Slashdot Mirror


FBI Ordered to Turn Over Lennon Files

CatDogLordOfTheRoot writes "CNN is reporting that a U.S. District Judge rejected the governments arguements to keep the secret records of John Lennon sealed. The FBI argued that releasing the last ten pages would pose a risk to national security as a foreign government (not identified) secretly gave information to the US Government. Looks like another big step in the Freedom of Information Act."

26 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Good news by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration). (fp?)

    --
    Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    1. Re:Good news by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not true. Piles of secret information is buried constantly. Of course, there is public info, but there is very little civil war, mexican-american war or wwi info that is available.

      --
      Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    2. Re:Good news by tm2b · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time
      I think we need more than that. I think we need a federal version of many states' Open Government laws - see Florida's Government-In-The-Sunshine, for example, which is in the Florida Constitution.

      The government should have a priority of making most of its operations transparent.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    3. Re:Good news by bob+beta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I posted some strong opinions once on a Slashdot account where I had my email address exposed.

      That email account is pretty much worthless now. Nothing of the kind has EVER happened due to all the USENET posts I have made with a public email address.

      There are some some really nasty and hostile elements involved in the threads on this site. It's a serious mistake to reveal an email address if you have any strongly held opinions.

    4. Re:Good news by mpmansell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, considering that observed communication is enough to attract attention, security via obscurity is often the primary protection for intelligence assets.

      If you were to be sending emails to known 'enemies of the state', do you really think that encryption would stop all kinds of crap landing on you from a very high place? Guilt by association would be enough to condemn you to a miserable future and in some places, maybe, a prematurely terminal future. In fact, the act of hiding the info via encryption is more likely to confirm suspicions against you.

      Any successful operative will know this and use skilled field craft to make themselves unobtrusive and uninteresting. If they've done job well, if caught out, the first comment made by many will be along the lines of "I never suspected a thing". Of course, if really well done with luck to match, there will be no comments since they wouldn't be caught:)

      The fact that spies are caught, despite precautions shows SbO is flawed. However, the success of many indicatess that unless under the spotlight, SbO can be very successful.

      I would never consider SbO as my only security measure in any data system. I would still select the most secure practical crypto allied to a secure methodology in order to reduce security risks (they can never be eliminated). However, Security by Obscurity allows info to go unnoticed and reduces exposing it to scrutiny. This is often a good idea, if not always practical.

    5. Re:Good news by slashjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Manhattan Project is not a very good example. Given the information currently available on the internet, it's relatively easy to design a 1st generation nuclear bomb (such as Fat Man or Little Boy). Even the information on how to refine Uranium and Plutonium isn't hard to find. The difficulty for anyone wanting to make a nuke is in getting ahold of the Uranium or Plutonium in the first place. After that, in under a year they'll have a bomb ready for use.

  2. And no prizes for guessing who by ewe2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    because my bet is on the British government who were so obliging. I imagine Special Branch were leaping at the chance.

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
    1. Re:And no prizes for guessing who by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I imagine Special Branch were leaping at the chance."

      MI5 are the agency in question, and yes, during that time the UK was very accomodating because of a little thing called the 'Cold War' and the 'European Theatre' that had most of the member states of NATO within a short tank drive of the Warsaw pact.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  3. Won't Be Long by geomon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And you will have to fight for the information that US security and intelligence agencies have accumulated on you.

    The problem with the USA Patriot Act is that it has an unintended consequence: While working under the guise of gathering information on terrorists (a good thing) a great deal more information is gathered on innocent individuals (a bad thing).

    Now before people start waving their arms around with "You've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide", keep in mind that information can always be used for purposes other than stopping terrorism. Information can be used for political reasons as well.

    That is the problem with the USA Patriot Act. You will never know what information has been gathered on you, and you will never know if some *legal* activity, such as belonging to a political organization, will become a problem for you or your family in the future.

