Oct 202014
 
 October 20, 2014  Posted by  Court, Surveillance, U.S.

Jon Campbell writes:

Many a reporter has been stymied by the “Glomar response,” as it’s known, since 1975, when it was first established as a permissible answer to a federal Freedom of Information Act request. (The backstory, as recounted in this Radiolab segment, involves a sunken Russian nuclear submarine, a Cold War pissing contest, and a company called “Global Marine” — hence Glomar.)

The justification behind a Glomar response is that, in some cases, simply confirming the existence of certain records would be enough to undermine government interests.

[…]

But a recent court ruling might bring the legal principle involved into New York State for the first time.

The case involves a Harlem-based imam, Talib Abdur-Rashid, who sued the city to find out whether he and his mosque had been under surveillance by the NYPD. There are strong suggestions that Abdur-Rashid, who has for years preached a politically charged brand of Islam, may have been a target of the department’s “demographics unit,” which embarked on broad-based surveillance of Muslim groups in the years after 9-11.

Read more on The Village Voice.

Thanks to Joe Cadillic for this link.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.