8 ms·

Snowden Task Force Damage Report is Redacted

89 points by Shank 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
beedogs 12y ago
Welp, I'm convinced. Page 76 is key.
teamhappy 12y ago
I suppose releasing something that is completely redacted isn't the same as releasing nothing. That's the only scenario I can think of that doesn't make this look like self-sabotage. Makes you question the usefulness of FOIA requests.
Kenji 12y ago
So much for "Freedom of Information". This looks like straight from onion news it's so ridiculous.
- eli 12y ago
  Well, I don't think anyone expects FOIA to apply to genuinely classified information. So I guess the issue is whether it actually needs to be classified.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    Some of us, though, think that "classified information" held by governments is an anachronism on its face in the information age. And so yes, I expect that FOIA will apply to every shred of knowledge held by government once this misconfiguration is corrected.
    - eli 12y ago
      Private encryption keys? Missile launch codes? Whistleblowers identities?
      - jMyles 12y ago
        The first I can imagine simply becoming the private property of individuals who desire or require access. The second I'm happy to have not exist at all. And the third I'm happy to make public and protected.
    - JonFish85 12y ago
      (Sigh). Some things absolutely need to be classified: nuclear launch codes, specific positions & plans of the military, all sorts of military secrets (spy information, knowledge that gives us an advantage against any enemies), login credentials for government officials, encryption keys for things, etc. Do you really want everyone in the world to know the exact location of our nuclear weapons? Top speed of our submarines? Blind spots of our radar systems?
      - jMyles 12y ago
        > the exact location of our nuclear weapons? Top speed of our submarines? Blind spots of our radar systems? I don't mean to sound brash or simplistic, but the simple answer is that I don't want my government to have any of those things. I'll be safer and more empowered when my government disarms, de-escalates, and makes its goings on completely transparent. As a thought exercise: how much longer do you think the world will abide nuclear weapons? Are they just here forever?
        JonFish85 12y ago
        I'm going to leave the whole first part alone, just so this doesn't devolve TOO far. >> As a thought exercise: how much longer do you think the world will abide nuclear weapons? Are they just here forever? They're probably here as long as there's a desire to utterly wipe a large area off of the map. Maybe the USA doesn't want them anymore, but many, many other countries want them and will continue to work towards getting them. Having them gets you a seat at the power table, and people have to listen to you. Even if they're not used, they're an extraordinarily valuable tool.
        psykovsky 12y ago
        >> Having them gets you a seat at the power table What? A death sentence, you mean, only by trying to have them.
        LLWM 12y ago
        The knowledge of how to make and deploy nuclear weapons isn't going away. In the future, technology might develop to such a point where having the weapons themselves ready is unnecessary because they can be created instantly as they are needed. Does that count?
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  Someone asked the government for a sensitive report. The government replied that it had such a report, but while it would admit the existence, it felt the material contained in it was necessary to keep secret. This gives the original requester a chance to address this and ask why the report is being kept secret and for a review of that, which is different than if the government had simply denied such a report existed. This actually sounds like freedom of information happening, but it's reasonable to expect that kind of thing takes time and requires some back-and-forth to discuss what's the proper amount to keep secret or not. So I'm curious what your actual objection is.
shit_parade 12y ago
Releasing evidence to support claims is a quaint relic of when America was a Republic beholden to its citizens.
- strictnein 12y ago
  This wasn't released to prove their point. This was released in response to a FOIA request.
  - shit_parade 12y ago
    " In fact, the existence of the DIA's report had been unknown until the White House secretly authorized the declassification of select portions of it so two Republican lawmakers could undercut the media narrative painting Snowden as a heroic whistleblower." https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage...
    - strictnein 12y ago
      And... ? Also, no where does that article substantiate that claim, and calling a DIA report an internal administration report seems to indicate that they don't really know what they're talking about. The DIA has several congressional oversight committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, that would be seeking the same information as well and most likely would have requested and received the report independently of the administration. Also, this is pretty breathless and baseless: > "Rogers did not provide evidence for his claims. But the message was clear: The Obama administration has authorized leaks of its own internal reports about Snowden for political purposes, but any attempts by journalists to dig deeper would constitute a national security threat." No, that's not clear at all. But it sure sounds good.
      - shit_parade 12y ago
        The Obama administration did authorize leaks relating to Snowden for political purposes, are you claiming that did not happen? But please do go on defending the fantastic, transparent, freedom loving US government which strives to weed out corruption, protect whistle-blowers, and zealously defends constitutional rights.
s_q_b 12y ago
While it's amusing, it's not nothing. The release of the document, even redacted, means that it exists. Proof that it exists gives legal purchase to challenge the redactions moving forward or to seek alternative means of disclosure on other grounds.
digitalneal 12y ago
Here is my CN: G: You said something that hurt my feelings! C: What did I say? G: I'm not telling you but it hurt my feelings!
Paul-ish 12y ago
There seem to be a an unredacted footnote, for whatever good that does.
crazychrome 12y ago
amazing! more than 6 months of hard work to strip out 140 pages of info. My 5 years old son could do the job faster.
josefresco 12y ago
The idea that the government would release to a news agency (or anyone in the public) a document outlining how the "Snowden leaks" damaged national security is mind numbingly ridiculous. I agree with the comment that this at least acknowledges that these documents, and this analysis exist (for future requests). However, I wouldn't expect to see this information revealed until long after it's relevant to US security (think decades or more). Unfortunately this means that most involved in this debate, will be without a complete picture of what benefits, or costs have incurred from either these "programs" or the leaks themselves. We're (in the public) left to argue about whether or not we're "safer" in the most abstract terms. Both sides can point to terrorism, or the lack thereof without actually working with 100% of the data and therefore unable to make any conclusions.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  I agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see this information any time soon, but I want to point out that I think the government did the right thing in their response: they admitted they had such a document while at the same time saying that they believed the content should be classified. This allows the discussion to move forward in a meaningful way, as people can petition to have the classification reviewed, asked for it in other contexts, etc rather than having just been flatly rejected here without any recourse. This is a discussion between the government and the public through the appropriate channels and following the appropriate means (at least, so far). I'm not sure what else people could want, in this context.
  - exelius 12y ago
    The problem is that the U.S. Government had adopted a policy of "classified by default". It's impossible for us to have a public debate on this issue when anyone who knows about it is legally not allowed to discuss it with anyone who does not have the proper clearance. It's important to note that discussing the content of a classified document - even if that document has been leaked and is in the public sphere, and regardless of whether or not the information really should be classified - is punishable by serious jail time. This effectively prevents public debate about any program considered "classified", which means if you're doing something shady that would be embarrassing if it came out, you just slap a security clearance on it and claim its for "national security", thus precluding any government officials from acknowledging it. As more and more government programs are considered classified, the people are given less of a voice in how our country is run. That is the most scary part for me.
Lancey 12y ago
At least we know how many bullet points are in the documents
not_kurt_godel 12y ago
Link to the real article: https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage...
anonbanker 12y ago
this document is to be declassified in 2038, according to the poorly-blacked-out parts. we won't know the truth for another 23 years.
billw224 12y ago
You are all idiots and don't understand, clearly, how FOIA works. B5, one of the exemptions the government uses here, is the delibertiave exemption that is one of the most abused and doesn't have to be used. It's done by choice. The fact that the government would classify EVERYTHING is ridiculous not that they wouldn't release a framework about the leaks. Try doing some research about the FOIA process.

