

CIA employee’s quest to release information ‘destroyed my entire career’ - gluxon
http://washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-employees-quest-to-release-information-destroyed-my-entire-career/2014/07/04/e95f7802-0209-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html

======
CitizenKane
It seems like that as time has gone on, the intelligence apparatus in the US
and closely allied countries has come to depend more and more on holding any
and all information on anything.

It's their leverage and it's their ability to control and influence events.
Even small concessions are probably felt to be too much, and I imagine to many
in the CIA and elsewhere, a cold war domino effect mentality still permeates.

It's ridiculous, and it undermines a free flow of knowledge that our society
desperately needs to function effectively. However, it only seems to be
increasing in scope, and I believe the people related are more concerned about
their positions and power rather than the long term viability of our country.

Addenum: Perhaps worse, is that behaviors like this from the CIA, FBI, and NSA
give ample diplomatic ammunition to every totalitarian and oppressive state on
the planet and it legitimizes their actions. Even more so, they can argue that
they were at least transparent about it rather than lying to the public. It's
sad to think that a place that used to stand for freedom from oppression can
more and more be used as a justification for it.

~~~
esbranson
When was the last time you filed a FOIA request with the FSB or KGB? Or the
BND or Säpo?

Every totalitarian and oppressive state on the planet will find a reason to
legitimize their actions regardless of whether or not America passes acts like
the 1966 FOIA.

~~~
x1798DE
Should we also let all the murderers and rapists out of jail because they
didn't commit genocide? The fact that the US intelligence apparatus is one of
the taller pygmies around doesn't make it a giant.

~~~
esbranson
If its genocide you are worried about, best pay more attention to those
committing genocide rather than murderers and rapists. If its freedom of
information you care about, best pay more attention to the FSBs, KGBs, BNDs
and Säpos of the world than the CIAs, NSAs and FBIs.

But I guess you can't hate what you can't see. And I say that with the
understanding that FOIA + CIA is probably as uniquely American as it gets.

~~~
x1798DE
It's a good point, but my point was that it's not an either/or thing. There's
plenty of outrage to go around, and the fact of the matter is that the NSA has
enjoyed a very privileged position on the internet that the FSB simply doesn't
have, so even if they're _relatively_ transparent and respect the rule of law
_more_ than the FSB, we never trusted the FSB with anything sensitive in the
first place, so they had no opportunity to commit the crimes that the NSA has
perpetrated.

Not to mention, the NSA are the ones that the Americans are actually paying
for and who we have _some_ (albeit low) chance of stopping. There's no point
letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

~~~
esbranson
It is an either/or thing. Either you have a robust American FOIA-like
system... Or you don't. (If you're outside America: You don't.) You want us to
hate them all, I argue it is practically _impossible_ to hate anyone else
besides the NSA/CIA/FBI without an equivalent to the FOIA. Its epitomized by
the American phrases "what you don't know can't hurt you", "what the eye
doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over" and "ignorance is bliss". I think
where people get it wrong is when non-Americans think America is the problem--
and that is because they lack a FOIA.

> _we never trusted the FSB with anything sensitive in the first place, so
> they had no opportunity to commit the crimes that the NSA has perpetrated._

Don't mistake absence of evidence as evidence of absence. And I say that
knowing full well that without a FOIA, such a mistake is impossible to avoid.
The fact is you have no clue about any agencies besides the NSA/CIA/FBI. Be
careful how reliant your hatred is upon knowledge when your knowledge is
deficient.

> _the NSA are the ones that the Americans are actually paying for and who we
> have some (albeit low) chance of stopping_

The NSA/CIA/FBI are the ones that _anyone_ has _any_ chance of stopping.
Because its the only one where FOIA information can overcome your ignorance
that "they had no opportunity" or some such nonsense. But the first step is to
enact FOIAs, not stopping the NSA/CIA/FBI.

~~~
sandGorgon
>It is an either/or thing. Either you have a robust American FOIA-like
system... Or you don't. (If you're outside America: You don't.)

