3 ms·
Do you have any clue what "administratively attached to a government element" means? It sounds like you don't. The issue is that a security clearance for acces
by mpyne 13y ago
Do you have any clue what "administratively attached to a government element" means? It sounds like you don't.
The issue is that a security clearance for access to given information requires three things:
1. A screening (eligibility for a security clearance). This can be done outside of government.
2. Need to know. Our 'review group' will certainly have that.
3. Permission of the unit Director/CO/OIC. This is why people might need to be "administratively attached" to a unit. It's one of those stereotypical "Catch-22" situations.
If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't.
By attaching them to a unit 'administratively' they simply declare which unit Director/CO/OIC is going to get their head put on the chopping block if one of those privacy groups leaks classified information.
Now there are reasons to be afraid of government involvements in groups. The easy thing is financial interest, so we just need to make sure the reviewers from the NGOs volunteer or are paid from outside the government.
Another concern is performance evaluation. You wouldn't want the person "signing the FITREP" to be the person with an existing interest in the outcome of the decision one way or the other. But I don't see that here.
Either way the report hasn't even been published yet, so how can you possibly know that it must be whitewashed? At least wait for the damn thing to be published before you unleash the attacks you undoubtedly already have queued up. :P
- Helianthus 13y ago>If the persons getting a clearance have no one to give them permission, how can they get a clearance? Administratively speaking they can't. This is bureaucratic legerdemain that falls within the purview of the original criticism: given the leash, bureaucracy will exonerate bureaucracy.
- mpyne 13y agoIt's no more or less stupid than recording the name of an person where the name is unknown as "Jane Doe" or "John Doe". If you're here to tell me that admin is surreal then, hey, I agree with you. But this here is as innocuous as bureaucracy can possibly get.
- malandrew 13y agoI don't know that it will be whitewashed, but historical precedence of oversight performed by those with a conflict of interest suggests that this is a likely outcome. I would rather wait for them to list those individuals that will be tasked with oversight. Waiting for them to release the report is too late to point out obvious conflicts of interest. Anyways, Obama made it clear that the intent of this "oversight" is not to determine whether or not these programs are constitutional, effective or necessary, but that the intent is to make the American people comfortable with what is being done. If that isn't a declaration that this committee will be chosen to guarantee delivery of conclusion aligned with his own confirmation bias, then I don't know what is. Knowing that these people are being assembled to make the American people comfortable, means that we have a responsibility to make sure that this group gets assembled with people who are capable of coming to the conclusion that they themselves are personally not comfortable with current surveillance practices and therefore will be unwilling to communicate comfort to the American people in whatever report they happen to publish.