Case Detail
Case Title | ASSOCIATED PRESS et al v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2016cv01850 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2016-09-16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2017-10-03 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Tanya S. Chutkan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | ASSOCIATED PRESS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK LLC doing business as USA TODAY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | VICE MEDIA LLC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The Associated Press, USA Today, and journalist Jason Leopold all submitted FOIA requests to the FBI for records concerning the FBI's publicly-acknowledged purchase of a device that allowed it to break into iPhones in relation to its investigation of the San Bernandino shooting. All three requests were denied by the FBI under Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation or proceeding). The requesters all appealed the agency's decision. All of their appeals were denied by the agency. AP, Gannett, and Vice News then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Adequacy - Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [22] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Tanya Chutkan has ruled that the FBI properly withheld records concerning the identity of the company that provided the software that allowed the agency to hack into an iPhone belonging to the San Bernardino terrorist and the amount of money the agency paid the company under Exemption 1 (national security), Exemption 3 (other statutes), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques), but the information does not qualify under Exemption 4 (confidential business information). In December 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people and injured 22 others in an attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino. Farook and Malik were both killed by the police, but a company-owned iPhone assigned to Farook was discovered. However, the iPhone was password-protected and set to delete its contents after ten failed attempts to enter the correct password. The FBI filed suit against Apple to force it to provide access to the phone. Apple refused to do so, but while the case was ongoing, the FBI announced it had found an alternative way to get into the phone and dropped its suit against Apple. Then-FBI Director James Comey told reporters that the cost of the tool was more than his salary due at the end of his term, about $1.2 million, and that the tool only worked on an iPhone 5C operating on IOS 9 and the FBI had not identified any other phones on which the tool could be used. The Associated Press, USA Today, and Vice News all filed FOIA requests for information about the identity of the third-party company. The FBI initially claimed Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). After the media requesters filed suit, the FBI disclosed 100 of 123 responsive pages in full or in part. The plaintiffs challenged only the withholding of the identity of the vendor and the amount paid to the vendor for the tool in question. The FBI argued that disclosure of these two pieces of information could harm national security by providing potential adversaries insight into the resources the agency was willing to commit to such cyber-security needs. Chutkan agreed, noting that "this line of reasoning logically and plausibly demonstrates how the FBI could reasonably expect the release of the vendor's identity to cause identifiable harm to national security. If an adversary were determined to learn more information about the iPhone hacking tool the FBI acquired, it is certainly logical that the release of the name of the company that created the tool could provide insight into the tool's technological design. Adversaries could use this information to enhance their own encryption technologies to better guard against this tool or tools the vendor develops for the FBI in the future." The plaintiffs contended that if the tool was so important to national security it made no sense to allow the company to retain custody of it. Chutkan observed that "but the vendor may continue to possess the tool for any number of reasons related to national security interests, and even if the possibility of an attack on the vendor's system is remote, the FBI has still demonstrated a logically reasonable risk of harm to national security in this respect." The plaintiffs also argued that since Comey had publicly indicated that the tool had limited use, groups trying to evade detection could just use another kind of communication device. However, Chutkan pointed out that "this overlooks the tool's potentially valuable technical capabilities. The FBI may find a way to enhance the tool's capabilities, choose to continue using advanced versions of similar technology in the future, or re-employ the vendor to develop another similar product." The plaintiffs argued that Comey's comments had constituted a public acknowledgment of the cost, particularly in light of the fact that Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) had additionally suggested that the cost was $900,000. Chutkan found Feinstein's comments did not support the plaintiffs' case. She pointed out that "Director Comey did not acknowledge or verify Sen. Feinstein's comment, and Comey's testimony therefore fails the third element of the [public acknowledgment] test, since the information was not made public through an agency's official disclosure." Since the FBI's Exemption 3 claim paralleled its Exemption 1 claim, once Chutkan concluded the information was protected under Exemption 1 it became evident that it was protected by Exemption 3 as well. For essentially the same reasons, Chutkan found the identity of the vendor and the price the agency paid for the tool fell under Exemption 7(E) as well. Although the plaintiffs argued that the tool's value was limited to a certain type of iPhone, Chutkan pointed out that "this overlooks the tool's potential value to the FBI in future iterations of the technology, and Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that Exemption 7(E) presents a low bar for the agency." Chutkan was sympathetic to the FBI's Exemption 4 claim, but indicated that "since there is no evidence that any actual competition exists over current or future contracts, the FBI has failed to demonstrate that the vendor actually faces competition."
Issues: Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Exemption 4 - Confidential business information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|