You might not have meant it that way...but there are other FOIA-like laws in
other countries. For example, RTI (Right to Information) Act of India - I have
several people that I know who have used it for great success. In fact, if I'm
not mistaken, it is broader in scope than the FOIA - since it is used to get
information on things like why a certain person was rejected for a govt
promotion, the internal status of my passport application, etc

~~~
esbranson
Indeed I did. Specifically in the context of FOIA requests for CIA-like
agencies. I am sure other countries have them; I am unsure how many apply them
to their foreign intelligence services.

Does India's RTI Act apply to agencies like the RAW?

~~~
kiiski
From what wikipedia says[1], it seems that in India you can't get information
that would affect national security, but I highly doubt you can get that in
USA either. You brought up BND and SäPo earlier, and from the same article it
appears that both Germany and Sweden do guarantee access to all official
federal information.

[1]
[http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_laws_by_cou...](http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_laws_by_country)

~~~
known
I think
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index)
also relevant

------
phaus
I dislike many of the recent revelations about the intelligence community's
activities, but if this guy based a freedom of information request on
information that he only knew about due to his access to classified
information, then he did in fact mishandle classified information. You are
only allowed to use classified information to perform your duties at work.

I agree that there should be things in place to protect legitimate whistle
blowers, but that doesn't even seem to come into play here.

Then again, we don't know the complete story, so I reserve judgement.

~~~
pyre
From the article:

> Scudder’s FOIA submissions fell into two categories: one seeking new digital
> copies of articles already designated for release and another aimed at
> articles yet to be cleared. He made spreadsheets that listed the titles of
> all 1,987 articles he wanted, he said, then had them scanned for classified
> content and got permission to take them home so he could assemble his FOIA
> request on personal time.

So, apparently the CIA said 'nothing classified in this list of titles' and
let him take them home... only to attack him later for some of the titles
being classified. If he isn't lying, then do you support the CIA punishing him
for someone other agent's mistake?

> if this guy based a freedom of information request on information that he
> only knew about due to his access to classified information, then he did in
> fact mishandle classified information

So just knowing that they exist to create a FOIA request is a 'mishandling' if
classified information? What about the 1,400 articles that were cleared, but
were just sitting around? What about the fact that the CIA cleared his
spreadsheet of titles to take home and work on the FOIA requests?

~~~
phaus
>If he isn't lying, then do you support the CIA punishing him for someone
other agent's mistake?

I didn't say I supported punishing him. I said "If" he did a certain thing, he
would be guilty of mishandling classified information. If he didn't do that
certain thing, then he's not guilty.

In the course of handling nearly 2000 documents, it would be easy to make a
mistake and accidentally include one that had not been approved by his
supervisor.

Going solely off of the information in the article, if he made no such
mistakes, the fault should lie with his supervisor (If and only if it can be
proven that his supervisor approved the release of information that he should
have known was still sensitive.)

I was just talking about the handling of classified information in general.
From the limited information we have, it seems like this particular CIA agent
was just trying to do the right thing. I was just attempting to illustrate
that when it comes to handling classified information, it is very easy to make
an honest mistake that could land you in a world of trouble.

That's part of the reason I got away from working for the government. Too much
stress.

------
jacobolus
This is amazing:

> _The CIA disbanded the Historical Collections Division last year, citing
> budget cuts_

How much have we increased overall intelligence services budgets in the past
10 years? And they can’t afford to keep paying their internal historians?

~~~
sp332
It seems to have been going down in the last two years
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intelligence_budg...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intelligence_budget#Top-
line_figure_of_aggregate_NIP_and_available_aggregate_MIP_budget.2C_FY_2006-present)
Although it's still higher than it was in 2009.

------
cyphunk
This is less an issue of an agency that lost sight of legal requirements to
allow documents be released to the public than it is an indicator of an
institution stuck with boys-club hierarchy where any questioning goes against
the parental nature of things.

And despite the washington posts desire to paint this with the same stroke
they did the email cache from snowden, the two are entirely different issues.
this juxtaposition along with how overboard the post went in considering
"ongoing intelligence operations" in the snowden case, just feels like ass
covering.

------
saalweachter
> In an interview, Scudder, 51, cast his ordeal as a struggle against
> “mindless” bureaucracy...

I think this is wrong.

Bureaucracies are made up of people. Some of those people choose to persecute
whistle-blowers. They don't have to, they have a choice. They are not
automatons.

