ATF Requests Removal of Document From Public Intelligence
February 21, 2012 in Threats and Takedown Notices
An unnamed representative of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives has requested the removal of a document from this website. The document in question was published more than 2 years ago in January 2010 when this website was less than six months old. The document is effectively one page in length, with a cover and an information page listing a phone number and contact information. The one page of content in the document describes an incident in September 2008 when a quantity of “Magnum Ultra” explosive detonator material from a supply store in Concord, North Carolina.
This website hosts more than a dozen documents from the ATF, most of which are restricted in some fashion. It is unclear why this document was identified by the ATF as meriting a removal request, given that it contains little to no sensitive information, and there are several other ATF documents on this website that bear similar markings. The unnamed ATF representative cites the fact that the document is “law enforcement sensitive” a designation which has no legal basis and functions as an internal restriction on employees and those who have signed non-disclosure agreements with the originating organization. The ATF representative then reproduces a warning from the bottom of the document to substantiate the position that this document should be removed: “All information, analysis, data, and methodology included herein are considered official products of work, owned by the Federal Government and held for the benefit of the public. No information contained herein may be duplicated, reproduced, or disseminated without the express authorization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”
The warning is interesting in that it describes the document as property of the ATF that cannot be duplicated or reproduced without the consent of the ATF. A similar warning can be found on FBI documents, like this one: “This information is the property of the FBI and may be distributed to state, tribal, or local government law enforcement officials with a need-to-know.” The problem with these assertions is that is unclear how the contents of a government document may be considered property. All works of the Federal Government and its employees in the performance of their official duties are inherently prohibited by law from copyright protection in 17 USC § 105. Most “sensitive but unclassified” government documents, such as this example from the ATF, make it clear that the “for official use only” and “law enforcement sensitive” markings only exempt a document from “mandatory disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act. Unclassified markings are not binding upon members of the general public. In fact, even classified material can legally be disseminated by members of the general public.
|
Related posts:
- FBI Requests Removal of Document from Public Intelligence
- Army Requests Removal of Document from Public Intelligence
- U.S. Secret Service Requests Removal of Documents from Public Intelligence
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory Requests Removal of Document from Public Intelligence
- FEMA Requests Removal of “Classified” Document from Public Intelligence
- Third U.S. Fusion Center Requests Removal of Document from Public Intelligence
- U.S. Air Force Requests Removal of Documents from Public Intelligence
- Virginia Fusion Center Again Requests Removal of Documents from Public Intelligence
I don’t see why they’re so upset. This same story is up elsewhere on the net. A quick Google search produces http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/dangerous-explosives-snatched-from-concord-constru/nG9M2/
Similarly the document at http://obsama.com/anfo.txt related to the Truckee Explosives and the foreign entities who took care of it NEVER MADE IT TO REGULATIONS.GOV and was promptly erased multiple submissions.
My guess would be that they’re unhappy about the publication of something that implicitly identifies the location of an explosives magazine. Since padlocks offer minimal protection (obviously), and they tend to be somewhat isolated, most magazines are protected by not much more than security-by-obscurity…
That, or they’re irritated that anyone can extrapolate their not-very-original incident numbering sequence from the document, and thus spam them with dozens of “perfected” FOIA requests concerning incidents that went unpublicized…
Maybe they know it is about to be used & don’t want it traced?
I would venture a guess that some mid level employee of the ATF came across this web site, saw the document & took it upon himself to get it taken down. If it was an “Offical” request would be accompanied by a threat of prosicution, or loss of first born, or… you get the idea.
You want this document taken down? Too bad. Your War on Terror (read: war on civil liberties) can go burn in a wheelbarrow, hey hey I’ll even loan you a lighter and the petrol when you decide to go burn the abomination you started because youve finally got your senses back. Long live freedom, screw all the Wars on (insert irrelevance here).