    Lennon may not have been right, he may have created political problems for the Nixon Administration, but he did everything in the open and legally.

    Look where it got him.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re: Won't Be Long by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting


      > and why the United States has the strong tradition of limiting the power of the executive and subjecting everything to the possibility of judicial review.

      And unfortunately, we also have a strong tradition of spying on people who don't do what the powers that be want them to do. A few years back news came out that that the FBI had a 70 page file on a former president of the University of California, simply because he wouldn't fire a couple of professors that certain people thought were too liberal.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Won't Be Long by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Now before people start waving their arms around with "You've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide", keep in mind that information can always be used for purposes other than stopping terrorism. Information can be used for political reasons as well.

      Forget political reasons. What if you do have something to hide?

      No, I'm serious. You're a criminal. I'm a criminal. We're all criminals. You've downloaded copyrighted movies/mp3s, he's smoked some drugs, she sat at the front of the bus, and I've driven 19mph over the speed limit.

      There are so many laws in America, it's simply a matter of whether someone gets caught.

      I for one am not interested in giving the "powers that be" any more control/surveillance capacity than they already have.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    3. Re:Won't Be Long by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Forget political reasons. What if you do have something to hide?
      A good example was the former president of Pakistan being forced out of Office after being filmed by intelligence agents having sex in her own bedroom with her own husband - and not doing anything forbidden by her religeon. The moral failure was seen in allowing herself to be filmed, which she didn't know was happening. Even when you do nothing wrong you can be screwed over by uncontrolled intelligence agencies - so they need some form of check and balance. Secrecy is often used as an excuse to avoid regulation, and often to hide the mistakes of individuals. It can be argued that national security is at stake every time an inept loser is exposed in the intelligence community, but that sort of argument should just be laughed at along with the dissappearing Niger Uranium and the Chinese getting the sum total of the US nuclear research in a spectacular stuff up.
  4. Good news? Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened. If the FBI wants documents classified, the FBI has a good reason. I don't want another 9/11 in the U.S. or a foreign country just because people want to see some documents.

    1. Re:Good news? Bad news by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What slashdotters don't get is that the government isn't out to get us.

      It's not that the government is out to get "us" per se, especially if by us you mean everyone in the U.S. The government is out to get anyone who interferes with its nefarious fucking schemes to grow into this cthulhuesque horror which consumes the whole nation. The federal government is the ultimate bureaucracy because you're not even allowed to sue it without permission! The government is not a single entity either but it is united in certain pursuits.

      What are those pursuits? For one, the poverty industry. Different parts of the government are more or less involved in different parts of the stratification of society for the purpose of employing more people in the government - which costs us all money. First there's the welfare system, which penalizes success by taking away help from the people who need it most - if you can't make the jump from poor to not poor in one step, the government will cut back your aid so that you stay poor. Next there's the War on Drugs - it employs thousands in law enforcement, corrections, and the judicial system, but ultimately it's harming the populace. It's modern-day prohibition, but the masses are happy enough with their alcohol and cigarettes that they won't (for the most part) do anything about it, so the system continues in its lovely little circles, helped along by our own Cocaine Import Agency.

      If you're one of the people who does anything the goverment doesn't like you to do, then it's not unreasonable to be paranoid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Good news? Bad news by torpor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do you trust the people at the FBI more than you trust yourself and the other civilians that the people at the FBI are employed as servants of?

      Because he doesn't trust himself? Because he doesn't trust any other civilian members of society?

      Because he has been brain-washed into thinking that "Them" are high and mighty, and because "He" is just a me-me-me consumerican bot, worshipful of none but Self?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  5. What I wanna know is... by NeuroManson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why oh WHY are records sealed regarding, in essense, a celebrity civilian who's been dead for almost 24 years now?

    I mean I had my own conspiracy theory that it was due to the Reagan administration taking office, or a Manchurian Candidate situation, but hasn't the FBI figured out that hiding documents on cold cases long out of date only adds to the suspicion?

