IMPACT ON CURRENT INFORMANTS OR POTENTIAL INFORMANTS RESULTING FROM PRESENT FOIPA DISCLOSURE POLICIES

Three individuals were separately contacted in an effort to obtain their cooperation in organized crime matters. Each of these individuals advised the contacting Agent they felt their confidentiality could not be maintained due to current FOIA legislation. It is believed these individuals would have been cooperative had they not feared the FOIA and they would have been valuable FBI informants. Because of the wide publicity which the FOIA has received, these individuals were well aware of the public's ability to gain access to information in FBI files.

Shortly after a skyjacking began, an unidentified caller stated to a Special Agent that he was a medical doctor and that the skyjacker was probably identical to an individual who was an outpatient at the psychiatric clinic where the caller was employed. He stated the individual was schizophrenic and was dangerous to himself and to other persons. The caller suggested that a psychiatrist should be available during all negotiations with the skyjacker. The caller's identity was requested since he was obviously knowledgeable concerning the skyjacker and could furnish possible valuable information in an attempt to have the skyjacker peacefully surrender. Despite the fact that several lives were in jeopardy, the caller stressed that he was unable to furnish his name because of FOIPA requirements and terminated the call. Because of this telephone call, the FBI did have a psychiatrist available during negotiations with the skyjacker (who had been correctly identified by the caller) and the skyjacker's surrender was accomplished without loss of lives or property.

For approximately three years, a telephone caller known to the FBI Agent only by a code name furnished information in a wide variety of cases, from drug-related matters to terrorism. The caller never identified himself and advised he could never testify since to do so would risk death. The caller finally terminated his relationship, expressing fear that an inadvertent release of information by the FBI, under the FOIA, might identify him.

In a bank robbery investigation a high school student was identified as a suspect. When officials at the high school were approached in an attempt to obtain necessary information concerning the suspect (descriptive data, address, whereabouts, etc.), the officials declined to furnish the information due to the FOIPA. After the loss of precious time, the school principal was finally convinced that the student posed a threat to the community, in view of the fact he was armed and probably desperate. He eventually provided the information and the student was arrested. During the course of another bank robbery investigation a warrant was obtained for a female subject. The investigation determined the subject had applied for a job through the state unemployment office. That office refused to provide any information, advising it was protected by state and Federal privacy acts. It was necessary to obtain a subpoena to force the unemployment office to disclose the requested information. During the period of time between the service of the subpoena and its return, the subject committed another bank robbery. The FBI believes that if the information had been disclosed at an earlier time, the second bank robbery would not have occurred, as the subject would have been arrested more promptly.

One FBI office received information from an AUSA indicating a woman had information concerning ghost employees and other frauds within the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program. When contaced, the woman refused to be interviewed because she feared that her identity might be disclosed through an FOIPA request.

An individual in a position to know information about an FBI subject stated to a Special Agent that she would not furnish any information lest it and her identity appear in the newspapers. She made reference to information which was being published in the press as a result of an FOIPA request.

An Agent was recently in contact with an individual believed capable of providing reliable direct and indirect information regarding high-level political corruption. This individual advised his information would be furnished only if the contacting Special Agent could guarantee that the individual's identity would never be set forth in any FBI files. The contacting Agent attributed this individual's reluctance to have his identity set forth in FBI files to a fear of the FOIPA and its effect on the FBI's ability to maintain confidentiality of information from informants.

In August 1976, an FBI field office contacted a source to determine why he was not now providing the FBI with information as he had been in the past. This source replied that he was in fear of losing his job and of retaliation by individuals about whom he might furnish information. The source asked if the FBI could guarantee the confidentiality of his relationship and of the information he furnished. He stated he was particularly concerned about confidentiality in light of the FOIA. In view of his apprehensions, this individual is no longer being contacted by the FBI.

A sariciar organized crime case cried an mestigation to identify male we erg transported tentate for tommoserial activity Due to fear of repris 2.a wemming from POLA declosures and PA procuems. TECUs Schock officals would not cooperate in the restgator to verify the identity of the juveniles In the same the prominent zens in a community displayed revocant cooperation with the Fil out of fear of POLA disclosure.

