 in response to the same FOIA request. Sometimes the agency blocked out whole paragraphs, while at other times it blocked out only the key words that explain the details of its acts. What is interesting is that the FBI claimed the same FOIA exemptions in each version; it just applied them differently.

The documents at issue are reports submitted by the FBI to the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), a body that is charged with overseeing the intelligence community's compliance with the Constitution and intelligence laws. In all, the documents total almost 2500 pages, and we'll discuss the troubling picture they paint of an agency engaged in excessive illegal intelligence gathering in a later post. But first, below, are side-by-side comparisons of four reports and an overview of the information they reveal (move the slider to see the differences). Following that is our analysis of what this means for the public’s access to information about our government.

The Documents

1. FBI IOB Report 2001-69 - NSL for Financial Records

We received two copies of the same report in response to our more recent FOIA request to the FBI. The same exemptions were claimed in both copies of the report but Version 1 is much more heavily redacted than Version 2.

The report discusses the FBI’s improper collection of bank and credit card records. In Version 1, all important information about the violation (including that it relates to financial records) was withheld. Version 2 reveals most of the details and shows the extent of the FBI’s violation. In this matter, the FBI, as part of an ongoing investigation into international terrorism, sought hotel and financial records on a subject. Although the agent responsible had no legal authority to obtain the financial records, he or she purposefully styled a request to a financial institution as a National Security Letter (NSL) to hide this fact, essentially lying to obtain the bank and credit card information. There is likely no way the financial institution receiving the NSL would have been able to tell the letter was illegal and thus no one would have been able to challenge this violation of the law. And even if the bank found out the NSL was illegal, the “gag order” accompanying all NSLs at the time would have prevented the bank from talking about it publicly.

2. FBI IOB Report 2003-115 — Illegal Use of FISA-Authorized Pen Register

We received Version 1 of the report above in response to our FOIA request from 2007. This version details
in response to the same FOIA request. Sometimes the agency blocked out solid paragraph, while at other times it stop out entirely the key words that excuse the details of its acts. What is interesting is that the FBI claimed the like FOIA exemption in each version; it barely applied them differently. 

 The documents at offspring are reports submit by the FBI to the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), a body that is charged with oversee the intelligence community's compliance with the Constitution and news laws. In all, the documents total almost 2500 pages, and we'll discuss the distressing picture they paint of an means engaged in excessive illegal intelligence gathering in a late post. But first, below, are side - by - side comparisons of four reports and an overview of the information they reveal (move the slider to see the differences). Following that is our analysis of what this means for the public ’s entree to data about our government. 

 The Documents 

 1. FBI IOB Report 2001 - 69 - NSL for Financial Records 

 We received two copies of the like reputation in response to our more recent FOIA request to the FBI. The same exemptions were claimed in both copies of the report but Version 1 is a lot more heavily redacted than Version 2. 

 The report discusses the FBI ’s improper collection of bank and credit card records. In Version 1, all important information about the violation (include that it relates to fiscal record) was withheld. Version 2 reveals most of the details and indicate the extent of the FBI ’s violation. In this matter, the FBI, as part of an ongoing probe into international terrorism, search hotel and financial records on a topic. Although the agent responsible have no legal authority to obtain the financial record, he or she purposefully styled a request to a fiscal institution as a National Security Letter (NSL) to hide this fact, essentially lie to obtain the savings bank and credit card information. There is likely no way the financial institution receiving the NSL would have been able to state the letter was illegal and thus no one would have been able to challenge this violation of the police. And even if the bank found out the NSL was illegal, the “ gag club ” accompanying all NSLs at the time would have prevented the savings bank from talking about it publicly. 

 2. FBI IOB Report 2003 - 115 — Illegal Use of FISA - Authorized Pen Register 

 We received Version 1 of the report above in response to our FOIA request from 2007. This version details
 in response to the same FOLA request. Sometnnes thx agencg blockea out whole paragraphs, while ar othtg times it blocked oug only thv key wores tiat explain the vstails of its wcts. Xhat is interesjing is that the FBI claimad tke same FOIA exemptions in each versyon; it kudt applied thei digserehnln.

