6 ms·

It's easy to imagine scenarios where this continued classification could be appropriate. Remember, classification doesn't just attach to facts; it also attache

It's easy to imagine scenarios where this continued classification could be appropriate. Remember, classification doesn't just attach to facts; it also attaches to how that information was obtained. If, for example, the censored paragraph was "a US agent placed within the Soviet Communist Party participated in the design of Soviet ciphers and deliberately weakened them", and that agent continued working in the USSR for several decades, then it could only be declassified if everything that agent had ever been involved with was no longer sensitive.

berkeleynerd 10y ago
Perhaps but it's far easier to imagine it's the result of knee jerk over classification which is well understood to be a terrible problem through the organs of the body politic.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "Perhaps but it's far easier to imagine it's the result of knee jerk over classification which is well understood to be a terrible problem through the organs of the body politic." It's the NSA. It's espionage. These things tend to be classified by default. So, I'm not suspicious it's some arbitrary thing, like the type of ham sandwiches agent Boy Scout was eating.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    >These things tend to be classified by default. "Classified by default" is semantically equivalent to "knee-jerk reaction". Nobody is claiming it's arbitrary. The claim is instead that it's systematic, and stupidly so to the point where it may well be the type of ham sandwiches agent Boy Scout was eating. Wouldn't be the first time...
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      I'd call it "a matter of principle" rather than "knee-jerk reaction".
      - ganzuul 10y ago
        There are more important principles. Needs of the many; for example.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        And you'd be arguing semantics. It's "classified by default" out of concern for a certain principle, ergo the act of classification is applied in a knee-jerk (i.e. thoughtless, reflexive) manner. Semantic argument is semantic.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        In my opinion, "classified by default" is not a thoughtless, reflexive policy when discussing espionage and counter-espionage work. It's a principle that you'll come up with after pondering the risks and benefits of other processes. As a concept, it's similar to policies in corporate offices where doors are locked and guests can only walk in through a reception, accompanied by a trusted employee. Yes, you're applying a process that is unnecessary in 95 % of cases, but still it's one of the "best practices" in the business.
        omginternets 10y ago
        I didn't say it was. I said it precipitates the act of reflexive classification by the body politic of whatever three-letter agency we're talking about. The process is as follows: 1) Rational, principled decision: "when in doubt, classify" 2) Conservative application: "I'll just classify everything to avoid 'misses'" 3) Everything gets classified because nobody ever got fired for classifying Treat it as a signal detection problem. There's obvious incentive to avoid "misses" (i.e. not classifying things that should be classified) so people produce many false alarms (i.e. classifying things that should be public knowledge). This hi-lights a problem with current doctrine: "classify by default" has unintended consequences, namely a creeping increase in non-transparency. Further, and returning to the original point: since reflexive classification happens as a result of official doctrine, the two are semantically equivalent and this discussion is officially running around in circles.
Spooky23 10y ago
Normally I lean towards the more cynical viewpoint with these matters. But I think you're right here, only in that the records still exist and are very old.
wavefunction 10y ago
So you're saying that a 91 year old (I'm being conservative in assuming your hypothetical agent was at least one years old at the time of their mission) is a good reason to maintain the classification of state secrets that have most assuredly out-lived anyone else involved?
- rogerbinns 10y ago
  That 91 year old also likely had family, colleagues and other acquaintances who are still alive today. People at some distance from the 91 year old would be okay, but closer would be under suspicion, could have their lives disrupted, be deported etc.
  - bArray 10y ago
    Exactly and in the UK military (or military like structure), it's easy to get in if you have relatives in. Also, just because the originator may be dead, it doesn't mean the work won't have knock on effects. And finding a hole in security for old material may trigger a search through all newer ciphers - something I'm sure they don't want. There are plenty of reasons, correct or not, why they may wish to keep this a secret.
- Natsu 10y ago
  If the methods were still in use, they might be, even if the agents were not. For example, that secret ink they give as an example might still be in use. That said, there's plenty of reason to believe that some of the things they're still withholding are nonsense.
- mentat 10y ago
  The statement is that that person could have also subverted other methods currently in use, not that that particular person would be impacted.
  - Canada 10y ago
    Methods from the pre-computer era, from well before the second world war, still in use nearly 100 years later? Is that really plausible?
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
I wonder if it's a chain of secrets which leads to the present day? It would seem unlikely there'd be that long a continuity, but I don't know.
dforrestwilson1 10y ago
Yeah no this is knee jerk laziness on the part of the NSA. Snowden has probably already put everyone who could be into harms way.
kordless 10y ago
> It's easy to imagine scenarios Except, in the government's case, they are imagining scenarios for me, and my family, and my friends, etc. Their job is to protect us, not speculate wildly FOR us. We didn't elect them to do that, and it's not their job. If someone is sitting there speaking for my speculations, I'd sure as shit like to know they aren't going to be doing it more than generationally. That's terribly concerning.
- cperciva 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting that they're sitting around speculating about possible scenarios. To the contrary, they know the exact details of why they decided to keep this paragraph classified. My point is that since there are readily imaginable scenarios where it would be necessary to keep this classified, we shouldn't be sitting here accusing them of keeping secrets just for the sake of keeping secrets. The fact that we don't know why it should be kept secret doesn't imply that they don't have a good reason.
  - eridius 10y ago
    In fact, if we did know why it should be kept secret, then it wouldn't really be secret anymore!
  - acobster 10y ago
    > The fact that we don't know why it should be kept secret doesn't imply that they don't have a good reason. True, but when Tom Blanton comes out and agrees that "90 percent" of it doesn't need to be classified, that more than implies they don't have a good reason.
  - kordless 10y ago
    Actually you said "imagine scenarios" which is basically visualizing scenarios that might happen. That's speculation, pure and simple, given the "screen" they are running these on are internal to the people running them. "Readily imaginable" is just blaming based on prior history of the one being blamed. In some cases, the expansion of who can be blamed is easier than the not blaming part. Unfortunate. And, FWIW, I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just trying to get us out of the knee deep rationalization pit of shit that is the government.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
Democracy dies behind closed doors. Any supposed advantage we gain by spending our resources and credibility flooding the world with spies is far less then what we lose by having our society, our rights, and our freedoms completely subverted by the primacy of "national security".
thret 10y ago
You are all over thinking this. It was almost certainly just a mistake. Very few things unrelated to current day-to-day operations need to be secret.

