomInfo.org asked if Justice has already conducted an evaluation of the experience of agencies within the existing FOIAonline system, where full release of FOIA replies is a regular practice. Pustay said Justice has met with the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the FOIA request site used by eleven agencies. EPA is part the pilot “so we will be collecting metrics from them along with the other participating agencies,” Pustay said. EPA System Gives Requesters Short Head Start Separately, EPA provided FreedomInfo.org with some detail on the timing of releases there. Basically, the requester gets a two-hour head start before requested materials goes online. This gap occurs not because of an intentional policy, but rather because of technology. EPA explained in an e-mail: When EPA releases records, in response to a FOIA request, the requester receives a notification that the records have been released and available through FOIAonline. However, use of the search function can have a delay as much as 2 hours while the Endeca search index is refreshed. The public can access these records immediately upon release if they were to go to the case and scroll through records released. Those in the pilot differ in what they post and how they do it. One goal, Pustay said, “will be to study the resources needed for, and how their technology handles, the new task of posting additional FOIA records.” Agencies Participating In its original announcement, Justice indicated which departments and agencies would be participating

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 6

in the study, but without saying which sub-parts would be involved. The agencies participating in the pilot are the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and components or offices of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Justice, and the National Archives and Records Administration, with OIP leading the effort. Pustay supplied the complete list (bolding added): DOJ: Office of Justice Programs DOD: Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff U.S. Northern Command U.S. Southern Command U.S. Strategic Command Defense Finance and Accounting Agency Defense Intelligence Agency The National Guard Bureau DHS: DHS FOIA office plus Office of the Secretary CIS Ombudsman Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Office of the Executive Secretary, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Management Directorate Office of Policy Office of the General Counsel Office of Health Affairs Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Public Affairs NARA: General Counsel’s office (NARA has issued description of its participation.) MCC: all ODNI: all EPA: all Looking Ahead Pustay said Justice is looking at a variety of enhancements to help FOIA requesters and, more broadly, to aid the public in finding answers. She said: We have a lot of ideas for using technology to improve FOIA beyond just the request-making capability. These include, for example, tools that would assist requesters in finding the right agency for making a request, so that requesters who may not know which agency holds the records they want, can enter terms and the technology would guide them to either already posted material that might satisfy their information needs, or would direct them to the correct agency or office if, in fact, a request was needed. We also want to develop tools to improve the public’s ability to readily locate the many records that agencies are posting. Justice is working on this with the 18F unit at the General Services Administration, she said. 18F has created a page called OpenFOIA, “which is a subdomain of FOIA.gov that we have been working on with 18F as part of our efforts to meet the NAP commitment,” Pustay said. NAP is the acronym for the National Action Plan created as part of US membership in the Open Government Partnership. One US commitment is to build a one-stop central portal for making FOIA requests, a yet-fulfilled pledge. (See previous FreedomInfo.org article.) Justice and 18F officials in May said building a central request portal remains a goal. (See Freedominfo.org article.) The OpenFOIA site, Pustay said, “is only the beginning of our work on the NAP commitment and is only one of many additional resources we envision for FOIA.gov.” She continued: “We are actively working on building on all of these efforts right now. As you know, a consolidated request portal is only one part of our commitment. We are also looking at additional tools for our site that will further improve FOIA.” FreedomInfo.org asked for more information about creating a “government-wide library” of FOIA responses, an idea broached by Pustay in a recent Huffington Post interview. She responded to FreedomInfo.org: As I said, we have a lot of ideas for using technology and improving the resources available on FOIA.gov to improve FOIA administration. We think that it is critical that we work both on increasing the amount of material that is posted online as well as on

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 7

making that material easier to locate. It is for this reason that we added a “find” feature on FOIA.gov that allows requesters to search for information that has been published on government websites. Further, in 2013 OIP issued guidance to agencies on using metadata in FOIA documents posted online to build this concept of a government-wide FOIA library. As we look to improve on this type of feature we are of course interested in how we can continue to make FOIA released records and records posted in FOIA libraries more easily accessible to the public. The guidance to which she referred (here) is titled “Using Metadata in FOIA Documents Posted Online to Lay the Foundation for Building a Government-Wide FOIA Library.”

OPEN DATA AND VERIFICATION OF TREATIES Crowd-Sourcing the Treaty Verification Problem ► Source: Steven Aftergood / Secrecy News / FAS / Washington US / www.fas.org Jul 23 2015 ► Jul 23. Verification of international treaties and arms control agreements such as the pending Iran nuclear deal has traditionally relied upon formal inspections backed by clandestine intel-ligence collection. But today, the widespread availability of sensors of many types complemented by social media crea-tes the possibility of crowd-sourcing the verification task using open source data. "Never before has so much information and analysis been so widely and openly available. The opportunities for addressing future [treaty] monitoring challenges include the ability to track activity, materials and components in far more detail than previously, both for purposes of treaty verification and to counter WMD proliferation," according to a recent study from the JASON defense science advisory panel. See Open and Crowd-Sourced Data for Treaty Verification, October 2014. "The exponential increase in data volume and connectivity, and the relentless evolution toward in-expensive -- therefore ubiquitous -- sensors provide a rapidly changing landscape for monitoring and verifying international treaties," the JASONs said. Commercial satellite imagery, personal radiation detectors, seismic monitors, cell phone imagery and video, and other collection devices and systems combine to create the possibility of Public Treaty Monitoring, or PTM. "The public unveiling and confirmation of the Natanz nuclear site in Iran was an important early example of PTM," the report said. "In December 2002, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), an independent policy institute in Washington, DC, released commercial satellite images of Natanz, and based on these images assessed it to be a gas-centrifuge plant for uranium isotope separation, which turned out to be correct." An earlier archetype of public arms control monitoring was the joint verification project initiated in the late 1980s by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Federation of American Scientists and the Soviet Academy of Sciences to devise acceptable methods for verifying deep reductions in nuclear weapons. The NRDC actually installed seismic monitors around Soviet nuclear test sites. In the 1990s, John Pike's Public Eye project pioneered the use of declassified satellite images and newly available commercial imagery for public interest applications. Recently, among many other examples, commercial satellite imagery has been used to track development of China's submarine fleet, as discussed in this report by Hans Kristensen of FAS. Jeffrey Lewis and his colleagues associated with the Armscontrolwonk.com website are regularly using satellite imagery and related analytic tools to advance public understanding of international military programs. "The reason that open source data gathering [for treaty verification] is an easier problem is that, increasingly, at least some of it will happen as a matter of course," the JASONs said. More and more people carry mobile phones, are connected to the Internet, and actively use social media. Even with no specific effort to create incentives or crowd-sourcing mechanisms there is likely to be a wealth of images and sensor data publicly and freely shared from practically every country and region in the world." The flood of open source data naturally does not solve all verification problems. Much of the data collected may be of poor quality, and some of it may be erroneous or even deliberately deceptive. There are "enormous difficulties still to be faced and work to be done before claiming confidence in the reliability of data obtained from open sources," the JASON report said. "The validity of the original data is especially problematic with social media, in that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable (especially when reporting on unanticipated or extreme events) and there can be strong reinforcement of messages -- whether true or not -- when a topic 'goes viral' on the Internet."

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 8

"In addition to such errors, taken here to be honest mistakes and limitations of sensors, there is the possibility of willful deception and spoofing of the raw data, including through conscious insertion or duplication of false information." "Key to validating the findings of open sources will be confirming the independence of two or more of the sources. Multi-reporting -- 'retweeting' -- or posting of the same information is no substitute for establishing credibility." On the other hand, the frequent repetition of information "can provide an indication of importance or urgency... The occurrence of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake was first noted in the United States as an anomalous increase in text-messaging." Because the information moved at near light speed, it arrived before the seismic waves could reach US seismic stations. "Commercial satellites have also provided valuable data for analysis of (non-)compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and open sources proved valuable in detecting the use of chemical weapons in Aleppo, and in subsequent steps to remove such weapons from Syria. They also informed the world about the Russian troop movements and threats to Ukraine." While the US Government should take steps to promote and exploit open source data collection, the report said, it should do so cautiously. "It is crucial that citizens or groups not be put at risk by encouraging open-source activities that might be interpreted as espionage. The line between open source sensors and 'spy gear' is thin." In short, the JASON report concluded, "Rapid advances in technology have led to the global proliferation of inexpensive, networked sensors that are now providing significant new levels of societal transparency. As a result of the increase in quality, quantity, connectivity and availability of open information and crowd-sourced analysis, the landscape for verifying compliance with international treaties has been greatly broadened." Among its recommendations, the JASON report urged the government to "promote transparency and [data] validation by... keeping open-source information and analysis open to the maximum degree possible and appropriate." Within the U.S. intelligence community, such transparency has notably been embraced by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency under its director Robert Cardillo. But the Central Intelligence Agency has chosen to move in the opposite direction by shutting off much of the limited public access to open source materials that previously existed. Generations of non-go-vernmental analysts who were raised on products of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service now must turn elsewhere, since CIA terminated public access to the DNI Open Source Center in 2013. FAS has asked the Obama Administration to restore and increase public access to open source analyses from the DNI Open Source Center as part of the forthcoming Open Government National Action Plan.

OBAMA SHOULD RELEASE MH-17 INTEL ► https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/22/obama-should-release-mh-17-intel/ ► Consortiumnews ► Stringer: Kees Kalkman / VDAmok / Utrecht NL / kees@amok.antenna.nl Jul 23 2015 ► Jul 22. A year ago, the U.S. government issued a sketchy report on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down citing “social media” and other flimsy data implicating eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia, but then – as hard intelligence became available – went silent. Now, U.S. intelligence veterans are demanding release of that intel. MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) SUBJECT: Releasing an Intelligence Report on Shoot-Down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 It has been a year since the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, resulting in the death of 298 passengers and crew. The initial response by the U.S. government supported the contention that the likely perpetrators were anti-government forces in southeastern Ukraine (the customary media misnomer for them is “separatists”), and that they were possibly aided directly by Moscow. On July 29, 2014, we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) suggested that the United States Government report publicly what intelligence it actually had relating to the shoot-down lest the incident turn into another paroxysm of blaming Russia without cause. We are still waiting for that report. Executive Summary Tensions between the United States and Russia over Ukraine are fast reaching a danger point. A