A potential wure advised he would not cooperate with the FBI due to fear his dentity would be publicly revealed which would be detrimental to his profession The potential source referred to news accounts in the local press regarding material made available under the FOIA, which had disclosed the names of several individusa in professional capacities who had assisted the FBI and the nature of their assistance. This type of publicity according to the potential source, would be detrimental to any individla. in business who elected to cooperate with the FBI

A special agent advised that an individual in a high management position in a state agency wished to provide information to the FBI on a confidential basis. During one of the agent's initial conversations with this source, confidentiality was requested specifically that the source's name never be mentioned in FBI files due to "paat legislation, POIPA, etc" This person was in a position to furnish information concerning white-collar crime and political corruption, however, the potential source subsequently refused to cooperate with the FBI in spite of the agent's assurances. An FBI office has had success in developing a number of valuable informants from a group of loanshark victims Recently, upon interview, several of these individuals stated a desire to cooperate, but have refused to do so for fear of the subjects of the investigation learning their identities through an FOIPA release. A criminal informant, who furnished very significant information in an automobile theft ring case, advised he feared for his life after reading in various newspapers of disclosures made under the FOIPA. As a result, this source will no longer furnish the information which is singular in nature. Several attempts have been made to reactivate a former source, who had been extremely cooperative and productive. Current attempts to persuade the source to once again aid the FBI have been negative. The former informant refuses to cooperate, as he believes his identity cannot be kept secure due to FOIPA disclosure policy.

An informant was recently closed inasmuch as the source advised he believed the FBI could not efficiently protect the confidentiality of his relationship and his identity, due to the FOIPA. This source has previously provided excellent information regarding gambling and organized crime. He stated that he is afraid, if his name ever surfaced as providing information to the FBI, he would lose his business and everything he has worked for in his life.

In 1976, an active informant stated he would no longer continue in that capacity because it was his belief as a result of the FOIPA, his identity and confidentiality could no longer be protected.

In an Interstate Transportation In Aid of Racketeering investigation, an individual was successfully developed as a potential source of information concerning racketeering and political corruption. However, upon learning of the provisions of the FOIPA, this individual requested that his conversations not be recorded and refused further cooperation.

Another field office informant related a conversation which occurred between himself and several organized crime figures. One individual commented that within the next few years the FBI will be severely restricted in its efforts to obtain information from confidential sources. He stated that he fully expected the provisions of the FOIPA would be successfully utilized in identifying FBI informants. Agents subsequently contacting this valuable source have noted a subtle reluctance on his part to more fully penetrate the particular organized crime activities which he is in a position to cover.

An FBI office in a major city has received information from several reliable informants that most organized crime members in the area have been instructed to write to FBI Headquarters requesting file information pertaining to themselves. These informants have advised the sole purpose of this process is to attempt to identify informants who have supplied information to the FBI on organized crime matters. Requests have been submitted by virtually every organized crime figure in the area.

An informant who has a great deal of knowledge concerning a violent group is reluctant to furnish information on the gang because of the FOIPA. He has considerably reduced the amount of information he furnishes to the FBI.

An informant who has furnished considerable information concerning a terrorist organization advised that he is very upset about the FOIA. He has learned through conversations that former and current extremists are writing to FBI Headquarters

under the FOIA in an effort to identify and expose informants. The informant indicated he is apprehensive about the Bureau's ability to properly safeguard information furnished by him.

A long-time confidential informant stated, "I can't help you any more due to the Freedom of Information Act." This informant had previously furnished valuable information which led to arrests and recovery of Government property. Even though the promise of confidentiality was explained to the informant, he still refused to furnish further information.

A former informant regularly furnished information resulting in recovery of large amounts of stolen Government property and the arrest and conviction of several subjects. In a pending case, the former informant refused to cooperate because of his fear of the FOIPA, which he felt would in fact jeopardize his life should he continue cooperating with the FBI.

In January, 1978, an office of the FBI received information one prime bombing suspect was applying under the FOIA for his file. Sources close to the suspect advised he was seeking to discover the FBI's knowledge of his activities and the identities of agents who were investigating him.

In a western field office, a former highly productive confidential informant advised that he did not feel secure, due to widespread publicity concerning FBI informants and the FOIA legislation. He stated that, although he continued to maintain his confidentiality regarding his relationship with the FBI, he was not sure that the FBI could do the same. Due to this source's feelings, he discontinued all contact with the FBI.

An informant furnished information concerning organized crime figures and on organized crime conditions. Subsequently, the source acquired the conviction that no guarantee could be given that his identity would be protected. Accordingly, the source declined to furnish any further information to the FBI.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was advised that an informant of one FBI office might be in a position to provide timely information concerning large narcotics shipments, in exchange for a reward from DEA and the guarantee of confidentiality. A local representative of DEA responded that confidentiality could be guaranteed by DEA only in instances where the informant was operated by DEA as a source. DEA reward money could be paid to any individual supplying information; however, the true identity of an FBI source would be reflected in DEA records for such payment. The FBI source was advised of the results of the inquiry with the DEA. The source subsequently furnished the identities of the drug subjects of which he had knowledge. This information was disseminated to DEA. However, the source declined to have further contact with these subjects, for fear his identity would be made known at some later date under an FOIA request to DEA.

An FBI informant is well connected to the organized crime element. Over the past year the informant's productivity has dramatically decreased. Consequently, this decrease was discussed with the informant, who stated that he had begun to doubt the FBI's ability to protect the contents of its own files and information provided by its informants. He had learned that an organized crime figure had received over 300 pages of FBI documents and was unquestionably trying to identify informants. The criminal informant coordinator of a northeast office has been told by an individual, who would potentially be an excellent source of criminal information on the waterfront, that even though he had cooperated with law enforcement personnel in the past he would never do so again. He stated that he was afraid that one day, as the result of FOIPA, he might "see his name in the newspaper."

An informant who has been furnishing information to special agents of the FBI since 1953, regarding gambling, prostitution, stolen goods, and criminal intelligence information, when last contacted by an agent, indicated he would no longer furnish any information to the FBI due to the fact it could be disclosed under the FOIPA. The informant felt his personal safety could be jeopardized by the disclosure of his identity, and he no longer wanted to take the personal risk and provide information regarding criminal activities.

An organized crime informant has expressed great concern over his safety due to the recent disclosure of information released under the FOIPA. A special agent has advised that he believes the informant will terminate his relationship with the FBI because of his concern.

A confidential source stated he was fearful his name would become known to certain individuals. He cited their possible access through FOIPA requests to the information he has provided. The source became unproductive and contact with him was discontinued.

A confidential source advised that "general street talk" was that one should not provide information to the Government since this information would eventually be publicized as a result of the FOIPA.

gu cod no longer nging of the FOIPA sure of informants

2 sever contacts

mi associated with severtsaved knowledge S2? "SICs The two agents Je sure 3th agents were Chang beras of value. FLATS a known intelliA finals of that

Com the Lies of the FBI dick epressed scoe bumor over

asbe treg muntenntelligence rammes a not protect his * If the Fund CA and the Lust Suget de would be fearful that ITS the public under the moetings exemplfied by the Socialist

S DOCUL expressed concern over

FIL WET DOLSting 2008, possibly jeopardizing

restano i DÉTICA vs socated who was in a ITAQUE DISTT TREE mein mi I DO weigence activi15. Tie vi

Greme DECOCCc reasons, this individuDet under the POGA Be therefore felt compelled DIE INDEPENer person concerning national secuSTS Derey ending a post sensitive oper

La pirmas estresset quen troen per security and possible disclosure of his de FE Ing your state & which FBI sources had been the tree The 2 man who had provides critical information for requested that his relationship with the F50 de terminated and that his name be deleted from the FBI records. One format B & WELHDOWN ADD Sur y respected nondual with many dealcat frem murines The aimant has repeatedly voiced concern over possible disc If 28 entry through the POLA The source has now REC JEST.At the E contacts de man frequency and duration, that all information formuaned by paraphrased that tus mee, or code names never be used, and that access to me ffomation be severely restricted within the FBI It has become wile the informants dealing with certain foreigners are known to have increased the frequency of his FB contacts the length of these contacts and the amount of substantive zormance formshed have declined.

apparent also.

