From the Executive Director

Problems for agencies when applicants use AI

Based solely on anecdotal evidence from requests being received from clients over the last 1-2 years, in our view there has been a significant increase in AI generated freedom of information requests. This may also explain why clients are more commonly complaining about sharp increases or shifts in the number of FOI requests being received each year.

The fact that a request is generated using AI is not necessarily a bad thing, but we find that more often than not the result is a confused or confusing mess. That in itself can mean that a request in that form is not in the interests of the applicant for reasons which will become apparent.

These requests have at least some of the following characteristics, making them unnecessarily complex and complicated:

they can be particularly unclear or difficult to decipher
they can be unusually long and wordy
the language can be repetitive
the style can be particularly formal or legalistic
the request might contain unrelated or irrelevant commentary rather than focussing on what is sought
the scope of what the request purports to seek can be unusually broad and not focussed
it can be particularly difficult to discern what documents are sought
the request might focus on seeking information rather than documents
it can seek weird categories of documents or information such as “disclosure logs”, metadata, etc which has no connection to the underlying subject matter
they might mis-state purported rights that are believed to exist under the FOI Act (such as internal review – which ceased being available in Victoria in 2012!)

Where requests such as these are received by agencies, FOI officers and others dealing with these requests need to be particularly vigilant to ensure that any attempt at a request meets the formal requirements of a valid request under the FOI Act. If not, there is no valid request, and it need not be processed. However, the matter does not end there as agencies that receive non-compliant requests must take reasonable steps to assist an applicant to make a valid request. That can include attempting to point out ambiguities and uncertainties in a request and seeking that applicants amend their request to make it valid.

This can be a particularly difficult task as often applicants do not themselves understand what they have asked for, let alone being able to make meaningful changes resulting in a valid request being made.

Agencies must have the courage, after having provided reasonable assistance to no avail, to refuse to comply with an intended request if it does not meet formal requirements despite attempts (sometimes an inordinate number) to clarify the request. Remember, if that is what occurs, no review rights arise in the applicant as there was never a valid request which is being refused.

Other aspects or mechanisms which may come into play in dealing with requests, even if they become valid, can include:

refusing access without processing because doing so would substantially and unreasonably divert agency resources; this is because despite being clarified, they can be unnecessarily broad and non-specific.
seeking deposits on account of access charges which result in applicants not pursuing their request.

In the long run, unless great care is taken by intending applicants to make clear, specific requests which are comprehensible to an agency, and not too broad, applicants risk reducing their chances of getting documents they really seek in a timely manner. This is because so much time and effort is spent in interacting with agencies to get requests to a point where they can actually be processed.

So where applicants may think they are doing the right thing in using AI to generate long, wordy, technical-sounding requests, it may not ultimately be in their interests and could be counterproductive when one considers the object of the FOI legislation.

If you think you have received an AI generated request and might need assistance in dealing with it, don't hesitate to contact us. Good luck.

Mick Batskos

Executive Director