89 points by Shank 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

beedogs 12y ago

Welp, I'm convinced. Page 76 is key.

teamhappy 12y ago

I suppose releasing something that is completely redacted isn't the same as releasing nothing. That's the only scenario I can think of that doesn't make this look like self-sabotage. Makes you question the usefulness of FOIA requests.

Kenji 12y ago

So much for "Freedom of Information". This looks like straight from onion news it's so ridiculous.

eli 12y ago
Well, I don't think anyone expects FOIA to apply to genuinely classified information. So I guess the issue is whether it actually needs to be classified.
- jMyles 12y ago
  Some of us, though, think that "classified information" held by governments is an anachronism on its face in the information age. And so yes, I expect that FOIA will apply to every shred of knowledge held by government once this misconfiguration is corrected.
  - eli 12y ago
    Private encryption keys? Missile launch codes? Whistleblowers identities?
    - jMyles 12y ago
      The first I can imagine simply becoming the private property of individuals who desire or require access. The second I'm happy to have not exist at all. And the third I'm happy to make public and protected.
  - JonFish85 12y ago
    (Sigh). Some things absolutely need to be classified: nuclear launch codes, specific positions & plans of the military, all sorts of military secrets (spy information, knowledge that gives us an advantage against any enemies), login credentials for government officials, encryption keys for things, etc. Do you really want everyone in the world to know the exact location of our nuclear weapons? Top speed of our submarines? Blind spots of our radar systems?
    - jMyles 12y ago
      > the exact location of our nuclear weapons? Top speed of our submarines? Blind spots of our radar systems? I don't mean to sound brash or simplistic, but the simple answer is that I don't want my government to have any of those things. I'll be safer and more empowered when my government disarms, de-escalates, and makes its goings on completely transparent. As a thought exercise: how much longer do you think the world will abide nuclear weapons? Are they just here forever?
      - JonFish85 12y ago
        I'm going to leave the whole first part alone, just so this doesn't devolve TOO far. >> As a thought exercise: how much longer do you think the world will abide nuclear weapons? Are they just here forever? They're probably here as long as there's a desire to utterly wipe a large area off of the map. Maybe the USA doesn't want them anymore, but many, many other countries want them and will continue to work towards getting them. Having them gets you a seat at the power table, and people have to listen to you. Even if they're not used, they're an extraordinarily valuable tool.
        psykovsky 12y ago
        >> Having them gets you a seat at the power table What? A death sentence, you mean, only by trying to have them.
      - LLWM 12y ago
        The knowledge of how to make and deploy nuclear weapons isn't going away. In the future, technology might develop to such a point where having the weapons themselves ready is unnecessary because they can be created instantly as they are needed. Does that count?
ObviousScience 12y ago
Someone asked the government for a sensitive report. The government replied that it had such a report, but while it would admit the existence, it felt the material contained in it was necessary to keep secret. This gives the original requester a chance to address this and ask why the report is being kept secret and for a review of that, which is different than if the government had simply denied such a report existed. This actually sounds like freedom of information happening, but it's reasonable to expect that kind of thing takes time and requires some back-and-forth to discuss what's the proper amount to keep secret or not. So I'm curious what your actual objection is.