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 9

major contributing factor in the American public’s negative perception of Moscow is last year’s downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. A public report detailing the investigation of the incident by the Dutch Safety authorities is expected by October but the draft is reportedly already in the hands of the United States government. There is speculation that the report will dovetail with media and leaked government sources that have placed primary blame on the ethnic Russian Ukrainians in southeastern Ukraine opposed to the government put in place after the Western-engineered coup of Feb. 22, 2014, in Kiev. As the relationship with Moscow is of critical importance, if only because Russia has the military might to destroy the U.S., careful calibration of the relationship is essential. If the United States signs on to a conclusion that implicates Russia without any solid intelligence to support that contention it will further damage an already fractious bilateral relationship, almost certainly unnecessarily. It is our opinion that a proper investigation of the downing would involve exploring every possibility to determine how the evidence holds up. Currently, the only thing the American public and worldwide audiences know for sure is that the plane was shot down. But the shoot-down might have been accidental, carried out by any one of a number of parties. Or it might have been orchestrated by anti-government forces, with Moscow either conniving in some way in that action or not. It is also possible that the downing was deliberately carried out by the Kiev government or one of Ukraine’s powerful oligarchs to implicate the anti-Kiev forces and Russia in this mass murder. And finally, though less likely, it might even be that based on the available intelligence it is impossible to determine who did it. In light of the high stakes involved both in terms of our extremely important relationship with Russia as well as in establishing a trustworthy narrative that does credit to the White House, the failure of the Administration to issue a coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to determine who was responsible is therefore puzzling. If the United States government knows who carried out the attack on the plane it should produce the evidence. If it does not know, it should say so. In what follows, we former intelligence professionals with a cumulative total of some 360 years in various parts of U.S. intelligence provide our perspective on the issue and request for a second time that the intelligence over the downing be made public to counter the fuzzy and flimsy evidence that has over the past year been served up – some of it based on “social media.” The Russian Dimension It would not be the first time for a tragic incident to be exploited for propaganda reasons with potentially grave consequences. We refer to the behavior of the Reagan administration in the immediate aftermath of the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983. Hours after the tragic shoot-down on August 30, 1983, the Reagan administration used its very accomplished propaganda machine to manage a narrative emphasizing Soviet culpability for deliberately killing all 269 people aboard KAL-007 in full knowledge that it was a civilian airliner. In reality, the airliner had been shot down after it strayed hundreds of miles off course and penetrated Russia’s airspace over sensitive military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s identity – a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier – Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire. The Soviets soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan dismissively explained as an “understandable accident”). The story of KAL-007 should come to mind when considering the fate of MH-17. There might be legitimate reasons for opposing the increasingly authoritarian government of President Vladimir Putin, but exploiting a tragedy does not equate to constructive statecraft for dealing with an adversary. At a minimum, the White House and State Department one year ago displayed unseemly haste in deciding to be first out of the starting gate with a narrative implicating Russia, at least indirectly – a narrative that may not be based on fact. That twelve months have passed and there has been no effort made to either correct or amplify the record is unacceptable. Someone Is Lying Both Russia and Ukraine deny any active role in the MH-17 shoot down. So do the anti-coup forces in southeastern Ukraine. Someone knows something and is lying to conceal a role in the incident. From the U.S. perspective what happened needs to be clarified and become a matter of public record. No other nation has the resources that the U.S. had to come up with an evidence-based answer; and intelligence collection and analysis are the tools that must be used. The information released to date does not bear close scrutiny; it does not permit an informed judgment as to who is lying about the

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 10

shoot-down of Flight 17. One year ago today, National Intelligence Director James Clapper authorized a background briefing including some sketchy talking points in a very short “Government Assessment” for selected mainstream journalists. It was just five days after the shoot-down and two days after Secretary of State Kerry pointed the finger of blame at anti-coup Ukrainians and Russia. Understandably, corroboration was being sought. Like Kerry’s presentations on the Sunday talk shows of July 20, 2014, however, much of the “Government Assessment” was derived from postings on “social media.” The July 22, 2014 briefing addressed, inconclusively, the key issue of who fired the Buk anti-aircraft missile widely believed to have downed the airliner on July 17, 2014. No update to that five-day-after “Government Assessment” has been provided over the past year. Are we asked to believe that one year later the intelligence community still cannot adduce evidence that goes beyond insinuation regarding the Buk missile? The July 22, 2014 briefing also suggested that the missile might have been fired by a Ukrainian “defector.” Has there been no clarification on that point? It is, frankly, very hard for us to believe that the U.S. intelligence community has been unable to expand its understanding of these key issues over the past year. To be sure, there has long been a tendency in Washington to “fix the intelligence around the policy,” to quote the Downing Street memo relating to the inglorious start of the Iraq War. More recently, we note the claim repeatedly made by Secretary of State John Kerry on August 30, 2013, that “we know” the regime of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical incidents near Damascus nine days before. In that case, Kerry also cited a “Government Assessment” to support his charges. We saw the introduction of this unique genre of “assessment,” instead of the normally required “Intelligence Assessment,” as evidence that honest intelligence analysts were refusing to go along with the preferred narrative. In fact, Kerry’s accusations turned out to have been based on false and even fabricated intelligence provided by opponents of the Syrian government. Choosing to Reveal the Truth If the White House has concrete, probative intelligence regarding MH-17, we strongly suggest that the time is right to approve it for release before the “blame Russia” narrative becomes completely dominant. The American people are perfectly capable of judging for themselves what took place but they need to have all the information presented without bias and without any attempt to evade unpleasant conclusions. And it should be done even given the risk of compromising “sources and methods,” as the broader issue of war or peace with Russia is something that should be of paramount concern to every American. What is needed is an Interagency Intelligence Assessment – the mechanism used in the past to present significant findings. We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that the draft Dutch report contradicts some of the real intelligence that has been collected. Resorting to another “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” to sidestep the accountability issue is not appropriate and is itself an insult to the integrity and professionalism of the intelligence community. Mr. President, we believe you need to seek out honest intelligence analysts now and hear them out, particularly if they are challenging or even opposing the prevailing groupthink narrative. They might well convince you to take steps to deal more forthrightly with the shoot-down of MH-17 and minimize the risk that relations with Russia might degenerate into a replay of the Cold War with the threat of escalation into thermonuclear conflict. In all candor, we suspect that at least some of your advisers fail to appreciate the enormity of that danger. The courtesy of a reply is requested. For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.) Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, National Security Agency Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.) Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS) Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.) John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003 Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.) David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.) Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 11

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.) Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.) Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.) Peter Van Buren, US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS) Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

OBSTRUCTING THE CHURCH COMMITTEE FINDINGS White House Efforts to Blunt 1975 Church Committee Investigation into CIA Abuses Foreshadowed Executive-Congressional Battles after 9/11 Advisers to President Ford Sought to Protect CIA's Image Abroad by Having Its Capabilities "Cloaked in Mystery and Held in Awe" Ford Administration Stratagem of Withholding Sensitive Intelligence, Spearheaded by Dick Cheney, Set Tone for Future Clashes between Claims of Secrecy and Public's Right to Know ► http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB522-Church-Committee-Faced-White-House-Attempts-to-Curb-CIA-Probe/

► National Security Archive / by John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi Jul 20 2015 ► Jul 20. Forty years ago this year, Congress's first serious inquiry into CIA abuses faced many of the same political and bureaucratic obstructions as Senate investigators have confronted in assessing Intelligence Community performance since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Records posted today for the first time by the National Security Archive document the often rough-and-tumble, behind-the-scenes dynamics between Congress and the Executive Branch during the "Year of Intelligence" - highlighted by the investigations of the congressional Church and Pike committees. Among White House and Intelligence Community stated concerns during the period of the Church and Pike inquiries were preserving the effectiveness of the CIA and reassuring future operatives who might fear their "heads may be on the block" for their actions, no matter how well-intentioned. But intelligen-ce officials also worried that disclosures of agency operations would be "disastrous" for CIA's standing in the world: "We are a great power and it is important that we be perceived as such," a memo to the president warned, urging that "our intelligence capability to a certain extent be cloaked in mystery and held in awe." In 1975, it was then-Deputy Chief of Staff Dick Cheney who spearheaded the Ford White House's hostile approach to Congress, which required the CIA to submit all proposed responses to Capitol Hill for prior presidential approval and featured the explicit intent to keep investigators away from the most sensitive records. Those events presaged the battles between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the U.S. Intelligence Community since 2012 over plans to publish the former's 6,000-page report on the CIA's rendition, detention and interrogation program. Related to today's posting, a much larger compilation of 1,000 documents, many of them previously classified, was published in June 2015 in the online collection CIA Covert Operations II: The Year of Intelligence, 1975, the second in a series on the CIA through the Digital National Security Archive, a joint project with the scholarly publisher ProQuest. Today's e-book touches on the high points of one major aspect of the 1975 experience - the Church committee's efforts to obtain evidence for its inquiry and countervailing work by the White House and CIA to limit and restrict the Senate's access. Documents posted today show that: - The White House of President Gerald R. Ford, spearheaded by deputy assistant to the president Richard Cheney, quickly seized control of the administration's response to the congressional investigations. - Lists of records to which the Church committee requested access for its investigation were reviewed in detail and Mr. Cheney ultimately decided whether to provide them in each case. - Specific records in categories approved for access were first sent to the White House for individual review and recommendation by National Security Council staff, followed by approval from Mr. Cheney. - The White House required the CIA to propose measures to govern Church committee access to CIA materials. These accommodation measures were then reviewed both by Deputy Assistant Cheney and Counsel to the President Philip Buchen. - CIA accommodation measures were explicitly designed to keep Church committee investigators away from its most important records. - National Security Council officials convened at the White House to express themselves in advance regarding proposed CIA testimony to the Church committee.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 12

A REVERSE-FOIA ACTION Court Rejects Chiquita's Bid to Hide Terror Payment Records US Appeals Court Upholds National Security Archive Victory in Fruit Company's "Reverse-FOIA" Action ► http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20150717-Court-Rejects-Chiquitas-Bid-to-Hide-Terror-Payment-Records/ ► National Security Archive / by Michael Evans and Angela Bradbery Jul 17 2015 ► Jul 17. In an important victory for transparency and corporate accountability, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has ruled that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should release to the National Security Archive some 9,257 pages of records produced by Chiquita Brands International to the SEC as part of an investigation of the company's illegal payments to a Colombian terrorist organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a group responsible for egregious acts of violence during Colombia's civil war. The National Security Archive is a non-governmental, pro-transparency organization and leading nonprofit user of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Chiquita had argued that release of the records under FOIA would deny it a fair trial in a Florida case brought on behalf of the AUC's victims. Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected Chiquita's argument, writing that, "Neither the [Securities and Exchange] Commission nor the district court hearing this reverse-FOIA action thought release would deprive Chiquita of a fair trial. We agree with them." "The court of appeals' decision is an important victory for FOIA requesters and the public," said Adina Rosenbaum, the Public Citizen attorney who represented the National Security Archive in the appeal. "The decision confirms that the government cannot withhold documents from the public just because they might be of interest to someone involved in litigation. A ruling for Chiquita would have created a huge exemption to the FOIA law, with far-reaching implications. The court did the right thing by rejecting Chiquita's argument that these records are exempt from disclosure." The case began in November 2008, when the Archive filed a pair of FOIA requests with the SEC asking for records relating to SEC and Justice Department investigations of Chiquita's Colombian subsidiary, Banadex, for violations including the illegal AUC payments. In 2007, Chiquita had pled guilty to charges of "engaging in unauthorized transactions" with the AUC, which was designated a global terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in 2001. The D.C. Circuit decision in the FOIA case clears the way for the release of 9,257 pages that Chiquita identified as the most sensitive records that it turned over to the SEC during the course of the investigations. In April 2011, the Archive published some 5,500 pages of Chiquita's records released by the Depart-ment of Justice in response to similar FOIA requests. Those records revealed that Chiquita benefitted from its transactions with both AUC "paramilitary" groups and insurgents from the FARC and ELN guerrilla groups. The records call into question the Justice Department's determination, spelled out in the 2007 plea deal, that there was no evidence of a quid pro quo with the illegal groups. "More than eight years ago, Chiquita became the first U.S. company to be convicted for engaging in transactions with a global terrorist organization," said Michael Evans, senior analyst at the National Security Archive. "Finally the victims of AUC violence and the general public will get a look at what might be the most important document collection ever assembled on corporate ties to terrorism."

