4 ms·

Maybe this is off-topic, but in the midst of so much controversy about "top-secret documents" -- is it actually legal to leak out that such a "top secret milita

Maybe this is off-topic, but in the midst of so much controversy about "top-secret documents" -- is it actually legal to leak out that such a "top secret military acoustic detection system" even exists, and if so, the results of the system's use? I mean, how is it "top secret" if it's in the newspaper?

pasmafaute 3y ago
It's very common for "technical details" of a system to receive a different classification than the "fact of existence" of said system. In other words, it's widely known that the Navy has a system for listening. The internal designation, capabilities and limits of operation are not widely known and that information should be kept secret. > The Navy asked that the specific system used not be named, citing national security concerns.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  So the name, and internal designation, is "top secret"? You're saying the capabilities are also secret but the newspaper just reported the data it generated, which certainly suggests what its capabilities are. And why is it "widely known" that the military has this listening system? If it's really "top secret" then no, the public shouldn't know about it. Seems like everything is "top secret" until someone wants to show off all the cool toys.
  - rich_sasha 3y ago
    I think existence of automatic surveillance isn't a secret. The secret bits would include what this can detect, but I guess the presumption here is that an imploding civilian sub is easier to hear than a Russian military sub. So not really giving anything away.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      That's ridiculous though, either it is "top secret" or it isn't. There shouldn't be some arbitrary sliding scale of what's ok to reveal and what's not.
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        There kinda is though, this is true for almost all military gear: it's quite hard to hide the existance of a new tank once you're actually making it in large quantities, for example, but the detailed drawings of it, and the test results showing the strengths and weaknesses of it will be varying levels of secret. In the case of a listening system, it's the kind of thing which is pretty obvious to do, but the exact nature and means of it being secret makes sense (cageyness about the name of the system is odder: but it may be a concern about revealing exactly which system this came from, assuming there's multiple, for correlation with other information which may be less public). (The same thing happened with the snowden leaks, BTW: it was suspected for a long time that the NSA or FBI had a survellance system similar to PRISM, because it's the kind of thing that they would want to do and have the means to do, even absent any concrete evidence of its existance. The leaks just confirmed the existance undeniably and also showed how extensive it was)
        listenallyall 3y ago
        I'll note that Snowden, whatever you think of him, had the balls to come forward and put his name on all his disclosures. He got help from journalists as far as summarizing and prioritizing and coordinating with major newspapers but he never was "an anonymous source" or "a person with knowledge of the meeting." As to the other points, when some top secret info does get revealed, legally or not, and the public reaction is pretty much, ehh, we already assumed that -- that seems like a pretty big failing of the whole concept of "secret." And on the other hand, I'll grant you a few exceptions, like the names of spies, position of gear or troops, perhaps the detailed weapons specs like you mentioned -- but when the name of this system is "top secret" and seemingly well over 90% of what is marked "classified" lacks any informational value whatsoever, that's a failing in the other direction, people stop caring about "secret" because so little of it is actually important.
HWR_14 3y ago
It's usually illegal for the person to tell the reporter, but legal for the reporter to repeat what he was told. Notice that the Navy asked (not told) the reporter to withhold certain details.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  I can understand that, if the reporter is not aware that the information is secret. But clearly they do know this is a "top secret" system, it's in the headline, so I'd assume the plausible deniability excuse doesn't apply.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    It's not about plausible deniability. They know the information is top secret. They asked the Navy for comment and were probably told that. The 1st amendment still protects the reporter. They are legally in the clear. The person who told them is not.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      The First Amendment doesn't mention anything about secrets, that's not what this is about. If I sell you a stolen item, and you know it is stolen, you're guilty of a crime. If you later try to sell or move those goods, that's a more severe crime, fencing. In this case the reporter is obtaining "stolen" information and passing it along, it's exactly the "fencing" of information. I'm aware this practice has been going on for decades, people leaking private and/or classified information, often illegally. But it's like money laundering, just "info" laundering through an "unnamed source," and it feels pretty sleazy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
      - Blahah 3y ago
        Normal citizens have no obligation to keep the secrets of any government organisation. It is the person who holds security clearance that leaks the document that commits a crime, whereas journalists have a constitutionally protected right to publish. It's not sleazy, and is part of a healthy system that holds governments to account.