berkeleynerd 10y ago

Perhaps but it's far easier to imagine it's the result of knee jerk over classification which is well understood to be a terrible problem through the organs of the body politic.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"Perhaps but it's far easier to imagine it's the result of knee jerk over classification which is well understood to be a terrible problem through the organs of the body politic." It's the NSA. It's espionage. These things tend to be classified by default. So, I'm not suspicious it's some arbitrary thing, like the type of ham sandwiches agent Boy Scout was eating.
- omginternets 10y ago
  >These things tend to be classified by default. "Classified by default" is semantically equivalent to "knee-jerk reaction". Nobody is claiming it's arbitrary. The claim is instead that it's systematic, and stupidly so to the point where it may well be the type of ham sandwiches agent Boy Scout was eating. Wouldn't be the first time...
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    I'd call it "a matter of principle" rather than "knee-jerk reaction".
    - ganzuul 10y ago
      There are more important principles. Needs of the many; for example.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      And you'd be arguing semantics. It's "classified by default" out of concern for a certain principle, ergo the act of classification is applied in a knee-jerk (i.e. thoughtless, reflexive) manner. Semantic argument is semantic.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        In my opinion, "classified by default" is not a thoughtless, reflexive policy when discussing espionage and counter-espionage work. It's a principle that you'll come up with after pondering the risks and benefits of other processes. As a concept, it's similar to policies in corporate offices where doors are locked and guests can only walk in through a reception, accompanied by a trusted employee. Yes, you're applying a process that is unnecessary in 95 % of cases, but still it's one of the "best practices" in the business.
        omginternets 10y ago
        I didn't say it was. I said it precipitates the act of reflexive classification by the body politic of whatever three-letter agency we're talking about. The process is as follows: 1) Rational, principled decision: "when in doubt, classify" 2) Conservative application: "I'll just classify everything to avoid 'misses'" 3) Everything gets classified because nobody ever got fired for classifying Treat it as a signal detection problem. There's obvious incentive to avoid "misses" (i.e. not classifying things that should be classified) so people produce many false alarms (i.e. classifying things that should be public knowledge). This hi-lights a problem with current doctrine: "classify by default" has unintended consequences, namely a creeping increase in non-transparency. Further, and returning to the original point: since reflexive classification happens as a result of official doctrine, the two are semantically equivalent and this discussion is officially running around in circles.