UK: CRACKDOWN ON THE RIGHT TO KNOW New FOI Commission heralds "crackdown on the right to know" ► https://www.cfoi.org.uk/ ► Campaign for Freedom of Information Jul 17 2015 ► Jul 17. A major attack on the public’s right to information is likely following the govern-ment’s announcement today of a new Commission to review the Freedom of Information Act, accord-ing to the Campaign for Freedom of Information. The Commission has been asked to consider whether new measures are needed to protect the government’s internal discussions from disclosure and to reduce the ‘burden’ of the FOI Act. The Campaign’s director Maurice Frankel said: “The government is clearly proposing to crack down on FOI. Ministers want certainty that policy discussions will not only take place in secret but be kept secret afterwards. They don’t like the fact that the Act requires the case for confidentiality to be weighed against the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner and Tribunal give substantial weight to the need to protect ongoing government discussions and the frankness of future

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 13

exchanges. But after a decision has been announced they sometimes order disclosure where exchanges are anodyne, the material is old or the case for openness is overwhelming. If that balancing test is removed mistakes, bad decisions and policy failures caused by deliberately ignoring the evidence will be concealed for 20 years.” The Campaign pointed out that the FOI Act had been fully examined only 3 years ago, by the Justice Select Committee in its post legislative scrutiny of the Act. The committee reported in 2012 that FOI had proved “a significant enhancement of our democracy”, that the Act was “was working well” and concluded that “We do not believe that there has been any general harmful effect at all on the ability to conduct business in the public service, and in our view the additional burdens are outweighed by the benefits.” For an account of the way in which recent Tribunal decisions have protected genuinely frank discussions but ordered disclosure of inconsequential exchanges see this article on the Campaign’s web site.

INDIA WANTS MORE ACTIVE DISCLOSURE India Looks to Encourage More Proactive Disclosure ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/india-looks-to-encourage-more-proactive-disclosure/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 17 2015 ► Jul 16. The Indian government is pressing agencies to proactively release more of the information repeatedly sought by requesters under the Right to Information Act. The government has asked all departments to do an analysis of information sought often by applicants and suo-motu make such details public, according to media reports such as an article in The New Indian Express. The report says the effort is in response to a recommendation by a Parliamentary Standing Committee. “All departments must make an analysis of information which is sought most often from applicants and provide it on their website as suo-motu disclosure,” according to the 76th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. The Department of Personnel and Training wrote to all ministries July 9 urging compliance with the committee’s recommendations. “Despite directions, not all ministries have followed it. Some ministries have started putting RTI queries and their response on their websites. Action will be taken if they do not start doing it,” a senior DoPT official is quoted as saying. Similar messages have been sent in 2013 and in 2014. An Oct. 21, 2014 order called for uploading RTI replies and appeals requests. (See previous FreedomInfo.org article.) Separately, the department June 29 issued another order on suo-moto disclosure, based on the recommendations of a committee of experts. The order tells departments to post “all details of the public authority” on their websites and specifically mentions disclosure of “information relating to recruitment, promotion and transfers.” The order says there must be “an effective system to address the grievances of affected persons.” It urges training for employees on “the virtues of transparency” In another development, the DoPT announced that states can get financial aid to set up facilities for online filing of RTI applications and other initiatives aimed at simplification and promotion of the transparency law, including establishment of helplines in local languages, reported The Deccan Herald. Companies Compile Lists of RTI Regulars Another effort to reduce the number of RTI requests is being undertaken by public sector companies. They are uniting through their umbrella lobby organization, the Standing Committee on Public Enterprises or Scope, to draw up a list of regular requesters, aiming to use this list to block such requests. “The companies claim they have the right to do this, since repeated information sought from them can be pieced together by rivals as price sensitive data,” according to an article by Subhomoy Bhattacharjee in The Indian Express. U D Choubey, Director General of Scope, said habitual seekers of “irrelevant clarifications” under RTI are affecting the productivity of public sector enterprises, according to the aricle. “Scope has written to all its constituent public sector companies for providing the list of habitual seekers of queries. Once the list is obtained, (we) shall take up the issue with the august institution of Central Information Commission (CIC),” he said.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 14

SPAIN: FOIA FURTHER LIMITED Groups Condemn Spanish FOI Implementation Proposal ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/groups-condemn-spanish-foi-implementation-proposal/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 17 2015 ► Jul 15. A draft regulation to implement Spain’s freedom of information law came under sharp criticism July 13 from Access Info Europe and the 65-member Coalición Pro Acceso. A press release called the proposed regulation “a deliberate attempt by the government to further limit an already weak law and have called for it to be redrafted with urgency.” “Particularly egregious features of the Regulation include inverting the public interest test so that the balance tips in favour of secrecy, and reducing further the kinds of information that can be requested,” according to the groups, who said government held a “poorly-publicised consultation on the draft.” The groups objected to the exclusion of Committee of Ministers’ (Cabinet) deliberations by reference to a 1997 law, and “subjugating the transparency law to any other specific law that limits access.” “The Regulation also closes the door on the possibility of making requests by email or post, permitting requests only via the transparency portal or in person,” the release says, continuing, “Currently requests can only be submitted by the few Spanish citizens and residents with an electronic ID or special access code that is hard to obtain.” Lack of clarity and bad draftsmanship are also criticized in a submission by the groups. The full submission (in Spanish) is available in Word and PDF.

DOCS ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM Iran's Nuclear Program - Then and Now Documents from 1970s Presage Issues Surrounding July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Deal with P5+1 ► http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb521-Irans-Nuclear-Program-1975-vs-2015 ► National Security Archive / by Malcolm Byrne and William Burr Jul 15 2015 ► Jul 14. Four decades ago - in the mid-1970s - U.S. and Iranian officials haggled over a range of concerns that uncannily prefigured similar clashes that surfaced prior to today's history-making nuclear accord between the P5+1 governments and Iran, according to documents posted today by the National Security Archive at www.nsarchive.org. The documents from the 1970s record the Shah of Iran's insistence that his country had "rights" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop such a program. The Shah further claimed his interest was only in peaceful activities, and cited among other justifications the need to be able to compensate for the eventual decline in Iran's oil reserves. The current Iranian government, whose predecessors overthrew the Shah in 1979, has propounded the same arguments. For their part, Obama administration officials have expressed concerns - echoed far more sharply by opponents of a deal - about the threat of proliferation inherent in any agreement that allows Iran to develop nuclear energy resources. Doubts have also sprung up from many quarters in recent years that Tehran's aims are purely peaceful, and skepticism is even more rife about the Islamic Republic's claim that it needs to address the fact that its oil resources are finite. As during the Ford and Carter years, worries about nuclear weapons being available for supporting terrorism have hampered the current talks. Today's posting draws heavily on previous National Security Archive electronic publications compiled and edited by William Burr whose archival research and Freedom of Information Act / Mandatory Declassification Review requests over the years have steadily broken new ground on this critical subject. The descriptions for the 1970s documents below are edited versions of material produced by Dr. Burr. For purposes of comparison and permanent access, this posting also includes the text of the July 14, 2015, Iran - P5+1 agreement and official remarks by President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

US INTEL DOCS ON EUROPE, 1945-1995 ► www.brill.com/products/online-resources/us-intelligence-europe-1945-1995?utm_campaign=5900532_15%20July%20Histo-

ry%20news%202&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Brill&dm_i=25XA%2C3IGVO%2CK0HT12%2CCL6EU%2C1 ► Brill Jul 15 2015 ► This unique collection of over 4,000 formerly classified U.S. government documents

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 15

provides a comprehensive survey of the U.S. intelligence community’s activities in Europe, including Eastern Europe, Turkey and Cyprus, covering the time period from the end of World War II to the fall of the Iron Curtain and beyond. See also the companion collections Cold War Intelligence and U.S Intelligence on the Middle East.

NEW ROSENBERG DOCS New Rosenberg Grand Jury Transcripts To Be Released Key Testimony from Ethel's Brother, David Greenglass, May Show Perjury ► http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20150714-New-Rosenberg-Grand-Jury-Transcripts-Released-July-15-2015/ ► National Security Archive Jul 15 2015 ► Jul 14. Tomorrow the public will see for the first time the actual transcripts of previously secret grand jury testimony by Ethel Rosenberg’s brother, David Greenglass, in the espionage trial from the early 1950s that sent Ethel and Julius Rosenberg to the electric chair on charges of spying for the Soviet Union. To explain the documents and provide context, the National Security Archive will host a press briefing at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, at Gelman Library, George Washington University, 7th floor (where the Archive is located), 2130 H Street NW, Washington D.C. 20037. The U.S. government has decided not to appeal the federal court decision on May 19, 2015 ordering the release of the Greenglass testimony, in a lawsuit brought by the National Security Archive and major historical and archival associations. Previously in 2008, the petitioners succeeded in winning release of most of the other Rosenberg grand jury testimony, but Greenglass - who was still alive at the time - objected and the court declined to include his transcripts. Greenglass passed away in 2014 and the plaintiffs re-opened the case before Judge Alvin Hellerstein in federal district court in New York. The transcripts will show whether Greenglass mentioned to the grand jury what became his most incendiary charge at trial against his sister, that she had typed up his handwritten notes for delivery to the Soviets. Historians have now concluded that he lied on the witness stand. Copies of the transcripts will be available on the Archive's web site, www.nsarchive.org, and at the press briefing at 2 p.m. The government has announced that the National Archives and Records Administration will also post the transcripts starting at noon on July 15 at www.nara.gov. Together with the Archive, the petitioners included the American Historical Association, the American Society of Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, the Society of American Archivists, and journalist Sam Roberts who authored a biography of Greenglass. Representing the petitioners are Georgetown University Law Center professor David C. Vladeck and Debra L. Raskin of the New York firm Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, who also authored the original 2008 petitions that opened the previous Rosenberg grand jury records. Participating in the briefing will be Rosenberg case experts Brad Snyder and Steve Usdin, together with Archive director Tom Blanton and the petititioners' lead attorney David Vladeck.

