Seattle Shield mailing list archives to date (2013-06)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to RCW Ch. 42.56 (Public Records Act), I hereby request the following records:

Messages posted to the Seattle Shield mailing list from establishment of the list until date of processing of this request, along with related metadata.

Please do not create new records by printing the electronic records and digitizing the paper copies. If the native electronic format of these records is of a proprietary nature (i.e., something other than RFC 822 Internet e-mail messages) please contact me to make arrangements for extracting the records in a format conducive to use by the public.

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Phil Mocek

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 30, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #P2013-1725.

Thank you for your help.

RE: my public records request of May 30, 2013 (your identifier P2013-1725)

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am in receipt of your response dated August 29, 2013, which includes a 50-page PDF with portions of 28 e-mail messages, the earliest of which is dated July 13, 2012, and the latest of which is dated June 28, 2013. I believe that multiple passages were redacted without legal justification. Among other reasons, I note that Seattle Shield members reportedly include 100 private businesses and local utilities. Information provided to this wide assortment of parties in cleartext e-mail surely need not be redacted before providing it to the public. You have apparently redacted not only SPD external contact information (e.g., names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses provided to non-SPD entities) but meeting locations, meeting topics, invited speakers, web pages, and the nature of an event communicated to Seattle Shield members "in an abundance of caution." Given what I read in the surrounding text, these redactions do not appear to have been applied to investigative information, intelligence information, computer/telecom passwords, or internal-use-only phone numbers.

[1]: <http://abm.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=550581>

Additionally, I am concerned that this response seems incomplete. Although Seattle Shield was reportedly formed in 2009 (multiple e-mail messages from Susan E. "Sue" Daley #7135 contained in the records you provided contain the text, "Seattle Shield was formed in 2009 as a direct response to suspicious activity that occurred in our city, with the goal of reducing pre-operational surveillance by terrorist organizations.") and although the mailing list seems to have existed since at least as early as February, 2011 (rationale follows), you provided no messages dated earlier than July, 2012.

The earliest message provided is not worded in such a manner as to state or imply that it is the first message posted to the list. In it, Ms. Daley wrote, "7/13/12, 3:00 p.m. No New information. 07/13/12, 10:30 a.m. In an abundance of caution we want to let you know there **REDACTED** beginning at **REDACTED** and then **REDACTED** No further information is available at this time. --sue"

I refer you to a suspicious activity report ("SAR") dated February 3, 2011 (serial 25078, auditor Timothy "Tim" W. Renihan #6293, regarding "highly suspicious" photography/video in downtown Seattle at approximately 3:00 p.m. on January 19, 2011, [published on publicintelligence.net][1], and acknowledged by Seattle Police Department Chief of Police in a [May 29, 2013 e-mail to me sent in response to my public records request P2013-605][2]. In that SAR there is a notice referencing the existence of the Seattle Shield mailing list which states, "This advisory notice and it's [sic] content may not be transmitted, conveyed or released outside of the Seattle Shield member group without the express consent of the Seattle Shield program manger and remains the property of Seattle Shield. Any member failing to abide by this restriction may result in the member's removal from the Seattle Shield member group, associated mailing list, and electronic communication coordination website."

[2]: <http://info.publicintelligence.net/SPD-SAR.pdf>
[3]: <https://www.muckrock.com/foi/seattle-69/suspicious-activity-reports-2012-sharable-with-seattle-shield-members-2969/#comm-27761>

In a November 8, 2012, post to the Seattle Shield mailing list included in records you provided is notification of the "new Seattle Shield Weekly Blast". Although 42 weeks have passed since that notice, records you provided contain a total of 28 messages, only 12 of which mention "blast." None of the messages announces a change in scheduling of these weekly updates.

I ask that you perform a more thorough search of department e-mail archives as well as any that may be hosted outside the department archives with the seattleshield.org website. Please also inquire with staff who are familiar with Seattle Shield and its mailing list.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

RE: my public records request of May 30, 2013 (your identifier P2013-1725)

Dear Sir or Madam:

What is the status of review of this request? I e-mailed on August 29, 2013, to notify you that the records provided on that day were seemingly incomplete and improperly redacted.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

RE: my public records request of May 30, 2013 (your identifier P2013-1725)

Dear Sir or Madam:

I appeal. 23 weeks is unreasonable delay. I believe you have provided an incomplete and improperly redacted set of records.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 30, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #P2013-1725.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 30, 2013. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #P2013-1725.

Thank you for your help.