The NSA’s Intellipedia Decision: A Precedent for Reduced Transparency?

• The NSA has recently denied access to information from Intellipedia, a departure from over a decade of previous protocol.
• This decision is not based on changes to the FOIA or its exemptions but seems to be an internal agency choice.
• The NSA’s new stance could set a concerning precedent, allowing agencies to reinterpret transparency standards without clear legislative or judicial backing.
• The move underscores the importance of vigilance and advocacy in preserving the principles of open government and the public’s right to know.

In a recent development that has raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, the National Security Agency (NSA) has taken a firm stance against the release of information from Intellipedia, the Intelligence Community’s collaborative platform. This decision comes as a stark departure from the agency’s previous protocol, which for over a decade allowed the release of records from this platform under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Appeal and the NSA’s Response

As first reported by The Black Vault, this issue came to light when a series of FOIA requests were recently closed by the NSA, all seeking information from Intellipedia. The newly found stance produced a “GLOMAR Response” in each case where the agency could “neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any responsive material contained within the Intellipedia collaborative platform.” However, for more than a decade, The Black Vault received a long list of Intellipedia entries released by the NSA.

There have been 130 appeals submitted by The Black Vault fighting this obfuscation.

The first of these 130 appeals has now had a decision rendered, and it was met with a response that has set a concerning precedent for future requests along with the remaining 129 appeals that are still being processed.

The NSA stated, “Based on my review, the appropriate response in this case is to neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any responsive material contained within the Intellipedia collaborative platform.”

The agency further elaborated that revealing any information, even the mere acknowledgment of a topic’s existence within Intellipedia, could “result in the exposure of intelligence information, sources, methods or activities.” They argue that such exposure could “harm our national security and severely undermine the NSA mission.”

While the NSA acknowledges past releases from Intellipedia, they now believe that “continued release could harm national security.” Their rationale? Continuous releases could allow any requester to create a “roadmap of the Intelligence Community’s interest and activities,” revealing its sources and methods.

The Implications for Transparency

This shift in the NSA’s stance is more than just a procedural change. It represents a significant blow to transparency and the public’s right to know. For over a decade, Intellipedia served as a window into the workings and interests of the Intelligence Community. Now, that window has been shuttered.

The NSA’s decision raises a crucial question: If the agency can change its protocol on Intellipedia, what stops them from doing the same with other platforms or sources of information? By seemingly creating a new FOIA exemption, the NSA has set a precedent that could be applied to other areas, further limiting the public’s access to information.

A Departure from Protocol

It’s essential to highlight that this new stance is not rooted in any recent changes to the FOIA or its exemptions. Instead, it appears to be an internal decision by the NSA, one that contradicts their protocol for more than a decade. Such a departure without clear legislative or judicial backing is concerning, as it suggests that agencies can reinterpret or redefine transparency standards at will.

The NSA’s recent decision on Intellipedia is more than just a denial of a FOIA request. It’s a signal of a broader shift away from transparency and a potential harbinger of things to come. As the public and transparency advocates grapple with this change, it’s crucial to remain vigilant and question the implications of such decisions on our right to know and the principles of open government.

###

Appeal Denial

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media: