Yes, civil servants who flout the oath they took should be just as respected as those who don't.

> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...

These people work in the FOIA compliance department. How did they violate their oath?

She works for the NSA's FOIA department, hence bearing sufficient responsibility for the NSA's wrongdoing.

Well, if she's lucky, and if the NSA is competent (at being scumbags) this lady never gets anywhere near anything interesting.

It's not me that failed to include a full address. It is the people who submitted their information and failed to fill out the form properly. The form is dead simple, but no matter what, there will always be a small % of people who do not follow instructions.

Furthermore, the NSA does not get to make "rules" about the form of FOIA requests. If they have enough information to reply, by law, they must reply.

No you were not the person that failed to include a complete address. But you were the one that assumed there would be no problem with submitting incomplete addresses. Did you read 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A):

  (3) 
    (A) Except with respect to the records made available under
        paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, and except as provided 
        in subparagraph (E), each agency, upon any request for records which  
        (i)  reasonably describes such records and 
        (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, 
             place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make 
             the records promptly available to any person. [1]

Or maybe you can point me to where it says that NSA is not allowed to specify the procedures for filing? It seems that NSA is not alone when it comes to requiring a complete address.[2]

You seem like an intelligent person who is genuinely interested in government. You may enjoy reading the DOJ's procedural requirements for foia[3]. It is an interesting exploration of all of the legal subtleties of FOIA.

I am still interested in hearing what behavior would constitute recognition that this is a "protest"?

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552

[2] http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide13/procedural-requireme...

[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=foia+%22complete+address%22+...

I'm not "assuming" anything. I simply print and mail documents. I actually can't do more to review the forms, because it would be crossing the line into giving legal advice. If the form looked like it was filled out, I mailed it.

Actually... you can do more. You have a web form. Process the results with some error checking. I'm pretty sure Google (maybe someone else) has an API that lets you pass them an address and they will validate it. So you could pretty easily throw an error for forms that do not have a complete address. That is not legal advice... that is "Form Processing 101".

Having said that, I think it is rather comical you are using old school snail mail to request the NSA to provide people with their digital records. Plus I'm sure the paper form is a bit more work for someone to process. I like it. I'm all about using inconvenience as a middle finger.

I'm sorry but rejecting form submissions that are imcomplete is not "giving legal advice."

Don't forget; I am still interested in hearing what behavior would constitute recognition that this is a "protest"?

"The civil servant that emailed you was doing what her employer told her to do so that she could continue to bring a paycheck home."

So she was just following orders, huh?

Do you have a problem with her actions?