

Snowden Task Force Damage Report is Redacted - Shank
http://www.scribd.com/doc/256849173/Snowden-Task-Force-Damage-Reports-REDACTED

======
josefresco
The idea that the government would release to a news agency (or anyone in the
public) a document outlining how the "Snowden leaks" damaged national security
is mind numbingly ridiculous. I agree with the comment that this at least
acknowledges that these documents, and this analysis exist (for future
requests). However, I wouldn't expect to see this information revealed until
long after it's relevant to US security (think decades or more).

Unfortunately this means that most involved in this debate, will be without a
complete picture of what benefits, or costs have incurred from either these
"programs" or the leaks themselves.

We're (in the public) left to argue about whether or not we're "safer" in the
most abstract terms. Both sides can point to terrorism, or the lack thereof
without actually working with 100% of the data and therefore unable to make
any conclusions.

~~~
ObviousScience
I agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see this information any time soon,
but I want to point out that I think the government did the right thing in
their response: they admitted they had such a document while at the same time
saying that they believed the content should be classified.

This allows the discussion to move forward in a meaningful way, as people can
petition to have the classification reviewed, asked for it in other contexts,
etc rather than having just been flatly rejected here without any recourse.

This is a discussion between the government and the public through the
appropriate channels and following the appropriate means (at least, so far).
I'm not sure what else people could want, in this context.

~~~
exelius
The problem is that the U.S. Government had adopted a policy of "classified by
default". It's impossible for us to have a public debate on this issue when
anyone who knows about it is legally not allowed to discuss it with anyone who
does not have the proper clearance.

It's important to note that discussing the content of a classified document -
even if that document has been leaked and is in the public sphere, and
regardless of whether or not the information really should be classified - is
punishable by serious jail time. This effectively prevents public debate about
any program considered "classified", which means if you're doing something
shady that would be embarrassing if it came out, you just slap a security
clearance on it and claim its for "national security", thus precluding any
government officials from acknowledging it.

As more and more government programs are considered classified, the people are
given less of a voice in how our country is run. That is the most scary part
for me.

~~~
LLWM
And yet the same people complaining about classified by default as a de facto
government policy are pushing for encryption by default everywhere.

~~~
exelius
This is actually kind of the opposite thing. Individuals should be able to
have privacy from the government; but the government works for the people and
should be more transparent.

There are definitely things that should be classified - but in classifying
everything, you run the risk of the "classified" designation losing its
meaning. In Citizenfour, this was something that Snowden explicitly stated: he
was leaving it to the discretion of the reporters which information should be
published and what should not, because his biases weren't necessarily correct.
But this is because so much classified information shouldn't be classified
that someone like Snowden can't really differentiate between what is important
to keep secret and what isn't.

~~~
LLWM
No more than encrypting information causes encryption to lose its meaning.
Something that should be declassified still can be. It just means that the
default state is different.

Would you say that if your innocuous slashdot browsing was encrypted even
though it "shouldn't be", someone like you or me would become unable to
differentiate between what is important to keep secret and what isn't?

------
s_q_b
While it's amusing, it's not nothing.

The release of the document, even redacted, means that it exists. Proof that
it exists gives legal purchase to challenge the redactions moving forward or
to seek alternative means of disclosure on other grounds.

------
Kenji
So much for "Freedom of Information". This looks like straight from onion news
it's so ridiculous.

~~~
eli
Well, I don't think anyone expects FOIA to apply to genuinely classified
information. So I guess the issue is whether it actually needs to be
classified.

~~~
jMyles
Some of us, though, think that "classified information" held by governments is
an anachronism on its face in the information age.

And so yes, I expect that FOIA will apply to every shred of knowledge held by
government once this misconfiguration is corrected.

~~~
JonFish85
(Sigh). Some things absolutely need to be classified: nuclear launch codes,
specific positions & plans of the military, all sorts of military secrets (spy
information, knowledge that gives us an advantage against any enemies), login
credentials for government officials, encryption keys for things, etc.

Do you really want everyone in the world to know the exact location of our
nuclear weapons? Top speed of our submarines? Blind spots of our radar
systems?

~~~
jMyles
> the exact location of our nuclear weapons? Top speed of our submarines?
> Blind spots of our radar systems?

I don't mean to sound brash or simplistic, but the simple answer is that I
don't want my government to have any of those things. I'll be safer and more
empowered when my government disarms, de-escalates, and makes its goings on
completely transparent.

As a thought exercise: how much longer do you think the world will abide
nuclear weapons? Are they just here forever?

~~~
JonFish85
I'm going to leave the whole first part alone, just so this doesn't devolve
TOO far.