Spooky23 10y ago

Normally I lean towards the more cynical viewpoint with these matters. But I think you're right here, only in that the records still exist and are very old.

wavefunction 10y ago

So you're saying that a 91 year old (I'm being conservative in assuming your hypothetical agent was at least one years old at the time of their mission) is a good reason to maintain the classification of state secrets that have most assuredly out-lived anyone else involved?

rogerbinns 10y ago
That 91 year old also likely had family, colleagues and other acquaintances who are still alive today. People at some distance from the 91 year old would be okay, but closer would be under suspicion, could have their lives disrupted, be deported etc.
- bArray 10y ago
  Exactly and in the UK military (or military like structure), it's easy to get in if you have relatives in. Also, just because the originator may be dead, it doesn't mean the work won't have knock on effects. And finding a hole in security for old material may trigger a search through all newer ciphers - something I'm sure they don't want. There are plenty of reasons, correct or not, why they may wish to keep this a secret.
Natsu 10y ago
If the methods were still in use, they might be, even if the agents were not. For example, that secret ink they give as an example might still be in use. That said, there's plenty of reason to believe that some of the things they're still withholding are nonsense.
mentat 10y ago
The statement is that that person could have also subverted other methods currently in use, not that that particular person would be impacted.
- Canada 10y ago
  Methods from the pre-computer era, from well before the second world war, still in use nearly 100 years later? Is that really plausible?

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

I wonder if it's a chain of secrets which leads to the present day? It would seem unlikely there'd be that long a continuity, but I don't know.

dforrestwilson1 10y ago

Yeah no this is knee jerk laziness on the part of the NSA. Snowden has probably already put everyone who could be into harms way.

kordless 10y ago

> It's easy to imagine scenarios Except, in the government's case, they are imagining scenarios for me, and my family, and my friends, etc. Their job is to protect us, not speculate wildly FOR us. We didn't elect them to do that, and it's not their job. If someone is sitting there speaking for my speculations, I'd sure as shit like to know they aren't going to be doing it more than generationally. That's terribly concerning.

cperciva 10y ago
I'm not suggesting that they're sitting around speculating about possible scenarios. To the contrary, they know the exact details of why they decided to keep this paragraph classified. My point is that since there are readily imaginable scenarios where it would be necessary to keep this classified, we shouldn't be sitting here accusing them of keeping secrets just for the sake of keeping secrets. The fact that we don't know why it should be kept secret doesn't imply that they don't have a good reason.
- eridius 10y ago
  In fact, if we did know why it should be kept secret, then it wouldn't really be secret anymore!
- acobster 10y ago
  > The fact that we don't know why it should be kept secret doesn't imply that they don't have a good reason. True, but when Tom Blanton comes out and agrees that "90 percent" of it doesn't need to be classified, that more than implies they don't have a good reason.
- kordless 10y ago
  Actually you said "imagine scenarios" which is basically visualizing scenarios that might happen. That's speculation, pure and simple, given the "screen" they are running these on are internal to the people running them. "Readily imaginable" is just blaming based on prior history of the one being blamed. In some cases, the expansion of who can be blamed is easier than the not blaming part. Unfortunate. And, FWIW, I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just trying to get us out of the knee deep rationalization pit of shit that is the government.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

Democracy dies behind closed doors. Any supposed advantage we gain by spending our resources and credibility flooding the world with spies is far less then what we lose by having our society, our rights, and our freedoms completely subverted by the primacy of "national security".

thret 10y ago

You are all over thinking this. It was almost certainly just a mistake. Very few things unrelated to current day-to-day operations need to be secret.