A former source of excellent quality was recontacted since his background was Buch that he could develop information of value concerning a terrorist group. After three hours of conversation, the former source agreed to cooperate with the FBI but only in a very limited manner. He stated that due to the FOIA he no longer believes that FBI agents can assure his complete protection He made it clear that he will never again function as he had previously in behalf of the FBI, noting that disclosure of his identity would most assuredly cost him his life.

An individual who has requested his identity be protected and who has provided information pertinent to a suspected foreign government intelligence officer, has also expressed concern pertinent to revelation of his identity as furnishing information to the FBI. This individual querried the special agent involved in the investigation as to whether his identity could be protected and stated that he was concerned because of future business dealings with certain foreign countries. He felt that should his identity become known to foreign government officials, it would cause damage to his business relationships. Because of the above, this individual stated that he did not wish to be contacted on a regular basis by the FBI.

In September, 1977, a former special agent advised an FBI agent that an informant had contacted him upon learning that an FBI subject had obtained documents under the FOIPA. The informant expressed the fear that his identity as a confidential source against this subject would be revealed. This subject was trying to identify individuals who had provided information to the FBI concerning his activities. In a western FBI office, and individual was contacted in a recent foreign counterintelligence investigation, as he was in a position to furnish valuable information on

a continuing basis regarding the subject. Although this potential source displayed an otherwise cooperative attitude, he stated he would not furnish information for fear his identity might be revealed at some future date due to provisions of the FOIA.

Members of an organization dedicated to bringing about a movement based on Marxism-Leninism, recently discussed the FOIA. A decision was reached to direct inquiries to both the FBI and the CIA under provisions of the FOIA requesting information concerning the organization. It was anticipated that a comparison of information concerning individuals, including dates, times and activities, would identify informants in the organization.

In 1976, a most valuable and productive FBI informant ceased his activity in behalf of the Bureau. His reason for this decision was his concern over the FOIA, which he believed offered the distinct possibility of disclosing his identity as an informant. This source provided coverage on two major subversive- and/or violenceoriented groups of investigative interest.

Recently an informant, who is furnishing information regarding certain foreign visitors to the United States, expressed great concern over the possibility of his identity being disclosed. The source stated that he recently read in a local newspaper that foreign visitors could gain access to FBI records through the FOIPA. A businessman was being approached by an intelligence officer of a foreign government. Upon interview by the FBI, the asset stated that were it not for the FOIPA, he would be willing to be operated against this and other hostile intelligence officers. However, because of FOIPA, he felt a real danger that his identity would be divulged which would in turn seriously and detrimentally affect his business overseas. For this reason, asset has refused to become involved in a foreign counterintelligence operation.

Since the advent of the FOIPA, numerous documents containing information furnished by an FBI asset of long-standing have been released under provisions of these laws. These releases have had a deleterious affect upon an asset's relationship with the FBI. There has been a noticeable decrease in the volume of information furnished by the asset, who has been frank to state that he no longer has his former confidence that the FBI can maintain the confidentiality of his relationship. On numerous occasions, the asset has expressed reluctance to furnish information which he fears might be released under the FOIA, resulting in his physical jeopardy or leaving him open to civil suit. This asset has not yet terminated his relationship with the FBI, but the relationship is now a very tenuous one.

A source who previously furnished information on a time basis relating to foreign terrorist activites has expressed reluctance to furnish additional information because of the possibility of his identity being exposed due to the FOIPA.

Senator HATCH. Thank you so much, Mr. Burke. We appreciate your being with us.

Our next witness is James Wieghart of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Mr. Wieghart is currently the executive director of the New York Daily News. He has been with them since 1969 and served as the Washington bureau chief for 7 years.

He previously worked for the Milwaukee Sentinel.

The Freedom of Information Act has been a valuable tool for the media, and we intend to see that it remains an effective aid to newspapers.

Mr. Wieghart, we welcome you-a long-time Washington journalist-back to the Capital and look forward to discussing that topic with you.

We turn the time over to you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES WIEGHART, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF

NEWSPAPER EDITORS

Mr. WIEGHART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am appearing here before this committee to represent the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

87-749 082 32