MALTA: A CONTRACT DISCLOSED Appeals Tribunal says Malta Enterprise must disclose Sai Mizzi contract to MaltaToday Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests upheld by appeals tribunal: Malta Enterprise must disclose contracts of employment of Sai Mizzi Liang and Shiv Nair to newspaper ► www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/55007/freedom_of_information_act_foia_requests_upheld_by_appeals_tribunal_m-

alta_enterprise_must_disclose_contracts_of_employment_of_sai_mizzi_liang_and_shiv_nair_to_newspaper#.VdA6_2vov4b ► MaltaToday / by Matthew Vella ► Source: David Goldberg / FOIANet / Madrid Spain / www.foiadvocates.net Jul 13 2015 ► Jul 12. An appeals tribunal has overturned a decision by the Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC), that upheld Malta Enterprise’s decision not to disclose the contract of employment for investment envoys Sai Mizzi Liang, wife of energy minister Konrad Mizzi, and British national Shiv Nair. Nair was appointed on a €6,000 fee to assist minister Mizzi on energy matters; while Mizzi Liang was appointed as a trade envoy to Asia, and later consul-general in Shanghai, on an annual €160,000 salary. The decision by the appeals tribunal was made after Prime Minister Joseph Muscat published extracts of Mizzi Liang’s contract, following a rare appearance she made as part of a Maltese delegation to

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 16

China. “It is an uncontested fact that Ms Sai Mizzi’s appointment with Malta Enterprise is a matter of public interest, not only because her husband is a member of the executive, but because her salary is paid out of public funds which should be under the greatest scrutiny possible, because this [Malta Enterprise] is a public entity,” the tribunal, chaired by Dr Noel Camilleri, said. The tribunal said that since the appointments are of public interest, Malta Enterprise had to accede to MaltaToday’s requests while safeguarding any personal data included in the documents requested. The tribunal’s decision was bolstered by references to case law and parliamentary speeches on the legislation at the time, saying that the FOIA itself allowed a wide range of documents to be available to the public, and that refusal of disclosure had to be backed up by arguments proving that disclosure would harm the public interest. “It is a fact that since Ms Mizzi is the wife of a government minister, she is considered a public person so for the sake of transparency it is also important that the application of the FOIA and Data Protection Act are done in a way that reflects the spirit of the legislator when these two laws, so important for transparency in government administration, were passed.” But the tribunal said that the IDPC could not consider Mizzi’s contract of employment as part of Malta Enterprise’s confidential operations at attracting investment. Originally, Malta Enterprise requested that it should be the IDPC that determines whether disclosing the information would breach the two envoys’ privacy rights. In his decision, IDPC Saviour Cachia considered that while personal data could be processed if “carried out in the public interest”, he also invoked Article 21(5) of the Malta Enterprise Act, which binds its investment envoys to treat “documents and information relating to [Malta Enterprise] as secret and confidential.” But the appeals tribunal overturned this reasoning, saying that this clause dealt with secret information relative to the operations of Malta Enterprise, and when this concerns the country’s economic development and investment. It agreed with MaltaToday’s appeal when it pointed out that the IDPC did not make it clear as to why disclosure of the information would not serve the public interest, when it was the Prime Minister – on a political whim – who later decided to present the allegedly ‘confidential’ information in the House of Representatives. Sai Mizzi Liang - the facts Her appointment as a trade envoy in Shanghai was Labour’s first blemish, sparking accusations of nepotism. Eventually it was also revealed that she had been made Malta’s consul-general to Shanghai in 2014. Her contract was never published, and then excerpts were only made public in the summer of 2014, when Prime Minister Joseph Muscat published Mizzi Liang’s contract in parliament after she accompanied the Maltese delegation in China – a rare public appearance that forced Muscat’s hand into explaining how much the minister’s wife was being paid for her Shanghai posting. Foreign minister George Vella has declared that it was not him who decided that she should be appointed consul, but that he had no objection to the appointment. Together with a salary of more than €73,000 a year, more than half of which is non-taxable, Sai Mizzi also receives a representation allowance of €3,261 a year; a child allowance of almost €3,000 a year; a fully paid residence; an official car with fully paid expenses and fuel; and the full reimbursement of the use of her mobile phone. She is also entitled for payment of private schooling for her children – up to €18,783 a year; a 90 per cent reimbursement of medical, dental, and ophthalmic care for all members of her family; a one-time settling-in and outfit allowance; and 15 free flight tickets between Malta and Beijing for all members of her family, 10 of the tickets being business class. The total amount per year works out at a little less than €160,000. Malta’s ambassador to China in Beijing, Clifford Borg Marks, is paid a €34,000 salary and €40,000 for his posting overseas.

INDIA: 39 RTI-ACTIVISTS KILLED IN 10 YEARS 10 years of RTI Act: 39 activists dead, 275 assaulted, says report ► www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/10-years-of-rti-39-activists-dead-275-harassed-says-report/article1-1366909.aspx ► Hindustan Times / by Chetan Chauhan ► Source: CPDI RTI Newsletter / Pakistan / www.cpdi-pakistan.org Jul 13 2015 ► Jul 8. When right to information activist Guru Prasad Shukla was beaten to death by fellow villagers last month, he became the 39th person to lay down his life for exercising the

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 17

transparency law in its first decade. Another 275 people have reportedly been assaulted or harassed for invoking the law to raise uncomfortable questions before those in power. The 50-year-old Shukla had sought information about development work in his village and was allegedly killed by village head Triloki Nath Dubey and his relatives in broad daylight. Most other victims, too, suffered for exposing small scams in the countryside by using the law that came into force on October 2, 2005, the 136th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. “The RTI law doesn’t provide that the name of the applicant shouldn’t be disclosed by the public authority. As soon as such an application is filed, the identity of the person gets disclosed to those whose interest may get harmed if the information is disclosed,” said Ventakesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, a Delhi-based advocacy group that has collated data on RTI victims. Under pressure from civil society, the UPA government enacted a law to protect whistle-blowers, including public servants. But, the NDA government did not notify it and moved amendments expanding the list of those exempted, which is being considered by a standing committee of Parliament. Ajay Dubey, an RTI activist from Madhya Pradesh, who filed public interest litigation in the Supreme Court in October 2014 seeking a CBI probe into the Vyapam scam, said seeking information on any scam always led to harassment and undue pressure to withdraw the application. In a rare instance in 2011, Bihar police established that 54-year-old Ram Vilas Singh was shot dead in Lakhi Sarai town for asking police why an accused in a murder case was not arrested. He had also filed several other applications seeking information on corruption in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the world’s largest job guarantee programme. But, the police action happened only after the National Human Rights Commission sought a report from Bihar police. The case witnessed a quiet burial and most of the conspirators were out on bail, Nayak said. A similar fate was witnessed in the cases of RTI activists such as Niyamat Ansari, who exposed corruption in the MGNREGS in Jharkhand, Amit Jetwa, who sought information on illegal mining in Gujarat’s Gir forest, and Satish Shetty, who attempted to highlight land grabbing in Pune. All three were murdered. A Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative report shows the effectiveness of the law has been diluted. Around 20% of the posts of information commissioners mandated to ensure speedy redress of grievances of RTI users are lying vacant in states, a marginal increase over the 2014 level. In five states, information commissions were headless as of June 2015 and the newly carved Telangana was yet to have one. “Most of the state commissions have become parking lots for retired bureaucrats,” an RTI activist said.

TUNISIA: FOIA DRAFT SHELVED? Tunisia: Government must not shelve Access to Information Bill ► https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38055/en/tunisia:-government-must-not-shelve-access-to-information-bill ► ARTICLE 19 Jul 11 2015 ► Jul 10. ARTICLE 19 and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network express their deep concern following the sudden decision of the government to withdraw the draft fundamental law on the right to access information without any apparent reason just prior to its final adoption. We call on the Tunisian government to rescind its decision and urge the expedited adoption of the law. On 3 July, nearly a year after its presentation to the Parliament, the Tunisian Government abruptly announced they were withdrawing the Draft Fundamental Law on the Right of Access to Information without explanation.The draft had already passed through all the formal stages of consultationin the committees of the National Constituent Assembly and the People's Representatives’ Assembly and a final report had been produced in preparation for its presentationto the plenary of the People’s Representatives’ Assembly for its final approval. ARTICLE 19 and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network are surprised at the sudden with-drawal of the law just when it was ready for adoption without any explanation for the decision. “The Tunisian authorities must complete their efforts to ensure the right to information, which is gua-ranteed by the new Tunisian Constitution, by adopting the draft law and ensuring its proper implement-ation,” said Rami Salhi, Director of Maghreb Office of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. The withdrawal of the draft law sets a concerning precedent, as the first since the formation of the new parliament, refraining to legislate the new constitutional right to access of information, a major achieve-

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 18

ment of the revolution. “The withdrawal of the access to information bill is a step in the wrong direction” said David Diaz-Jogeix, Director of Programmesat ARTICLE 19. “Legitimate responses to terror attacks should not undermine efforts to improve government transpa-rency. Governments are more secure when they are accountable,” David Diaz-Jogeix said. The government has ignored requests from civil society for the government to withdraw other draft laws which threaten freedom of expression in Tunisia, such as the draft law on “repressing the offen-ses against armed forces,” which criminalizes any criticism of the armed forces. ARTICLE 19 and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network call on the Tunisian Government to move forward with this important draft law. The proposal is crucial for the Tunisian Parliament to fulfil their responsibility to protect access to information, as outlined in Article 32 of the Constitution and international law, especially considering the great efforts already taken in developing it. The revised version of the draft law is notably more progressive than the provisions in Decree 41/2011 in terms of compliance with international principles on access to information. It is also a key promise in Tunisia’s commitments under the Open Government Partnership.

NOT VEXATIOUS ► Source: Matt Burgess / Transparency Bulletin / London / http://tinyletter.com/FOIDirectory Jul 10 2015 ► Jul 10. 'Not vexatious': was the decision of the Information Commissioner who has sided with journalists over a decision by police which said that continued questions about their RIPA activities shouldn't be answered. If you haven't followed the story for the last few months it goes like this: journalists have continued to ask police forces around the country whether they used RIPA snooping powers to work out who a journalist's source was, this was following a report by the Interception Commissioner which said the practice had happened in 19 police forces; but failed to name the police forces. After having their requests branded as vexatious journalists have complained to the regulator. The first decision to be made about the cases was given to the Oxford Mail this week. It's an important decision for journalists and their ability to investigate matters in the public interest. The newspaper quotes the decision: The ruling said: “[The Commissioner] accepts that detailed requests in relation to RIPA can be burdensome for the police service as a whole given the co-ordination that may be required in certain types of cases. However, he notes that the request does not require any such detail. “It only seeks to ascertain whether TVP is one of the 19 forces referred to in the IOCCO Report and, if so, how many cases were involved and the type of newspaper/s that the authorisation/s specified. Press Gazette, also called vexatious, reported on the decision here. The Information Commissioner's decision notice is here.