pasmafaute 3y ago

It's very common for "technical details" of a system to receive a different classification than the "fact of existence" of said system. In other words, it's widely known that the Navy has a system for listening. The internal designation, capabilities and limits of operation are not widely known and that information should be kept secret. > The Navy asked that the specific system used not be named, citing national security concerns.

listenallyall 3y ago
So the name, and internal designation, is "top secret"? You're saying the capabilities are also secret but the newspaper just reported the data it generated, which certainly suggests what its capabilities are. And why is it "widely known" that the military has this listening system? If it's really "top secret" then no, the public shouldn't know about it. Seems like everything is "top secret" until someone wants to show off all the cool toys.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  I think existence of automatic surveillance isn't a secret. The secret bits would include what this can detect, but I guess the presumption here is that an imploding civilian sub is easier to hear than a Russian military sub. So not really giving anything away.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    That's ridiculous though, either it is "top secret" or it isn't. There shouldn't be some arbitrary sliding scale of what's ok to reveal and what's not.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      There kinda is though, this is true for almost all military gear: it's quite hard to hide the existance of a new tank once you're actually making it in large quantities, for example, but the detailed drawings of it, and the test results showing the strengths and weaknesses of it will be varying levels of secret. In the case of a listening system, it's the kind of thing which is pretty obvious to do, but the exact nature and means of it being secret makes sense (cageyness about the name of the system is odder: but it may be a concern about revealing exactly which system this came from, assuming there's multiple, for correlation with other information which may be less public). (The same thing happened with the snowden leaks, BTW: it was suspected for a long time that the NSA or FBI had a survellance system similar to PRISM, because it's the kind of thing that they would want to do and have the means to do, even absent any concrete evidence of its existance. The leaks just confirmed the existance undeniably and also showed how extensive it was)
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        I'll note that Snowden, whatever you think of him, had the balls to come forward and put his name on all his disclosures. He got help from journalists as far as summarizing and prioritizing and coordinating with major newspapers but he never was "an anonymous source" or "a person with knowledge of the meeting." As to the other points, when some top secret info does get revealed, legally or not, and the public reaction is pretty much, ehh, we already assumed that -- that seems like a pretty big failing of the whole concept of "secret." And on the other hand, I'll grant you a few exceptions, like the names of spies, position of gear or troops, perhaps the detailed weapons specs like you mentioned -- but when the name of this system is "top secret" and seemingly well over 90% of what is marked "classified" lacks any informational value whatsoever, that's a failing in the other direction, people stop caring about "secret" because so little of it is actually important.

HWR_14 3y ago

It's usually illegal for the person to tell the reporter, but legal for the reporter to repeat what he was told. Notice that the Navy asked (not told) the reporter to withhold certain details.

listenallyall 3y ago
I can understand that, if the reporter is not aware that the information is secret. But clearly they do know this is a "top secret" system, it's in the headline, so I'd assume the plausible deniability excuse doesn't apply.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  It's not about plausible deniability. They know the information is top secret. They asked the Navy for comment and were probably told that. The 1st amendment still protects the reporter. They are legally in the clear. The person who told them is not.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    The First Amendment doesn't mention anything about secrets, that's not what this is about. If I sell you a stolen item, and you know it is stolen, you're guilty of a crime. If you later try to sell or move those goods, that's a more severe crime, fencing. In this case the reporter is obtaining "stolen" information and passing it along, it's exactly the "fencing" of information. I'm aware this practice has been going on for decades, people leaking private and/or classified information, often illegally. But it's like money laundering, just "info" laundering through an "unnamed source," and it feels pretty sleazy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
    - Blahah 3y ago
      Normal citizens have no obligation to keep the secrets of any government organisation. It is the person who holds security clearance that leaks the document that commits a crime, whereas journalists have a constitutionally protected right to publish. It's not sleazy, and is part of a healthy system that holds governments to account.