shit_parade 12y ago

Releasing evidence to support claims is a quaint relic of when America was a Republic beholden to its citizens.

strictnein 12y ago
This wasn't released to prove their point. This was released in response to a FOIA request.
- shit_parade 12y ago
  " In fact, the existence of the DIA's report had been unknown until the White House secretly authorized the declassification of select portions of it so two Republican lawmakers could undercut the media narrative painting Snowden as a heroic whistleblower." https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage...
  - strictnein 12y ago
    And... ? Also, no where does that article substantiate that claim, and calling a DIA report an internal administration report seems to indicate that they don't really know what they're talking about. The DIA has several congressional oversight committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, that would be seeking the same information as well and most likely would have requested and received the report independently of the administration. Also, this is pretty breathless and baseless: > "Rogers did not provide evidence for his claims. But the message was clear: The Obama administration has authorized leaks of its own internal reports about Snowden for political purposes, but any attempts by journalists to dig deeper would constitute a national security threat." No, that's not clear at all. But it sure sounds good.
    - shit_parade 12y ago
      The Obama administration did authorize leaks relating to Snowden for political purposes, are you claiming that did not happen? But please do go on defending the fantastic, transparent, freedom loving US government which strives to weed out corruption, protect whistle-blowers, and zealously defends constitutional rights.

s_q_b 12y ago

While it's amusing, it's not nothing. The release of the document, even redacted, means that it exists. Proof that it exists gives legal purchase to challenge the redactions moving forward or to seek alternative means of disclosure on other grounds.

digitalneal 12y ago

Here is my CN: G: You said something that hurt my feelings! C: What did I say? G: I'm not telling you but it hurt my feelings!

Paul-ish 12y ago

There seem to be a an unredacted footnote, for whatever good that does.

crazychrome 12y ago

amazing! more than 6 months of hard work to strip out 140 pages of info. My 5 years old son could do the job faster.

josefresco 12y ago

The idea that the government would release to a news agency (or anyone in the public) a document outlining how the "Snowden leaks" damaged national security is mind numbingly ridiculous. I agree with the comment that this at least acknowledges that these documents, and this analysis exist (for future requests). However, I wouldn't expect to see this information revealed until long after it's relevant to US security (think decades or more). Unfortunately this means that most involved in this debate, will be without a complete picture of what benefits, or costs have incurred from either these "programs" or the leaks themselves. We're (in the public) left to argue about whether or not we're "safer" in the most abstract terms. Both sides can point to terrorism, or the lack thereof without actually working with 100% of the data and therefore unable to make any conclusions.

ObviousScience 12y ago
I agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see this information any time soon, but I want to point out that I think the government did the right thing in their response: they admitted they had such a document while at the same time saying that they believed the content should be classified. This allows the discussion to move forward in a meaningful way, as people can petition to have the classification reviewed, asked for it in other contexts, etc rather than having just been flatly rejected here without any recourse. This is a discussion between the government and the public through the appropriate channels and following the appropriate means (at least, so far). I'm not sure what else people could want, in this context.
- exelius 12y ago
  The problem is that the U.S. Government had adopted a policy of "classified by default". It's impossible for us to have a public debate on this issue when anyone who knows about it is legally not allowed to discuss it with anyone who does not have the proper clearance. It's important to note that discussing the content of a classified document - even if that document has been leaked and is in the public sphere, and regardless of whether or not the information really should be classified - is punishable by serious jail time. This effectively prevents public debate about any program considered "classified", which means if you're doing something shady that would be embarrassing if it came out, you just slap a security clearance on it and claim its for "national security", thus precluding any government officials from acknowledging it. As more and more government programs are considered classified, the people are given less of a voice in how our country is run. That is the most scary part for me.

Lancey 12y ago

At least we know how many bullet points are in the documents

not_kurt_godel 12y ago

Link to the real article: https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage...

anonbanker 12y ago

this document is to be declassified in 2038, according to the poorly-blacked-out parts. we won't know the truth for another 23 years.

billw224 12y ago

You are all idiots and don't understand, clearly, how FOIA works. B5, one of the exemptions the government uses here, is the delibertiave exemption that is one of the most abused and doesn't have to be used. It's done by choice. The fact that the government would classify EVERYTHING is ridiculous not that they wouldn't release a framework about the leaks. Try doing some research about the FOIA process.