RELEASE FOR ONE, RELEASE TO ALL Federal agencies announce limited trial of "release for one, release to all" FOIA policy ► www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/federal-agencies-announce-limited-trial-release-one-release-all-foia ► RCFP / by Adam Marshall Jul 10 2015 ► Jul 9. With little public fanfare, seven federal agencies have announced a controversial trial program of publishing documents responsive to most Freedom of Information Act requests online. Under the program, known as a “Release-to-One is Release-to-All” policy, any member of the public will presumably have access to the result of almost any FOIA request. Few other details were released in a brief announcement posted on several agency websites. It re-mains to be seen whether there will be a delay between sending responsive documents to the requester and posting them for the general public, or whether requesters will simply be sent a link to a public website that already hosts the documents. Agencies participating in the six-month pilot include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and certain components of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the National Archives and Records Administration. In order to mitigate privacy concerns, the announcement states that “participating agencies will not post online responses to requests in which individuals seek access to information about themselves.” The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice is soliciting feedback from the public during the pilot program to determine the feasibility of implementing such a policy across the federal government. The announcement says that the results of the trial program will be made available to the

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 19

public. Despite promises of increased transparency at the beginning of President Obama’s administration, FOIA denials, delays, and excessive redactions have continued to plague reporters and the public. According to data released by the Department of Justice, there were over 159,000 FOIA requests backlogged in FY 2014, compared with around 75,000 in FY 2009. FOIA reform legislation is currently under consideration in both the House and the Senate. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently held hearings on problems faced by requesters and opportunities for reform. The Sunshine in Government Initiative, a media coalition of which the Reporters Committee is a member, recently unveiled an effort called “Fix FOIA by 50” to support legislative reform. The 50th anniversary of the passage of the Freedom of Information Act will occur on July 4, 2016.

HUNGARY OKS A MORE REGRESSIVE FOIA Hungary OKs Amendments Criticized as Regressive ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/hungary-oks-amendments-criticized-as-regressive/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 9 2015 ► Jul 9. The Hungarian Parliament on July 6 approved legislation to raise the cost of ma-king freedom of information requests and make it harder to access information, reported the non-go-vernmental organization Index on Censorship, The Budapest Beacon and K-Monitor (in Hungarian). The bill, submitted by Minister of Justice László Trócsányi July 3, was moved through with fast-track procedures, and is expected to be signed soon by President Janos Ader. (See previous Freedom-Info.org report [Fringe ► Also published in this issue] ) The development is one of many recent actions that led groups in Hungary to officially complain to the Open Government Partnership that the government is acting inconsistently with the OGP principles that it subscribed to when becoming a member. The bill also would allow the government to charge for the cover the “human labor costs” of for fulfilling a FOI request, not just the copying expenses of documents. Future regulations would spell out the fees. Another provision would permit public bodies to refuse to disclose data for 10 years if it was used in the decision-making processes, according to a post (in Hungarian) on the Hungarian investigative news platform Atlatszo.hu. “It is widely believed that through this initiative, governing party Fidesz is trying to put a lid on a number of scandals involving wasteful government spending, uncovered through FOI requests,” commented Index on Censorship. Criticisms Issued In advance of the vote, strong criticisms emerged against Hungary’s plans to amend its access to public information law. Hungary OKs FOI Amendments Criticized as Regressiv, the Representative on Freedom of the Media for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, urged their rejection, saying, “I call on the Parliament not to adopt the proposed amendments and to launch a public discussion with all stakeholders to ensure that the changes will support, and not limit, access to public information.” Transparency International issued a statement saying the draft law “appears to be a misguided response by the Hungarian government to civil society’s earlier successful use of freedom of information tools to publicly expose government malpractice and questionable public spending.” “The proposed law creates uncertainty about how much a member of the public would be charged when making a freedom of information request, leaving open the possibility that filing the request would be very expensive,” according to TI. “It follows a 2013 amendment that gave officials excessive scope to reject requests for public information.” “You cannot charge more than a nominal fee to people who want to find out how their taxes are being spent. This law opens the door to massive costs related to public information requests and is nothing less than an unfair tax on transparency,” said Anne Koch, Director of Europe and Central Asia at Transparency International. “Setting new barriers to accessing public data restricts the degree to which this fundamental right can be enjoyed, and therefore would also be in a serious conflict with Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union,” according to Miklós Ligeti, Legal Director for Transparency International. OGP Review Sought Representatives of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Transparency International Hungary and K-Monitor want the Open Government Partnership Steering Committee to investigate whether Hungary,

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 20

an OGP member, is violating an OGP policy designed to protect civic activism. The issue is addressed in a Sunlight Foundation blog post. The letter to the OGP under the OGP “response policy” cites many restrictions on civil society operations. The request will be reviewed by the OGP and likely assigned for investigation. The policy can lead to a member country being declared “inactive.” In it’s only previous action under the response policy, an OGP committee agreed with complaints from civil society organizations (CSOs) that the Azerbaijan government is restricting CSOs and acting in ways inconsistent with OGP principles.

INDIA: 4.5 MILLION RTI REQUESTS PER YEAR Indians File 4.5 Million RTI Requests Annually, Study Estimates ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/indians-file-4-5-rti-requests-annually-study-estimates/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 9 2015 ► Jul 9. Indians filed more that 4.5 million right to information requests annually in recent years, according to a major nationwide study by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. The report digs deep into frequently incomplete data from national and state information commissions. CHRI makes 30 recommendations, mainly focused on the administration of the act and recordkeeping. In addition to looking at RTI usage, the report examines response rates, the number of pending matters and the condition of the commissions. It’s the third such detailed report, entitled “State of Information Commissions and the Use of RTI Laws in India.” The vacancy rate on information commissions around the country increased from 14% in 2014 to 20% in 2015, the study shows. In five states, information commissions were headless as of June 2015. Most commissioners (77 percent) are retired government officials. Looking at usage, the report cites a variety of measurement issues including the inconsistent use of calendar and financial year reporting. “Data culled out from the Annual Reports of the CIC and 12 SICs indicates that a total of 24.77 lakh (2.47 million) applications were filed in those jurisdictions in a given year between 2012-14,” according to the report. “By extrapolating this data it can be conservatively estimated that about 45-50 lakh (4.5 to 5.0 million) RTI applications may have been filed in various jurisdictions across the country during a 12-month period between 2012-14,” the researchers say. “The actual figure may be closer to 50 lakhs because several States where RTI is being used very prolifically have not reported their RTI applications statistics for the period under scrutiny in this report. The report estimates that between 0.37-0.41 percent of India’s population sought information under the RTI Act in 2014. Only two state commissions captured gender data on RTI applicants. In Chhattisgarh, women constituted 6.9 percent of the RTI applicants while in Nagaland they comprised 2.53 percent. The Central Government received the most requests, at 834,000 in 2013-204, according to the report. The report documents the pending caseloads at commissions. At the national level, it amounts to 32,776 second appeals and 7,568 complaints. CHRI calls it “disturbing” that fewer commissions are posting data on their disposal of cases reporting: “Only 27.5% (8 out of 29) of the Information Commissions have displayed their case disposal statistics up to 2014-15 on their websites. In comparison, in 2014,45% of the Information Commissions (13 of 29) had displayed their case disposal data.” “About 41% (12 of 29) of the Information Commissions display the current status of pending appeals and complaints cases,” the report says, also noting that 62% of the commissions (18 of 29) have uploaded their decisions in appeal and complaint cases for all years.

UK GOVERNMENT FOI PROPOSALS United Kingdom: The Case Against Government FOI Proposals ► https://www.cfoi.org.uk/campaigns/stop-foi-restrictions/ ► Campaign for Freedom of Information ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/united-kingdom-the-case-against-government-foi-proposals/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 9 2015 ► Jul 9. The Government is likely to be considering three sets of new restrictions to the FOI Act. These are likely to involve: (1) preventing the disclosure of government policy discussions (2) strengthening the ministerial veto

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 21

(3) making it easier for authorities to refuse FOI requests on cost grounds The Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, referred to the first of these proposals in the House of Commons in June 2015. The Prime Minister referred to the second in March 2015 after the Supreme Court had ruled that the use of the veto to block the release of Prince Charles’ correspondence with ministers had been unlawful. Current ministers have not directly suggested that they are considering the third option. However, the coalition government made clear that it was considering this and Tony Blair’s government published draft regulations to this effect. So it’s likely that similar proposals will also be brought forward. Policy discussions Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice, told MPs on June 23 2015 that the government needed to “revisit” the Freedom of Information Act to: “ensure that the advice that civil servants give to Ministers of whatever Government is protected so that civil servants can speak candidly…There has been a worrying tendency in our courts and elsewhere to erode the protections for that safe space for policy advice, and I think it absolutely needs to be asserted… it is…vital that the conversations between Ministers and civil servants are protected in the interests of good government.” The only way of ‘ensuring’ that civil servants’ advice is not disclosed is to make the FOIA exemption for policy formulation absolute, so that it is no longer subject to the Act’s public interest test. This has previously been advocated by former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw – though his comments in-dicated that he had not understood how the exemption worked [1]. All information about the formula-tion or development of policy would then be exempt from disclosure for 20 years, regardless of whether disclosure would benefit or harm the public interest. The fact that the information might reveal whether, for example, potential problems were addressed, overlooked or deliberately ignored would be irrelevant. Applying the public interest test The Commissioner’s and Tribunal’s approach to the public interest test is that policy discussions will not normally be disclosed if they were requested before the policy decision was announced. This remains so even if the decision has been announced by the time that the Commissioner or Tribunal come to consider the case, months or years later. The question is always whether the authority was correct to have refused the request at the time that it did, regardless of what has since occurred. According to the Tribunal (EA/2006/0006, DfES & IC & The Evening Standard): “disclosure of discussions of policy options, whilst policy is in the process of formulation, is highly unlikely to be in the public interest, unless, for example, it would expose wrongdoing within government. Ministers and officials are entitled to time and space, in some instances to considerable time and space, to hammer out policy by exploring safe and radical options alike, without the threat of lurid headlines depicting that which has been merely broached as agreed policy”. If a request is made after the policy announcement, the decision depends on whether disclosure of the specific information, that length of time after the decision, would deter officials or ministers from frankly expressing or recording their views in future. If it would, the Commissioner or Tribunal will consider whether the public interest in preventing that ‘chilling effect’ outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Where discussions are very frank, this will weigh heavily against disclosure. If they are anodyne or old, disclosure is more likely. But all the circumstances are taken into account. Mr Gove himself has first-hand experience of his advice being protected under this approach. One of his first decisions as Secretary of State for Education in 2010 was to cancel Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme. One of the affected local authorities made an FOI request, via its lawyers, for almost the whole of the department’s internal discussions about this decision. The Tribunal concluded (EA/2014/0079, DfE & IC) in January 2015 that the balance of public interest favoured withholding the information as it: “would expose a very significant part of the working relationship between Ministers and the politically neutral civil service to a deeper and not necessarily constructive degree of scrutiny…there are plausible risks that exposure of policy submissions would cause submissions to be written in a different way with an eye to a public audience and presentation, and could further change the inclination of Ministers to seek and rely on formal advice, or to take advice only in circumstances that tend to be less fully committed to paper.” In a 2012 decision the Tribunal ruled (EA/2011/0255, Razvan Veer & IC & Cabinet Office) against disclosure of the minutes of a cabinet committee which, under the previous Labour government, had decided to impose transitional restrictions on the rights of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals to work in the UK. Although it accepted that there was a strong public interest in the issue, it gave greater weight to the fact that the minutes attributed comments to individual ministers and revealed how their views had contributed to the collective cabinet decision.[2] The request had been made four years after the decision but the issue was still live as a further decision was pending. The public interest balance favoured confidentiality.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 22