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  6. Lots of Data Collected by BisonHoof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is certainly true that the FBI were *very* interested in Lennon, especially during his "Marxist" phase, circa "Some Time in New York City". According to John Wiener ("Lennon vs the FBI" in Thomson and Gutman's "Lennon Companion") there is a 288 page file on Lennon in the FBIs "domestic security" section, of which 199 pages are still classfied "in the interests of defence of foregin policy", and thousands of pages in the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

  7. Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This had nothing to do with his death. The FBI followed John Lennon because he had his own opinion of the war in Vietnam. So President Nixon had the FBI treat him like a national security risk.

    Sounds just like the current Administration.

  8. Maybe, just maybe.... STASI by Siriaan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US government may be nervous about these documents due to the early Beatles stint in Germany. Could it be possible that the East German secret police, who almost certainly had informers throughout West Germany, may have passed on information at the request of the United States? Just imagine how embarrassing it would be for people to know that the US government were in cahoots at one time with possibly the most notorious policing force ever created.

  9. Re:Gee, I wonder WHICH country...? by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    maybe FUCKING ENGLAND? You losers... if there's one country besides the U.S. that had any information on John Lennon it's god damned brits. How sensitive is that really?

    Or possibly Canada. John Lennon spent a good deal of time in Canada doing things he wouldn't so in the US, like his and Yoko's North American bed-in (in Montreal), John and Yoko's "Live Peace in Toronto" concert, and the fact that he stayed with Ronnie Hawkins (IIRC) at a farm here in Ontario for some time.

    During those days the RCMP and Canadian police forces were keeping their eyes on rock stars (or at least so it seems to me). In 1977 Keith Richards (Rolling Stones) was arrested for Heroin possession.

    I wouldn't be too suprised if the RCMP collected some data on Lennon during his time here. What would suprise me is if the FBI would think that anyone here would care if such information were to be made public 24 years later.

    (To be honest though, England does seem to be the more probable source).

    Yaz.

  10. I quote thus by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

    Commissioner Pravin Lal
    "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  11. Re:Say What? by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was investigated along with many other pro-life groups. It had little to do with the fact that I was and still am an anarchist. They do not investigate anarchist groups like the IWW. The operation is called VAAPCON and I am one of many people that have been investigated by it. Even PLAGAL (pro-life alliance of gays and lesbians) was investigated.

  12. Re:Say What? by rlwhite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder why? Maybe partially because Bush's grandfather was also Nixon's political mentor? People tend to forget that the Bush political and defense industry connections date back to WWI.

  13. No Joke by wwphx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To get my current job, I had to sign a loyalty oath. One part of it was that I could not be a member of the Communist Party. I couldn't be a subversive or revolutionary.

    The job? 19 hours a week walking through the computer lab at a local community college helping people with Word, Excel, burning CDs on the Mac, etc. for minimum wage.

    Yes, I am one of the 400,000+ who's been out of work for 3.5 years.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  14. Re:Say What? by JonToycrafter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, I'm being trolled, but...

    People get arrested ONLY for speaking their mind more often than you think. Police will make up a crime - I've seen it done many times, and had it happen to me once - you can read about it here if you feel like it.

    Of course, you're breaking a law at almost any time. It's more common to arrest someone for breaking a law that many other people are breaking, the only difference being that the arrested person spoke their mind against the current Administration.

    I step off the sidewalk to walk around people every time I walk down Canal Street in Manhattan, as do the cops. However, people who have more of a history of speaking their mind get arrested for the same act - I read an article here about this just today.

    So I don't find your criticism credible. I wouldn't bother posting, except you seem like someone logical who's drawn a conclusion based on incomplete information, and I wouldn't want others to do the same.

  15. Re:Transparent Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, what happened to him? Death, concentration camp or court martial and dishonourable discharge?

    What is the penalty for stopping mutually assured destruction?