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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I don't see anything unreasonable about that. I can file a FOIA on any topic I want for any reason I want, but the police can't just demand to search through my things without cause.
Our relationship with the government is not intended to be symmetric.
That's not what I said. I'm talking about the default state of information being a more protected one. Not the state it ends up in after some negotiation. To tie it to your analogy, it would be as if you could initially decline any search demand, and then the police would have to go get a warrant.
5.1 million Americans have security clearance[0]. Let that sink in, there are essentially two classes of citizens in America, those trusted by the government and allowed to look at 'sensitive' information, and everyone else who is distrusted, disdained, ignored, and spied upon.
Having a clearance does not grant you the ability to look at all classified information. You are only granted the ability to look at information up to your clearance level and for which you have a need to know. Actually, they're probably more spied upon, given the mandatory background checks involved and even interviews with neighbors. Additionally, people with clearances aren't even supposed to look at things like the Snowden revelations because it qualifies as data spillage even though it's already out in the world.
99% of the people with a security clearance are just as "distrusted, disdained, ignored, and spied upon" as the rest of the country, to the extent that is true at all.
You can't get a plumber on to a secure facility to fix a toilet without clearance but I doubt they are part of some secret cabal. Your ignorance is vast.
Thank you for your intelligent, insightful comment which has really improved the discussion regarding state secrecy and the rights of its citizens to know what the government does in their name. Bravo, Bravissimo.
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.
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.
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.
(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?
> 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?
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.
The knowledge of how to make and deploy nuclear weapons isn't going away. In the future, technology might develop to such a point where having the weapons themselves ready is unnecessary because they can be created instantly as they are needed. Does that count?
As long as there exists traditional countries, with traditional power structures, there will, and SHOULD exist a formal force. The world has a long history if bad people rising to power, and doing bad things.
What about the pages of redacted portions under the heading of Talking Points? I guess we will need to wait a quarter century or so before we know the answer to that instead of speculating.
The GP is replying to someone who said there should be no classified information, to which a proper refutation is to demonstrate the need for certain kinds of classified information.
Two comments above that, someone was discussing whether or not this particular instance was some of the information that should be classified, followed by the claim that there should be none, and then the GPs refutation.
Your comment is wrong, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Except he was arguing that discussion the impact of revealing troop movements was the same as releasing the actual location of troop movements. The two are very dissimilar.
The first I can imagine simply becoming the private property of individuals who desire or require access. The second I'm happy to have not exist at all. And the third I'm happy to make public and protected.
Someone asked the government for a sensitive report. The government replied that it had such a report, but while it would admit the existence, it felt the material contained in it was necessary to keep secret.
This gives the original requester a chance to address this and ask why the report is being kept secret and for a review of that, which is different than if the government had simply denied such a report existed.
This actually sounds like freedom of information happening, but it's reasonable to expect that kind of thing takes time and requires some back-and-forth to discuss what's the proper amount to keep secret or not.
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.
" 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."
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.