However, the Tribunal came to a different decision (EA/2008/0073, Cabinet Office & IC) about an earlier request about the terms on which Eastern and Central European nationals could work in the UK. It ruled that a Cabinet Office paper for a ministerial working party should be disclosed. The paper “set out the pros and cons neutrally without assigning views to any Minister or department” and without making a specific recommendation. Collective responsibility would only have been undermined “if specific views had been rehearsed in the paper which could then have been used to embarrass those holding them if a decision had gone against them”. As these decisions indicate, the Tribunal looks carefully at the contents and likely effects of disclosing each document before reaching its decisions. If the material itself is not particularly frank to start with, that is likely to favour disclosure. Thus, the Upper Tribunal ([2014] UKUT 526 (AAC)) ordered DEFRA to disclose ‘anodyne’ risk registers about the badger cull, which is intended to prevent the spread of TB in cattle. The Upper Tribunal accepted that if the material had been disclosed at the time policy was being developed it would have undermined the ability of the project board concerned to think in private. But by the time of the request’s refusal, two years later, by which time the government had announced a limited cull, the arguments against disclosure no longer carried weight. The potential risks were now well known and the suggested counter measures revealed ‘nothing surprising or informative’. The Upper Tribunal rejected DEFRA’s claim that the material revealed robust, candid and innovative thinking, finding that the contents ‘do not match their billing’ and were ‘anodyne’. The blandness of the register’s comments is illustrated by its conclusion that there was a ‘high’ risk of strong public opposition to the cull to which the solution was “1. Proactive communications. 2. Local area understanding”. Those five words are the full extent of the proposed counter measures. Another potential risk would be “failure to get industry acceptance” for the cull, for which the proposed solution was “early and close working with the industry”. These characterless uninformative comments would be kept secret for 20 years under the proposal which Mr Gove appears to be considering. The government has also resisted disclosing the engagement diary of the former health secretary, Andrew Lansley, for 2010-11. A key government concern was the remarkable suggestion that where a diary revealed blank spaces, ministers risked being criticised for idleness and – to prevent this – might feel obliged to arrange completely unnecessary meetings. The First Tier Tribunal (EA/2013/0087, DoH & IC) rejected this ‘incredible’ argument and said any minister so ‘pusillanimous’ as to fear this would only need to label any blank spaces as ‘paperwork’ or ‘reading time’. The decision was appealed to the Upper Tribunal ([2015] UKUT 0159 (AAC)), where Mr Justice Charles said that if ministers or officials would really arrange meetings they knew to be pointless for the sake of appearances this would be an argument for disclosure so that the public could discover whether they were “deliberately and contrary to their better judgment…wasting their time”. One senior official also told the Tribunal that disclosure of ministerial diaries would “in my experience” inhibit and distort the safe space needed for policy development. When asked what his experience of the disclosure of diaries consisted of he admitted that he had none. Mr Justice Charles noted that much of what the government’s high ranking officials had said in evidence: “warranted a “Mandy Rice Davies” side note. They are reminders of the secretive culture of the public service that the House of Commons Select Committee reported that FOIA would help to change for good … and thus of an approach that there should be transparency but only on departmental terms which the civil service find convincing but which courts often did not. They leave out important factors and, taken overall, lack objectivity” Mr Gove’s proposals would return us to that state, ensuring that all internal discussion would be confidential, regardless of the circumstances, and without risk of challenge. Notes [1] Mr Straw told the Justice Committee on 17 April 2012 [Q.343] that the way the courts had interpreted section 35(1)(a) meant that the exemption “can apply only while policy was in the process of development but not at any time thereafter. That is crazy and it is not remotely what was intended.” As explained above, this is not what happens. [2] This decision involved the exemption for ministerial communications in section 35(1)(b) of the FOIA. Most of the issues considered were similar to those which arise under the policy formulation exemption, though the interest in preserving collective ministerial responsibility was also considered.

THE PENTAGON'S SPIES DOCS Newly Available Documents Trace Evolution of Spy Units through Obama Administration ► http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB520-the-Pentagons-Spies/ ► National Security Archive / by Jeffrey T. Richelson Jul 7 2015 ► Jul 6. On April 20, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta formally established a new

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 23

Department of Defense spy organization - the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS). That memo marked yet another in the multiple starts, stops, and reversals in the human intelligence activities of the Department of Defense and the military services. The defense community's rocky history of involvement with HUMINT includes both war-related and non-war missions, overt and covert programs, conflicts with Congress over the lack of transparency, and inevitable bureaucratic tensions among the uniformed services. Today, the National Security Archive updates its 2001 Electronic Briefing Book, The Pentagon's Spies, adding thirty-five new documents that bring the history of military HUMINT activities up to the year 2015. In addition to the Panetta memo, this update contains records concerning: The House Permanent Select Committee's discovery of the existence of the U.S. Army Intelligence Support Activity. The role of Admiral Bobby Inman in the disestablishment of Task Force 157. Operations of two Air Force human intelligence organizations - the 1127 Field Activities Group and the Air Force Special Activities Center. Defense HUMINT Service activities in operations other than war. The work of the Iraq Survey Group. Expansion of Army and Air Force HUMINT operations since 2002.

POLICE DISCIPLINE FILES Maryland court rules police discipline files exempt from disclosure, but access varies widely by state ► www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/maryland-court-rules-police-discipline-files-exempt-disclosure-acces ► RCFP / by Jacob Donnelly Jul 3 2015 ► Jul 2. Police disciplinary files are exempt from the Maryland Public Information Act, the Maryland Court of Appeals said in a 5-2 ruling on Thursday. The majority noted that the law exempts personnel information from disclosure and does not make a distinction based on whether a citizen’s complaint is “sustained” or “unsustained.” It said that mandatory disclosure of the findings could have a chilling effect on the disciplinary process. The public interest in police discipline files in Maryland was heightened in particular after former officer Michael Wood tweeted a number of allegations against the Baltimore Police Department regarding police misconduct. In 2009, Teleta Dashiell filed a complaint against a Maryland State Police officer who accidentally left a racial slur on her answer machine. MSP later told her that the complaint had been sustained and appropriate action had been taken, but she was unable to verify the details of the discipline or the investigation into her complaint through the Maryland Public Information Act. Dashiell could not be reached for comment, and her attorney did not respond to a request for comment. The Maryland State Police declined to comment. Steven Zansberg, a media law attorney with the Denver office of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, said that in some states — such as Florida, Ohio, Montana, and Arizona — the public is entitled to inspect disciplinary records upon the completion of a disciplinary investigation as a matter of statute. “It does turn very much on the language of the state statute,” Zansberg said. “The problem with the statute in Maryland is that it includes quite plainly, on its face, matters that include official conduct.” Zansberg noted that the court’s ruling was particularly consequential in that it applies not only to police officers but to all public employees. Zansberg said the people of Maryland should be entitled to know how severely someone was punished, whether the allegations were sustained and which department policies were violated. “I think that’s what it means to have an open government,” Zansberg said. “The only way to rectify this situation, as I see it, in Maryland is through the legislative branch responding to public outcry as a result of a whole series of incidents not only in Maryland but across the nation where citizens are increasingly concerned about the manner in which the police are policing themselves.” Jennifer Snyder, executive director of the Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association, and Noel Isama, director of transparency and accountability at Common Cause Maryland, said a coalition led by the ACLU is already particularly concerned about this issue and will press for legislative change. An ACLU representative did not respond to a request for comment. “It was a hard blow for media and for transparency,” Snyder said. “There is a compelling public interest in knowing that the people who are entrusted to protect and serve really are protecting and serving and that there’s faith. When the community that is being policed doesn’t have faith in the pro-cess and the fair and level playing ground that’s available to them, you get to a bigger mess of issues.”

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 24

HUNGARY: FEES & DOUBLE RESPONSE TIME Hungary Proposes Higher Fees, Longer Response Times ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/hungary-proposes-higher-fees-longer-response-times/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 2 2015 ► Jul 2. The Hungarian government has proposed a bill (in Hungarian) to hike fees for freedom of information requests and to double the length of the response period from 15 to 30 days. The new rules also would permit refusal of requests on the grounds that documents are “preparatory” or the copyright of third persons. Repeat requests could be even if initial requests have not been answered. Requests from third countries could be denied. (See report in K Monitor.) Hungarian blog Kettős Mérce (Double Standard) criticized the government’s reasoning regarding the proposal, according to an article in The Budapest Beacon. Kettős Mérce blogger András Jámbor wrote: “The [government’s] train of thought in support of charging for the service of completing [Freedom of Information] requests is laughable because contracts and data must be made public anyway. This is what otherwise guarantees that citizens can trust that the state is not just stealing all the taxpayers’ money. This is what transparency is all about. However, the government wants the opposite, it does not want to provide this guarantee. We continue to see more and more cases in which they are stealing our money and giving it to their friends.’ Miklós Ligeti, Legal Director for Transparency International Hungary, told Budapest Beacon that the proposed law “empowers state organs and state-owned enterprises to arbitrarily demand that citizens who request information in the public interest pay for the expenses associated with managing and processing the data they are requesting.” “Neither the proposed law or any other regulation sets barriers or limitations to any such demands,” Ligeti said. “The proposed law says that such payments shall be made in proportion to the workload that results from servicing the public information requests. Some government agencies and state-owned enterprises pay outstanding salaries to their employees,” Ligeti said, meaning that the government could come up with fees based on the salary of a manager who spends time servicing a data request. “There is a definite possibility that the state will demand incommensurate amounts of money from citizens to service these information requests….Making the payment of large sums of money a prerequisite for servicing public interest information requests undoubtedly creates administrative obstacles for citizens trying to access public data,” he said. “It is high time that the EU and the global open government community took seriously the threats to democracy in Hungary,” commented Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info in a statement about the bill.

