4 ms·

They cannot post an updated version because: Udall and Wyden were not able to describe what about the program's description was inaccurate, saying that would d

They cannot post an updated version because: Udall and Wyden were not able to describe what about the program's description was inaccurate, saying that would divulge classified information. So that if they correct the 'mistakes' they are divulging classified information. Either this is another Catch-22 or someone (more) is lying.

mtgx 13y ago
They can't ask Udall and Wyden in private about it? Besides, I think they already knew where the "mistakes" were, otherwise they wouldn't have retracted them if they didn't think something was wrong with them themselves.
- chaz 13y ago
  Udall and Wyden did specify the inaccurate statement in a classified attachment to their letter to Alexander. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23530383/udall-nsa-states-significant-errors-about-privacy-protections?source=pkg http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23530383/udall-nsa-states-signi...
- mokus 13y ago
  I don't think they are saying they don't know what the "mistakes" were - rather, that to reveal what they were would be to reveal classified information. And publishing a fixed version would reveal what the mistakes were.
- rst 13y ago
  The Senators' letter had a classified attachment describing specifics (which, of course, was not publicly released --- but the NSA certainly has it).
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
If classification is preventing meaningful discourse, it is time to remove the classification.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  That doesn't really make sense. Something's status as "classified" has exactly zilch to do with enabling meaningful discourse, and IMO things that legitimately merit classified status should not be declassified just so we can talk about it.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Something's status as "classified" has exactly zilch to do with enabling meaningful discourse" How do you discuss something that you are not allowed to talk about? "IMO things that legitimately merit classified status should not be declassified just so we can talk about it" Which is exactly why secrecy needs to be narrow and carefully applied in a democracy. Troop movements during times of war are an example of something that is rightfully kept secret. The fact that we are at war is not something that should be kept secret. The problem here is that we have a program that broadly impacts our civil rights, that impacts the rights of foreigners in their own country, and which is being conducted in secret. It is not merely that the NSA wants to keep its techniques secret; this is an attempt to keep the fact that the NSA is conducting surveillance secret. That is very far over the line of "legitimate classification."
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > How do you discuss something that you are not allowed to talk about? For this, in a SCIF, after getting a security clearance and signing an SF 712 that you wouldn't disclose national security information to those who are not (cleared, approved by their Director/CO, and with a valid need-to-know). > It is not merely that the NSA wants to keep its techniques secret; this is an attempt to keep the fact that the NSA is conducting surveillance secret. Well if the NSA were to reveal what flags they look at when making a determination that data is definitely from an American, then it is that much easier for people to evade surveillance by passing their communications as those of an American. This would fall under the guise of "NSA techniques" and would probably be why both the NSA and Sen. Udall feel that they can't discuss that part further.
      - 13y ago
rhizome 13y ago
Or it's an intentional Hobson's choice.

mtgx 13y ago

They can't ask Udall and Wyden in private about it? Besides, I think they already knew where the "mistakes" were, otherwise they wouldn't have retracted them if they didn't think something was wrong with them themselves.

chaz 13y ago
Udall and Wyden did specify the inaccurate statement in a classified attachment to their letter to Alexander. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23530383/udall-nsa-states-significant-errors-about-privacy-protections?source=pkg http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23530383/udall-nsa-states-signi...
mokus 13y ago
I don't think they are saying they don't know what the "mistakes" were - rather, that to reveal what they were would be to reveal classified information. And publishing a fixed version would reveal what the mistakes were.
rst 13y ago
The Senators' letter had a classified attachment describing specifics (which, of course, was not publicly released --- but the NSA certainly has it).

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

If classification is preventing meaningful discourse, it is time to remove the classification.

sliverstorm 13y ago
That doesn't really make sense. Something's status as "classified" has exactly zilch to do with enabling meaningful discourse, and IMO things that legitimately merit classified status should not be declassified just so we can talk about it.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Something's status as "classified" has exactly zilch to do with enabling meaningful discourse" How do you discuss something that you are not allowed to talk about? "IMO things that legitimately merit classified status should not be declassified just so we can talk about it" Which is exactly why secrecy needs to be narrow and carefully applied in a democracy. Troop movements during times of war are an example of something that is rightfully kept secret. The fact that we are at war is not something that should be kept secret. The problem here is that we have a program that broadly impacts our civil rights, that impacts the rights of foreigners in their own country, and which is being conducted in secret. It is not merely that the NSA wants to keep its techniques secret; this is an attempt to keep the fact that the NSA is conducting surveillance secret. That is very far over the line of "legitimate classification."
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > How do you discuss something that you are not allowed to talk about? For this, in a SCIF, after getting a security clearance and signing an SF 712 that you wouldn't disclose national security information to those who are not (cleared, approved by their Director/CO, and with a valid need-to-know). > It is not merely that the NSA wants to keep its techniques secret; this is an attempt to keep the fact that the NSA is conducting surveillance secret. Well if the NSA were to reveal what flags they look at when making a determination that data is definitely from an American, then it is that much easier for people to evade surveillance by passing their communications as those of an American. This would fall under the guise of "NSA techniques" and would probably be why both the NSA and Sen. Udall feel that they can't discuss that part further.
    - 13y ago

rhizome 13y ago

Or it's an intentional Hobson's choice.