3 ms·

Most definitely. He may well be completely innocent per numerous laws, executive orders and/or the Constitution. An example of the relevant recent piece: "Exec

Most definitely. He may well be completely innocent per numerous laws, executive orders and/or the Constitution. An example of the relevant recent piece: "Executive Order 13526: Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error.."

eli 13y ago
IANAL, but I really don't think that EO (which is not a law) means that you can unilaterally declassify something which you think conceals a violation of law. Also, I'm not aware of anything Snowden disclosed that shows the NSA broke any laws. The FISA court signed off on this stuff, no?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Right. The determinant as to whether information is classified is its effect on national security if widely known. You don't classify innocuous material just because it might be embarrassing. But on the other hand you can classify material that risks national security even if it also happens to be embarrassing. In any event PRISM itself is 0.01% or so in actuality as it was claimed to be, I'm not even sure I'd call PRISM itself embarrassing (it's just a damn web service). The laws under which PRISM operate might be different, but that's not something we can pin on NSA, and it's not something that was secret anyways.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >You don't classify innocuous material just because it might be embarrassing. You're wrong. That's a well-known, ongoing, and acknowledged problem in the US which even has its own act of Congress as an attempt to deal with the problem. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr553 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr553 Here, if you like a good Catch-22: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/01371621143/defense-department-overclassifies-memo-avoiding-overclassification.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/01371621143/defen...
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I'm not saying no one has broken the law or regulation. I'm saying that's what the regulation describes as "national security information".
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >The FISA court signed off on this stuff, no? Who knows? The "court" meets in secret. Its rulings are secret. I'm not even certain that NSA is bound in any meaningful to abide by their decision/advice.

eli 13y ago

IANAL, but I really don't think that EO (which is not a law) means that you can unilaterally declassify something which you think conceals a violation of law. Also, I'm not aware of anything Snowden disclosed that shows the NSA broke any laws. The FISA court signed off on this stuff, no?

mpyne 13y ago
Right. The determinant as to whether information is classified is its effect on national security if widely known. You don't classify innocuous material just because it might be embarrassing. But on the other hand you can classify material that risks national security even if it also happens to be embarrassing. In any event PRISM itself is 0.01% or so in actuality as it was claimed to be, I'm not even sure I'd call PRISM itself embarrassing (it's just a damn web service). The laws under which PRISM operate might be different, but that's not something we can pin on NSA, and it's not something that was secret anyways.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >You don't classify innocuous material just because it might be embarrassing. You're wrong. That's a well-known, ongoing, and acknowledged problem in the US which even has its own act of Congress as an attempt to deal with the problem. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr553 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr553 Here, if you like a good Catch-22: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/01371621143/defense-department-overclassifies-memo-avoiding-overclassification.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/01371621143/defen...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I'm not saying no one has broken the law or regulation. I'm saying that's what the regulation describes as "national security information".
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>The FISA court signed off on this stuff, no? Who knows? The "court" meets in secret. Its rulings are secret. I'm not even certain that NSA is bound in any meaningful to abide by their decision/advice.