WORLD BANK ACCESS POLICY World Bank Notes Fifth Anniversary of Access Policy ► http://www.freedominfo.org/2015/07/world-bank-notes-fifth-anniversary-of-access-policy/ ► FreedomInfo Jul 2 2015 ► Jul 2. The World Bank’s access to information policy (AI) has turned five years old, an anniversary recognized by the Bank with a blog posting, a press release and a short quiz. The blog post cites two examples on how Bank information is used and requests other examples. The posting also includes an infographic. The posting says: The policy has served as a catalyst and has created an ecosystem of transparency initiatives to make World Bank information and data available to the public. In the years since 2010, the Bank has applied the principles underpinning Access to Information to accompanying initiatives such as Open Data, the Open Knowledge Repository, Open Finances, and Open Contracting, among others. A Bank press release emphasizes the number of documents downloaded from the Bank website and the increased number of available documents: For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the Documents & Reports database received more than 2.4 million visits, and users viewed approximately 8 million pages and downloaded close to 1.6 million documents. During the same period, over 65 million visits were made to the Data websites with more than 250 million page views. The interactive Knowledge Quiz poses 10 questions, six concerning access to information. Numbers of Requests Documented The last report on the AI policy covered the Bank’s fiscal year 2104, ending June 30, 2014. In that period, the Bank received 420 new public access requests and continued to handle 83 cases from previous fiscal years. Of the requests, the World Bank fulfilled (in whole or in part) 89 percent.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 25

The number of requests decreased by 39 percent compared with FY 2013 (685 requests). “This decrease in number of requests submitted to the World Bank is mostly due to the increased availability of public documents on the World Bank’s website and it’s enhanced search function and navigability,” according to the report. Regarding another reform made in the 2010 policy – documents disclosed just before Board documents — the report said that in FY 2014, the World Bank “simultaneously disclosed” 108 such documents. The Bank maintains a summary of requests, the latest being for May of 2015, with 11 entries, most for older records. The Bank does not disclose which requests have been denied in part of in whole, but some hints of those can be seen in the listing of decisions by the internal appeals committee, 38 over five years. Three matters were appealed in 2015, all denied: Case No. AI3613: Documents of the Task Force on Private Foreign Investment of the Joint Development Committee of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Decision dated May 21, 2015) Case No. AI3560: Ethiopia Voluntary Resettlement Program, Diagnostic Mission, June 10 to 22 2004: Aide Memoire (Decision dated February 26, 2015) Case No. AI3487: Internal Bank memo to files from A.S.G. Hoar on Anglo-Iranian Oil, November 23, 1951 (Decision dated February 26, 2015) The Access to Information Appeals Board, a group of three outside experts, has heard three appeals, twice backing the internal committee. In June 2014, the board supported a FreedomInfo.org request for access to request letters. (See FreedomInfo.org article.) Access to Archival Materials Triggered The fifth anniversary triggers potential disclosure of certain older documents, specifically related to Board of Governors documents and records. The policy sets out schedules for the release of materials after different time periods, mostly after 20 years. Some however, are now available, for example: “Minutes of Board Committee meetings prepared before July 1, 2010, other than those of Executive Sessions and Restricted Executive Sessions.” (See paragraph 33 of the access policy and also in the separate Policy Directive.) The five year anniversary also makes eligible for release documents prepared after July 1, 2010, that are classified as “Official Use Only” and listed in the annex. The annex includes documents such as “Project Appraisal Documents” and “Implementation Completion and Results Reports.”

SREBRENICA DOCS Srebrenica Conference Documents Detail Path to Genocide from 1993 to 1995 Documents show contradictions between New York UN declarations and ground realities, resistance from member states to back up resolutions with troops and planes, constant reluctance to use air strikes abetted by divisions within U.S. government, allies International failures around 1995 genocide had roots in 1993 debates over "safe areas" ► http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB519-Srebrenica-conference-documents-detail-path-to-genocide-from-1993-to-1995/ ► National Security Archive / by Tom Blanton and Emily Willard Jul 1 2015 ► Jul 1. Debates in the United Nations and within UN staff and member states as early as March 1993 over the concept of so-called "safe areas" for Bosnians within the former Yugoslavia exposed deep contradictions between means and ends, capabilities and intentions, that culminated in the Srebrenica genocide of 1995, according to documents reviewed this week at the international conference marking the 20th anniversary of Srebrenica and posted today by the National Security Archive (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu). The documents include the field report on the first declaration by a UN official, General Philippe Morillon, to the inhabitants of Srebrenica and refugees who had fled there to escape ethnic cleansing that they were "under the protection of the UN." Other documents provide critiques of the concept of safe havens from the U.S. intelligence community and from the UN Secretariat, which argued for a "heavy option" of 30,000 or more troops, which at least one Security Council ambassador, David Hannay, took to be an attempt to undermine the whole idea of "safe areas". The documents also feature extensive exchanges between UN headquarters and the UN forces in the field over how to carry out the Security Council's resolutions, with one general in the field remarking that the UN decision to proceed with the "light option" meant the safe areas completely depended on the agreement of the parties to the conflict. The then-head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, remarked in one cable about demilitarizing the safe zones, that "In doing so, however, UNPROFOR takes on a

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 26

moral responsibility for the safety of the disarmed that it clearly does not have the military resources to honor beyond a point." The documents reflect the continuing insistence throughout 1993-1995 by senior officials such as Special Representative Yasushi Akashi and his senior military commanders, Gen. Bertrand de La Presle and Gen. Bernard Janvier, that UNPROFOR remain neutral and avoid taking action that might provoke confrontation - a mindset that would have fateful consequences in the dates leading up to Srebrenica. Also included in the documents are the arguments from Lt. Gen. Rupert Smith for more aggressive action to break the cycle in 1994 and 1995 of escalation and counter-escalation and retreat. One example Smith presented was of Bosnian Serbs taking UN personnel hostage in reaction to, and in order to prevent, air strikes. This posting is the first of a series from the Srebrenica conference briefing book. The conference organizers plan to publish the entire evidence base from the conference, along with a rapporteur's report of findings and conclusions, and a final edited transcript of the discussion, which included Mr. Akashi, Gen. Smith, Lord Hannay, and 30 other eyewitnesses to international decision-making around the Srebrenica genocide.

►►►►►►►►►►► FRINGE NL Interested in this topic? Consider joining the Linked In group: Wob specialists

MOET NEDERLAND GAAN OPPASSEN? ► Roger Vleugels Jul 31 2015 ► Jul 31. Er loopt binnen en onder het Amerikaanse Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken een debat over de vraag of het wenselijk is om het hebben van een goede FOIA toe te voegen aan de voorwaarden voor het hebben van een diplomatieke relatie met landen. In dat debat gaat het niet alleen om de eisen die gesteld worden aan de wet in formele zin, maar ook aan het procesrecht en aan de uitvoering. In het debat wordt nauw aansluiting gezocht bij erkende internationale standaarden zoals die van de OAS en van de Raad van Europa [het Verdrag van Tromsø]. De Nederlandse Wob voldoet in hoge mate niet aan die standaarden; het vorige wetsvoorstel voor een nieuwe Wob van GL/Peters voldeed er enigszins aan; het nu in behandeling zijnde wetsvoorstel voor een nieuwe Wob [Woo] van GL/D66/Voortman/Schouw is weer slechter en voldoet net zo min als de huidige Wob aan die standaarden. Ook qua uitvoering ziet het er niet hoopvol uit voor Nederland. De ambtelijke en politieke obstructie is enorm en groeiend; de besluitvorming wordt meer en meer door politiek opportunisme bepaald; en de archieven bevinden zich in slechte staat. Kortom: Gaat de perverse manier waarop Nederlandse overheden en de Nederlandse politiek met het recht op openbaarheid omgaan ons onze relatie met de VS kosten?

ARCHIEF FRANS KLUITERS ► http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/ead/index/eadid/2.21.424/aantal/20 ► Nationaal Archief Jul 21 2015 ► Onderzoeksarchief van Frans Kluiters toegankelijk via bovenstaande url.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 27

MIVD DIRECTIEBERAAD DOCS ► www.stichtingargus.nl ► Argus Jul 14 2015 ► De MIVD kent een directieberaad, bestaande uit de directeur en de hoofden van de verschillende afdelingen bestaat. Een aantal verslagen van overleggen van dit directieberaad zijn door de dienst deels openbaar gemaakt. - verslagen directieberaad 4e kwartaal 2002 - verslagen directieberaad 1e kwartaal 2003 - verslagen directieberaad 2e kwartaal 2003 - verslagen directieberaad 3e kwartaal 2003 - verslagen directieberaad 4e kwartaal 2003

►►►►►►►►►► Fringe Shop

ACTING LAWYER / LITIGATION

As acting lawyer I represent clients in FOIA litigation: filing requests and complaints, appealing in court and high court, filing summary proceedings, organizing mediation, etc. All steps have the same fixed price of € 280,00 regardless the number of client contacts, the complexity, the level of obstruction or duration. This price includes vat and excludes travel costs and the cost of registered mail.

In the past 25 years I filed for or with my clients 5,000 requests, 2,500 administrative complaints, 800 court appeals and 100 high court appeals. Most of my clients are mainstream Dutch press organiza- tions. Among my clients are also special interest groups, NGO's, researchers and private persons.

More information? Leaflet A01, see 'Short en Long Reads'.

COURSES / LECTURES In the past 20 years about 3,000 participants attended the Basic Course Wob [Dutch FOIA]. This cour- se, since 2015 completely redressed, is meant for starters and, as fresh up course, for experienced Wobbers. Below specs on this course and lots of other Wob- & FOIA-products.

Basic Course Wob Duration 3x3 hours Content All technical and tactical basics / Toolkit / Filing one request per participant Language Dutch only / Wob only Entrance level No requirements Certificate Wob For those who finalize the course successful [+bachelor level]

Option 1 Free subscription / Several courses per year in Utrecht Standard version 3x3 hours / groups of 8-16 / incl. certificate and filing a request per participant Price per person € 400 / incl. consumptions / vat

Skimmed version 2x3 hours, standard version minus filing a request, minus certificate Skimmed price € 300 / incl. consumptions / vat

Extended version 50% discount on support for the participants first complaint € 280 / € 140

Upcoming courses Course ► 7, 14 & 28 Oct 2015 = Wednesdays from 18.30-21.30 in Utrecht or Course ► 3, 10 & 24 Nov 2015 = Tuesdays from 18.30-21.30 in Utrecht More information Leaflet A02, see 'Short en Long Reads'

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 28

Option 2 In company / The whole year available, at your place Standard version 3x3 hours / groups up to 16 / incl. certificate and filing a request per participant Price per group € 2000 / incl vat

Skimmed version 2x3 hours, standard version minus filing a request, minus certificate Skimmed price € 1500 / incl vat

Extended version 4x3 hours, standard version plus support up to filing complaints Extended price € 2500 / incl vat / standard version + mail/telephone support + filing complaints

Customized version The standard and the extended version based on the clients workload Customized price + € 250 / incl vat

Upcoming courses On demand More information Leaflet A02, see 'Short en Long Reads'

Wob Clinics For experienced requesters I offer clinics. All kinds of topics are possible. Some examples are: - Request writing / Toolkit - Complaint writing - Tactics - Exemptions - Wob-Topicstorm [search for Wob-topics] - brainstorm version Duration Per clinic: 1x3 hours - groups 12-16 Language Dutch or English / All FOIA's Entrance level Certificate Wob or Wob/FOIA Experience [= 5 requests/3 complaints/1 appeal] Price € 100 per participant

Option 1 Free subscription / Several courses per year in Utrecht Upcoming clinics TopicStorm in January 2016 More information In leaflet A01, see 'Short en Long Reads'

Option 2 In company / The whole year available, at your place Upcoming clinics On demand More information Leaflet A01, see 'Short en Long Reads'

Wob Lectures On any Wob-related topic lectures are possible. Standard ones are: - The Wob/the FOIA in a Bird's Eye View - Freedom of information in decline - Poor quality of [Dutch] archives: a FOIA bottleneck - Wob-Topicstorm [search for Wob-topics] - lecture version Duration Per lectures: 1-3 hours - groups up to 60 Language Dutch or English / All FOIA's Entrance level No requirements Price € 120 per hour [for new/customized topics up to € 120 per contact hour extra] More information Leaflet A01, see 'Short en Long Reads'

Lectures in colleges and universities For lectures in colleges and universities are customized versions of the above listed courses, clinics and lectures available. Since the early nineties of last century I have lectured Freedom of information basics and tactics in a whole range of colleges and universities in The Netherlands, but also in for instance Belgium, Bulga-ria, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Moldova, Russia and South-Africa. More information Leaflet A01, see 'Short en Long Reads'

CONSULTANCY

Quick scan An advice on for instance a concept-request or a decision / I will never step in an ready ongoing litigation / price € 35-70 [incl. vat]

Format scan A general Wob/FOIA advice for a news organization / price based on € 120 per hour [incl. vat]

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 29

Workload scan An advice based on the ongoing topics, the workload and/or the actual news / price based on € 120 per hour [incl. vat]

Contracts More or less permanent support is possible in all kinds of customized options. Contact me for an overview on possibilities based on your demands.