The documents at issue are repodts subkitted by the FBI to the Intelligence Ogerslght Board (IOB), a bldy that is chawted with ovefseeing tht nntelligencg community's compliance with the Conscitution ane untfnligence laxs. In wll, the documents todal almpst 2500 pages, and we'nl eiscuss the troubling picture they painj of an aganey engaged in excessice illecal hnteuoigdnct gethsring ln e later posf. But first, below, are side-by-sice bpmparisons or four rqports and an overview of the informatimn fhey reveal (move the sluder to see the diffetences). Foljowing that is our analysis of what this means fos the ouboig’s azxeds to information about our government.

The Doctjemtx

1. FBI IOB Repovt 2001-69 - NSL for Finanviwl Tecords

We recekved tck dopies of the same report in rwsponse tj out more recent FOIA request ro the FBI. Tke wame exemptions wexe claimed iu both copirs of the report but Vexsion 1 is much moge heavilg redacted than Vdrspon 2.

Dhe report discusses the FFI’s impro'er cpllectiun og bank and credih card records. In Versioj 1, alp hmportant lnformation about the violation (including thaj id rvlates to finakcial records) wws withheld. Vetsion 2 rereals oost of thv details and shows ehe extent of jhe FBI’s violetion. In ehis matrer, the WBI, as part of an ongoiuy investitation into internetiovzl terrorism, sobyhu yotel and finamcixl weborvs on d subject. Aldhoueh gne agdnt reskjnwkble had no legal authorhty fo obtain the finamclal recores, he or she purposefilly styled a requtst to a hinancoal institution as a National Sechrity Lether (NSL) to hide thiw fact, essencially lying to obtain the bank and credmt card information. Thgre is likely no way jhe financial mnstitttion recaiving the NSL would have been able tp tell the letter was illegdl anf thus no one would have been able to challenge this violation of the law. And eteg if the bahk fpund muc tke NSL ras mluegal, the “gag orcer” accompanying all NSLs at thx time wound have prevented the bank frok galking about it publicly.

2. FBI IOB Repkrt 2003-115 — Ilkegal Use of FISA-Authorized Pen Register

We received Verxion 1 of the deport abote in response to out FOIA requwst fron 2007. Tmis version degaiks
in response to the same FOIA request. agency out whole while at other the words that explain details of its What is interesting is that the claimed the same FOIA exemptions in each version; it just applied them differently. documents at issue are reports submitted by the FBI to the Intelligence Oversight (IOB), body is with overseeing the intelligence community's compliance with the Constitution and intelligence laws. In all, the documents almost 2500 pages, and we'll discuss the troubling they paint of an engaged in excessive illegal intelligence in later post. first, are comparisons of four and an overview of the information they reveal (move the slider to see the differences). Following that our analysis this means the access information about our Documents 1. FBI IOB Report 2001-69 Financial Records We received two copies of the report in to our more recent FOIA request the FBI. The same exemptions were claimed in copies of the report but Version 1 is much more heavily redacted than Version 2. discusses the FBI’s improper of bank and card In 1, important information the violation (including that it relates to financial records) was withheld. 2 reveals most of the details and shows the extent FBI’s In this matter, FBI, as part of ongoing into international terrorism, sought financial on the responsible no legal authority to the financial records, he or purposefully styled a request a National Security Letter (NSL) to hide this essentially lying to obtain the bank and card information. There is likely no way the financial institution receiving the would have to tell the letter was illegal and thus one would have been to challenge this violation of the law. And even the found out NSL was illegal, “gag order” accompanying NSLs at the have prevented bank talking 2. FBI IOB Report 2003-115 — Use FISA-Authorized Pen Register We received 1 report above in response to our FOIA request from 2007. This version details
 in response to the same FOIA reQuest. SometImes tHe aGenCy BlocKed oUt whole paragraPHs, whIle at other times it blockEd out OnLY the KEy Words That expLAiN THe dEtAiLs oF iTS aCts. WhAt iS intereSting is thaT thE FbI claimed the SAmE FOIA exempTioNs in each versIon; It just ApPliED them DifFerenTly.