>> As a thought exercise: how much longer do you think the world will abide
nuclear weapons? Are they just here forever? They're probably here as long as
there's a desire to utterly wipe a large area off of the map. Maybe the USA
doesn't want them anymore, but many, many other countries want them and will
continue to work towards getting them. Having them gets you a seat at the
power table, and people have to listen to you. Even if they're not used,
they're an extraordinarily valuable tool.

~~~
psykovsky
>> Having them gets you a seat at the power table

What? A death sentence, you mean, only by trying to have them.

------
teamhappy
I suppose releasing something that is completely redacted isn't the same as
releasing nothing. That's the only scenario I can think of that doesn't make
this look like self-sabotage. Makes you question the usefulness of FOIA
requests.

------
billw224
You are all idiots and don't understand, clearly, how FOIA works. B5, one of
the exemptions the government uses here, is the delibertiave exemption that is
one of the most abused and doesn't have to be used. It's done by choice. The
fact that the government would classify EVERYTHING is ridiculous not that they
wouldn't release a framework about the leaks. Try doing some research about
the FOIA process.

------
not_kurt_godel
Link to the real article: [https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-
the-damage...](https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage-
caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted)

------
digitalneal
Here is my CN:

G: You said something that hurt my feelings!

C: What did I say?

G: I'm not telling you but it hurt my feelings!

------
crazychrome
amazing! more than 6 months of hard work to strip out 140 pages of info. My 5
years old son could do the job faster.

------
Paul-ish
There seem to be a an unredacted footnote, for whatever good that does.

------
Lancey
At least we know how many bullet points are in the documents

------
anonbanker
this document is to be declassified in 2038, according to the poorly-blacked-
out parts.

we won't know the truth for another 23 years.

------
beedogs
Welp, I'm convinced. Page 76 is key.

------
shit_parade
Releasing evidence to support claims is a quaint relic of when America was a
Republic beholden to its citizens.

~~~
strictnein
This wasn't released to prove their point. This was released in response to a
FOIA request.

~~~
shit_parade
" In fact, the existence of the DIA's report had been unknown until the White
House secretly authorized the declassification of select portions of it so two
Republican lawmakers could undercut the media narrative painting Snowden as a
heroic whistleblower."

[https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-
damage...](https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage-
caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted)

~~~
strictnein
And... ?

Also, no where does that article substantiate that claim, and calling a DIA
report an internal administration report seems to indicate that they don't
really know what they're talking about. The DIA has several congressional
oversight committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, that would
be seeking the same information as well and most likely would have requested
and received the report independently of the administration.

Also, this is pretty breathless and baseless:

> "Rogers did not provide evidence for his claims. But the message was clear:
> The Obama administration has authorized leaks of its own internal reports
> about Snowden for political purposes, but any attempts by journalists to dig
> deeper would constitute a national security threat."

No, that's not clear at all. But it sure sounds good.

~~~
shit_parade
The Obama administration did authorize leaks relating to Snowden for political
purposes, are you claiming that did not happen? But please do go on defending
the fantastic, transparent, freedom loving US government which strives to weed
out corruption, protect whistle-blowers, and zealously defends constitutional
rights.

~~~
strictnein
What leaks, again? That the US gov thinks he caused national security damage?
Well, duh, senior. That's not a leak, that's common sense that they would
think that.

I just like to look at things objectively, but you clearly appeal mainly to
emotion. My viewpoint on this has nothing to do with my viewpoint on the
government.

~~~
shit_parade
"A Pentagon review has concluded that the disclosure of classified documents
taken by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden could "gravely impact" America’s
national security and risk the lives of U.S. military personnel, and that
leaks to journalists have already revealed sources and methods of intelligence
operations to America’s adversaries. At least, that’s how two members of
Congress who have read the classified report are characterizing its findings.
But the lawmakers — who are working in coordination with the Obama
administration and are trying to counter the narrative that Snowden is a
heroic whistleblower — offered no specific examples to substantiate their
claims."

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/09/congressmen-reveal-
secre...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/09/congressmen-reveal-secret-
reports-findings-to-discredit-snowden/)

try reading, vice links that article in the very quote I used. Well, duh,
senior stooge.

~~~
strictnein
So, to you, the leak is that the pentagon review thinks Snowden damaged the
US's national security? That's not a leak.

The two members of congress had access to that report because of their
position on the House Intelligence Committee. It was not leaked to them.

You've basically cited the same thing three times now, and it doesn't say what
you think it apparently says. I understand you're deeply invested in this
emotionally though. So I am done discussing this with you.

~~~
RdGtMM2
You are a fucking moron. The report was leaked to these two Republican
lawmakers and these Republican lawmakers said the WH authorized the leak so
they could "undercut" the Snowden narrative.

You need to do some serious reading comprehension. Seriously, you're a fucking
idiot.