Blaming it on bureaucracy wrongfully absolves the individuals.

~~~
x1798DE
> _Blaming it on bureaucracy wrongfully absolves the individuals._

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the point of calling it mindless
bureaucracy is to emphasize that these systems themselves tend to reward this
sort of behavior and punish deviation. Even if you punished all the
individuals involved (which you _should_ , because that's one of the _reasons_
that these bureaucracies have these incentives), you might get a good
organization for a while, but the natural entropy of things would push it back
to something resembling the status quo unless you change the fundamental
incentives.

Frankly, I imagine the bureaucrats in general would be happy to blame it on "a
few bad apples" and just move things along.

------
bowmessage
It is troublesome that I am afraid to comment on this article in fear of my
NSA_SUSPICION_INT rising.

~~~
leorocky
It's not the NSA_SUSPICIOUN_INT rising I worry about. I am certain that
individual monitoring of the average hobo like your or me (I don't know maybe
you're actually a TOR dev or something) isn't happing, BUT someday you may
become an interest to the police for something and THEN they look at your
posting history and THEN they will find your possibly less sensitive comments
on how you hated such and such and put some horrible out of context quote in
big print on a poster at your trial when the prosecutor makes his case for why
you should be in jail for the rest of your life for something you may or may
not have actually done.

And so I use anonymous accounts to post things other than nice happy words
relevant to my job so they don't show up in search results. I create new
accounts and stuff. I can be pretty opinionated and I don't want the average
person googling my very googlable name and seeing my stupid uninformed
opinions and using that to misinterpret me or something.

~~~
chatmasta
I would much rather post anti-government opinions with my name attached than
anonymously. As much as we complain about the NSA, we do in fact still live in
a free society with a right to habeas corpus. Should you ever find yourself at
trial, where the prosecutors try to turn "anti-government sentiment" against
you, would you rather it be written behind an anonymous pseudonym or your real
name? If they're going to find it regardless, then at least with your real
name attached, you have the credibility of your persona, which you should
confidently feel is worth something to a jury.

It's much easier to argue a case for freedom of speech when it doesn't appear
you're trying to hide something. After all, who would attach their name to an
opinion he didn't want people to know he held?

Furthermore, I'm proud of my opinions. If I'm going to perpetuate them, I'm
going to do it with my name attached. God willing, should I ever have to
defend those opinions in court, I will proudly and defiantly do so. Hiding
behind a pseudonym strikes me as needless cowardice in the face of yet
manifest oppression.

This anti-government, anti-NSA, anti-1984 rhetoric is healthy and valuable,
but let's keep our emotions in check and avoid overdramaticizing the
situation. We don't live in a police state. Yet. If we ever get to that point,
I would like to have my trail of opinions to fall back on and use to defend
myself.

~~~
sage_joch
I have been on Reddit for eight years, and only came out with my name today.
People should be encouraged to use aliases for any number of reasons. To name
a few:

    
    
      * You should be able to express an idea without that idea being attached to a known identity (partly because people may judge the idea based on the known identity)
      * You should be allowed to "start over" (heck, I might want to start over soon)
      * In the face of an Orwellian government or an unaccepting society, you should be able to safely express your true opinions

------
noonespecial
He should have used parallel construction. Had someone else actually submit
the requests for the docs he found that he figured should be public.

------
boomlinde
Getting your home raided for submitting a FOIA request seems to neatly
summarize the state of freedom of information.

------
cheetahtech
This should be pushed over to swintonreport.com. Not to push it as a site, but
it does carry this type of pertinent information.

------
yottah
What did he think was going to happen? He acts like an idealistic and naive
attention grabbing princess.

~~~
pyre
> He acts like an idealistic and naive attention grabbing princess.

Please put in at least a little effort to remain civil on this site. All that
you've contributed to the discussion is:

> He got what was coming to him. <insert-name-calling>

------
mhurron
> histories of long-dormant conflicts and operations that _he concluded_ were
> still being stored in secret years after they should have been shared with
> the public.

Ya, I'm trying to figure out what he thought would happen.

~~~
sp332
That sentence might be unclear, but there are laws and policies that govern
how long certain operations can be kept secret once they are concluded. Since
the CIA has since published 1400 of the 1700 documents, it seems he was mostly
right.

Edit: this is clarified later. _In the process, he said, he discovered about
1,600 articles that were listed as released to the public but could not be
found at the National Archives._