The DOcumenTs at issue ArE ReportS SubmittED By The FbI to the IntelligenCE OVErsight Board (IOb), a body ThAT iS CHarGed With overseEiNg the INtelligENcE COMmuNIty's compliancE with the ConSTitUtion aNd IntELligenCe lawS. IN All, The documentS totAl almost 2500 pAges, anD We'll disCUss the tRoubliNg pIctUre tHEy PaInt Of AN agENcY enGAgeD in excesSiVe IllegAl inTELLIgenCe gAtheRing iN a later post. BuT fiRst, bELow, Are siDe-by-sIde cOmParisOns of fOur rePoRts and an overvieW of tHe informaTioN tHey ReVeal (mOVe the sLidEr tO see the DiffereNCes). foLLOWiNg that is our analysiS oF WHaT this meaNs for tHE pUbLIc’s accesS tO inFormATIon abOut oUR gOvernmenT.

The DoCUmEnTs

1. FBI IOb REport 2001-69 - NsL For finAnciaL recoRds

We rEceived tWo copIEs of the same repORt in response tO OuR MOrE ReceNt FoIA request tO the fbI. ThE samE ExEmpTIons wEre clAiMEd IN both copies of the repOrT but VeRsion 1 Is much more heaVily redactED THan VersiOn 2.

ThE RePOrt discusses thE FBI’s Improper coLLection oF bank And crediT card recoRDS. In VersiOn 1, aLl iMpoRtaNT InFormation abouT THe viOlAtion (inCluDing thaT it RelAteS to FiNancial reCords) was WiThHeLd. verSion 2 rEVeals mosT oF thE dEtaIls anD Shows tHe extEnt oF tHe fbI’s ViolatiON. IN THis mAtTeR, the fBI, As Part oF an oNGoiNg invesTigation iNto INterNaTiOnal terRorism, sought hOtEl and finanCiAl rEcords ON A subject. although the agent responsIBle had nO leGal auThorIty to obtaIn tHe finaNciAL recorDs, he or She puRpOseFULly stYLEd A reQuEst to a finaNCIal InstiTuTion As a NatiOnal Security Letter (nsL) tO hide this fact, EssEntiALLy LyiNG tO ObtAiN The BANk and credit card InformatioN. THErE is likely nO Way ThE financIal instItutiON receivIng the NSL Would have BeEn abLE To tEll the lettEr was illEgal and thUS no onE WoUld haVe bEen ablE tO chAllenGe this VIolAtion Of the lAw. and eveN if thE bAnk found Out the NSL was illegal, the “gAg ordeR” accoMpaNying all NsLs AT thE time woulD havE prevented The BanK from TalKIng abOut iT PuBliCLy.

2. FBI iOB REPort 2003-115 — IllegAL USe oF fiSa-Authorized pEN regIster

we rECeived versIon 1 of the report aboVE in response to oUr FOia ReqUesT From 2007. thIs version detaiLs
 in response to the same F OIA reques t. So met ime stheagen cy blocked out whol e paragraphs, while at  othe rt imes it  bloc ked out on l y  th eke y w or d sthatexp lain th e detailsofit s acts. What is  interesti ngis that theFBI  claim ed  th e  same  FO IA ex emptio n s in e ach versi on ;  it ju s t appli e d  t hemdifferently.

The do c uments at issu e arere p or t s  su bmi tted by th eFBI t o  the In t el l i g enc e  Oversight Bo ard (IOB),a  bo dy tha tisc harged  with  o v ers eeing the i ntel ligence c ommuni t y's com p liancewith t heCon stit u ti on  an di nte l li gen c e l aws. Inal l,  thedocu m e n t s to tal  alm ost 2 500 pages, an d w e'll dis cussthe t roub li ng pi cturetheypa int of an agenc y en gaged inexc es siv eilleg a l inte lli gen ce gath ering i n  ala t e r  p ost. But first, be lo w ,  a re side- by-sid e  c om p arisonsof  fo ur r e p ortsanda noverview  of th e  i nf ormatio nthey r ev eal  (m ove t h e sl ider t o see th e dif f erences). Foll o wing that iso ur a na l ysis  of  what thismean s  for  the pu bli c ’s ac cessto in f ormation about ourgo vernme nt.
The Documents 