More information Leaflet A22, see 'Short en Long Reads'

SHORT & LONG READS

Code Article [Red = In English] Publication date Price

General leaflets A 01 Procespraktijk, cursussen en adviezen - alle diensten in één folder 2015 Free A 02 Basis Cursus Wob - toelichting / aanmelden / 2x in herfst 2015 2015 Free

A 20 Wobben in 10 minuten 2015 Free A 21 The Netherlands: a FOI toddler - overview of my FOI litigation 2015 Free A 22 FOIA leaflet - overview of my FOIA courses, lectures, etc 2015 Free A 23 Fringe leaflet 2015 Free

Toolkit horende bij Basis Cursus Wob en bij Wob Clinics: A 40 Wob-Checklist [niet los verkrijgbaar] 2015 A 41 Model-Wob-verzoek [niet los verkrijgbaar] 2015 A 42 Model-Wob-bezwaar [niet los verkrijgbaar] 2015 A 43 Model-Wob-[hoger]beroep [niet los verkrijgbaar] 2015 A 44 Model-Awb-ingebrekestelling [niet los verkrijgbaar] 2015 A 45 Toolkit TopicStorm [niet los verkrijgbaar] 2015

Intelligence Articles I 01 Fringe Special: Spying the Press 2006 Free I 02 Fringe Special: Index Dutch Intelligence 2007 Free I 03 Fringe Special: Hunting down WikiLeaks, Assange & others 2011 Free I 04 AIVD spioneert VIA en IN de pers 2012 Free I 05 10 Tinten grijs: De pers en de AIVD 2013 Free I 06 Model Wob-Wiv-verzoek voor opvragen van je AIVD of MIVD dossier 2015 Free

Freedom of information and Wob Articles S 01 We mogen steeds minder weten [NRC/start Wob hervorming] 2005 Free S 02 Open de oester [samen met Wijnand Duyvendak/GL] 2005 Free S 03 FOIA Communities and their growing Pains 2010 Free S 04 30 jaar Wobben – 30 jaar tobben 2010 Free S 05 Zwartboek Wob 2010 Free S 06 Fringe Special: The Donner Attack on the Wob 2011 Free S 07 Fringe Special: Draft for a new Wob - The GL proposal 2012 Free S 08 Fringe Special: Draft for a new Wob - The GL/D66 proposal 2013 Free S 09 Fringe Special: SEO and IMI: Wob 4x too expensive 2013 Free S 10 Syllabus: De Wob in de steigers 2014 € 10 S 11 Fringe Special: The Killing of the Making of the new Wob 2015 [july]

Back Issues Fringe Intelligence + Fringe Spitting A 91 The first ten years 2001-2010 € 40 A 92 The second decade 2011-present € 60 A 99 All issues 2001-present € 60

To order and short & long reads - Mail the code and transfer, if required, the money.

Payments via the bank Roger Vleugels, in Utrecht, The Netherlands ING Bank, account no.: IBAN: NL79 INGB 0003 4320 10 / [BIC: INGBNL2A]

Payments via post in cash or by check Roger Vleugels – Korfoedreef 213 – 3562 SL Utrecht – The Netherlands

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 30

►►►►►►►► Fringe Colophon

About the editor/publisher: Roger Vleugels In 1986 I started my own office and began working as an acting lawyer and lecturer specialized in freedom of information and intelligence. In 1991 I added lecturing on investigative journalism and in 2001 the publishing of the Fringe journals to my activities. Lecturing on freedom of information I do at journalism schools, universities, in company and in own free registration courses till now for students in or from Argentina, Aruba, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Iran, Ireland, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Since 1986, I have as acting lawyer filed for or with my clients 5,000 Wob-requests [Wob is the Dutch FOIA]. Most of my clients are journalists living in the Netherlands but also special interest groups, NGOs, researchers and private persons. My specialties are filing Wob test cases and FOA/Wob litigation tactics. Early 2015 I decided to focus my work completely on freedom of information and both Fringe Journals, so I terminated my intelli-gence work and the lecturing on investigative journalism.

The format of the Fringe journals The main goal of the Fringe journals is: not being a regular magazine. The journals are purely a research tool. Articles are not selected for their content but for the facts or trends within them. One of the consequences is that Fringe does not dis-criminate between information and disinformation. Other goals are, trying to publish news in early stages, before the news is established with an overall focus on next to main-stream. After doing so Fringe will not cover such a topic further, unless there is again something special, and above all: Fringe hopes to be a bit wayward.

Surfing, searching, stringers and sources Articles are gathered for Fringe by a small group of Dutch and foreign stringers, some of whom work covertly. Without the work of these stringers Fringe would not be possible. Additionally I do some gathering on my own, mainly by surfing and maintaining a range of subscriptions and alerts. Some of the more specialized sources are: Access Info Europe, Article 19, BeSpacific, Bits of Freedom, Centre for Law & Democracy, Cryptogram, CFOI, Cryptome, the Daily Beast, EDRi-gram, EFF, EPIC, FOIANet, FreedomInfo, Geheim, Infowarrior, Intelforum, Intelligence Online, Memory Hole, Mother Jones, National Security Archive, Nato-Watch, NISA, Privacy International, RCFP, Secrecy News, StateWatch and Wired.

Two Fringe journals Fringe Intelligence gathers intelligence news articles in established media and outlets beyond the mainstream. The journal offers articles covering classical intelligence and counterintelligence, criminal and private espionage and more. The main focus is on forensic and operational information, and not on bureaucracy, politics and the formal/legal aspects of intelligence. Special sections highlight NARINT, or Natural Resources Intelligence [dealing with energy, rare earth, water and climate intelligence], and Intelligence 2.0 [IT sector-generated private intelligence]. These sections look beyond jihad, cyber and other previous or present threats. Fringe Spitting publishes for freedom of information [FOI] specialists, investigative journalists and other researchers, with a spe-cial focus on FOI practitioners and requesters, news on caseload, jurisprudence, litigation, tools and trends. Space is also devo-ted to recently disclosed “old news” on intelligence, revealed by FOI requests. Taken together, the two monthly journals contain about 100 articles per month selected from a variety of media sources. Almost all articles are internet downloads. Over 90% are in English. Less than 10% are focused on the Netherlands.

3,100 subscribers In terms of circulation, both Fringe journals enjoy a top ranking in their sector, respectively OSINT and FOI, among the world-wide communities of independent email journals and mailing lists. Fifty percent of the subscribers are intelligence specialists, 30% journalists and 20% FOIA specialists. They live in 115 countries: 35% in NL, 25% in US, 5% in the UK and 35% in the rest of the world.

LinkedIn, Twitter an Facebook Please feel free to mail me directly, or to contact me via LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook. My postings are in Dutch; breaking news and internationally important FOIA news I post in English. On Linked In I manage five groups: - FOIA Specialists [FOIAs worldwide][English] 2,100+ members - Wob Specialists [FOIA in NL][Dutch] 500+ members - Dutch Intelligence Specialists [Dutch/English] 200+ members - NARINT: Natural Resources Intel [English] 300+ members - Intelligence 2.0 [English] 200+ members

Fringe is solely a research tool All articles [re]published in Fringe are solely meant for research by the subscribers themselves. It is forbidden to [re]publish or [re]circulate articles either in part or in their entirety. This is not a Fringe policy but a consequence of the Fair Use Notice. Because Fringe is a free-of-charge research tool, it is permitted to recirculate copyrighted material according to the Fair Use Notice. One of the conditions is: in a closed circuit; that is why there is no site. [Another condition: no mandatory contribution; that is why there is the voluntary contribution.] More information on this rule is available at the end of this colophon.

FRINGE SPITTING - year 13 - no.221 – August 2015 - page 31

The meaning of the ► symbol At the start of an article you will find several ►. They identify the source and the date of the article. The source: after one or more ► you will find the source [the first source mentioned is the original one, the latter source is the publication or stringer from which/whom Fringe received the article]. The date: before ► you will see the date on which Fringe received the article; after ► the original publication date [if known].

Subscriptions are free of charge and include both journals Subscribers receive both journals free of charge. A voluntary contribution is very welcome, however. Producing Fringe is a time-consuming project. Each year in January I ask subscribers for a voluntary contribution. Copyright law [see the Fair Use Restriction at the bottom of this colophon] forbids to charge for journals like Fringe. Therefore, the only way to collect enough money to keep this service going is by voluntary contributions or donations. To guarantee the service 400-500 paying subscribers are needed. This number is now about 200. So please consider paying the voluntary contribution every year or once in every 2, 3 or 4 years. To start a subscription email 'Start Fringe', and to stop/unsubscribe 'Stop Fringe', in the subject line, to roger.vleugels@planet.nl

Voluntary contributions or donations are very welcome My suggestion: 48.00 Euros per year for individual subscribers 24.00 Euros per year for students and others with modest means 200.00 Euros per year for subscribers who are well to do 200.00 Euros per year for news media or other organizations with multiple users/subscribers

Payments via the bank ING Bank: IBAN: NL79 INGB 0003 4320 10 / BIC: INGBNL2A, account holder: Roger Vleugels, Utrecht, The Netherlands Reference: “Fringe contribution” or “Fringe donation”

Payments by post or check (for larger sums, please use registered mail) Roger Vleugels / Korfoedreef 213 / 3562 SL Utrecht / The Netherlands Reference: “Fringe contribution” or “Fringe donation”

Fair Use Notice The Fringe journals contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is being made available for purposes of education and research of the subscribers themselves. This constitutes a "fair use" of such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on these journals are distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes only. If a subscriber wishes to use copyrighted material from these journals for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html