"The concern would be that someone within the department could, in theory, sue because privileged documents got released."

No, they can't. There is no claim they would be allowed to make here.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you keep making all sorts of claims about what their legal position, risks, etc are, with absolutely no basis to do so. If you are going to do this, could you please at least cite whatever authority is giving you these ideas in the first place? I'm not even sure where to begin, because, with all due respect, what you are saying is "not even wrong"

I did not intend my posts to be of the "here is what is actually going on" variety. My concern is that I have seen no attempt in the article or (at the time of my original posting) in the comments even addressing the possibility that this is non-malicious. As the article is making a claim it has a burden of proof that, in my opinion, it has not even come close to meeting.

As a direct response to my concerns, you have actually addressed some these fundamental concerns that should have been dealt with in the original article article allowing me, as an untrained lay-person in this matter, to take this case much more seriously.

I am still not convinced that this is an instance of policy and not individual incentives, but answering that would involve reasearch into many cases, their incentive structure, comparrisons to other groups, ETC, and would need to be written up into a long and in depth article which would get fewer readers and less invigorate the base as these shorter and less logically compelling pieces. I realize that this is a fundemental problem with any type of activism, and the only solution I know of is to call it out and hope that A) someone will provide the information in comments, B) authors will tend to include (or reference) more information in the original article, and C) other people will that these articles may not show what they think they do.

" As the article is making a claim it has a burden of proof that, in my opinion, it has not even come close to meeting."

The NYPD has a long history of doing this, not only shown on this site, but others. It's actually quite bad.

Here's another few examples

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-nypd-is-foia-proof,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/ap-nypd-matt-apuzzo...

etc

Muckrock has enough history requesting things from the NYPD that they are probably tired of writing up the same case of this maliciousness, again and again.

I have higher expectations of our public servants. These secretive, adversarial, stone-walling tactics have become standard practice, and there is no shortage of bullshit reasons to justify the behavior. Unfortunately, well-meaning citizens like you continue to trust the government, take them at their word, and accept their petty distinctions and self-serving rationalizations as a legitimate use of their power. It is not: it is pure obfuscation designed to resist any check, no matter how small, to their power.

It is disgusting, and it needs to stop.

If you disagree with this, then consider the following question: what if the NYPD had released their FOIA guidelines? Would you be posting your concerns that the release of that document opens up the NYPD to lawsuits from it's own employees? That's rhetorical, because of course you wouldn't because that's ridiculous.

To be clear, I think the NYPD is in the wrong hear, and am happy that they are being challenged on it and expect them to loose. My concern in this case is that if we do not understand the cause of the problem, then our attempts at a solution will be less effective.

>Would you be posting your concerns that the release of that document opens up the NYPD to lawsuits from it's own employees?

If I criticize their actions in this way, then I am suggesting that I know more about the situation then they do, which I do not. If I am defending their actions, all I am saying is that their is the possibility that their actions are reasonable, given what they know about the situation.

I absolutely do not trust the government, but most of my distrust comes from a concern of their competence, or individual employees acting in their own interest to my detriment (such as not admitting they made a mistake). I do have some concerns high level policies they might have, but those are relatively minor concerns.

To clarify this point, suppose this secrecy is deliberate policy. We need to change leadership to people who follow a policy of transparency, give time for changes to trickle down into the culture, then problem solved.

However, if the problem is bureaucratic, we need to change the incentive structure so that the individual making the decision to disclose a particular document has a personal reason to do so. A good first step to this would be specific protections for individuals if they release something that results in harm to their employers/clients/ETC. We also need to increase the cost of not disclosing documents, so that they have a reason to disclose them. For example, we could require the person making the decision could require an active objection from the concerned party in order to withhold the content. Of course, all of these suggestions are incredibly rough and require much more careful consideration before being implemented.

Having said that, I do see the appeal of thinking we are dealing with all powerful organizations, free from the bureaucratic nightmares that plague us mere mortals.