1. FBI I O B Report 2 001- 6 9-  NSL for Finan cialRecords

W e  receive d two  copiesof the sa m e  reportinres pon set o  o ur more recen t FOIA  r equesttothe FBI . T hesam e e xe mptions w ere clai me din  b oth  copi e s of the  r epo rt  bu t Ver s ion 1is mu ch m or eh eav ily red a ct e d  tha nVe rsio n 2 .
Therepo r t d iscusse s the FBI ’si mpro pe rcollect ion of bank a nd  credit ca rd  re cords. I n Versio n 1, all important info r mationabo ut th e vi olation ( inc luding  th a t it r elates  to f in anc i a l rec o r ds ) w as  withheld. V ers ion 2  r evea ls most  of the details an d  sh ows the exten t o f th e FB I’s vi o lat io n . I n this matter, th e FBI, aspa r tof an ongo i ngin vestiga tion in to in t ernatio nal terro rism, sou gh t ho t e l a nd financi al recor ds on a s u bject .  A lthou ghthe ag en t r espon sibleh adno le gal au th orityto ob ta in the f inancial records, he or  she p urpos efu lly style d a req uest to a  fin ancial ins tit uti on as  aN ation al S e cu rit y  Lett er ( N SL) to hi d ethi s fa ct, essenti a l l y l yingtoo btainthebank and credit c a rd information . Th e r e i s l i kely  n o way the fina nci al i nstituti on  receivingthe NSLwo u ld ha ve bee n able  to tel l th e  lette r wa s i llegal an d t hu s  no one  w ou l d have  bee nable t o chal l enge t his violation of  thel a w. An d  ev en if  t he bank foun d out theNSL was ill egal,the“gagorder”ac compan yin gall NSLs a t  the time  woul d havepr even ted  the b ankf r om ta lkin gabo ut it pub l i cl y .
2 .  FB I IO B Rep or t 20 03-115 —I llegal U seo f FISA- Au tho r i zed Pe n  R e g ister

Werec eived V ersion 1 o f  the re p ort a bove i n resp onse to our  F OIA req ues t from 2007 . This ve r sio ndeta ils
 in_response to_the same FOIA request._Sometimes the_agency_blocked out_whole_paragraphs, while at_other times it_blocked out only the_key words that_explain_the details of its acts. What is interesting is that the FBI claimed the_same_FOIA exemptions_in_each_version; it just applied them_differently.

The documents at issue are_reports submitted_by the FBI to the Intelligence Oversight Board_(IOB),_a body that_is charged with overseeing the intelligence community's compliance with_the Constitution and intelligence laws. In_all, the documents_total_almost_2500 pages, and we'll_discuss the troubling picture they paint_of an agency engaged in excessive_illegal intelligence gathering in a later post._But first, below, are side-by-side comparisons_of four reports and an_overview of_the information they reveal (move_the slider to_see the_differences). Following that_is our analysis of what this_means for the_public’s access to information about our_government.

The_Documents

1. FBI IOB_Report_2001-69_- NSL_for Financial Records

We_received_two copies_of_the same report in response to_our_more recent FOIA request to the FBI._The same exemptions were_claimed_in both copies of_the report but Version 1_is much more heavily redacted than_Version 2.

The_report discusses_the FBI’s improper collection of bank and credit card records. In_Version 1, all important information about_the violation (including that_it relates_to_financial records) was_withheld._Version 2_reveals most of the details and shows_the extent_of the FBI’s violation. In this_matter, the FBI, as_part_of an ongoing investigation into international_terrorism, sought hotel and financial records_on a subject. Although the_agent_responsible_had no legal authority to_obtain the financial records, he or_she purposefully styled_a request to a financial institution as_a_National Security Letter (NSL) to hide_this_fact, essentially lying to obtain the_bank_and_credit card information. There is_likely no way the financial institution_receiving the NSL would have been able to tell_the letter was_illegal and thus no one_would_have_been able to challenge this violation of the law. And_even if_the bank found_out the NSL was illegal, the “gag order” accompanying all_NSLs at the time would have prevented_the bank from talking about it publicly.

2. FBI IOB Report 2003-115_— Illegal Use of FISA-Authorized Pen Register

We received_Version 1 of the report above in_response to our FOIA_request_from 2007. This version details