Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Ordered to Turn Over Lennon Files

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the helter-skelter dept.

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."

8 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. LOL by Luke727 · · Score: -1, Troll

    Jews killed Lennon. LOL!

    --
    If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
      HAHA you fucking hebrew. Here, let me make your mood more sour:

        • SHELLFISH
        • UNCUT COCKS
        • BACON DOUBLE CHEESEBURGER
        • PALESTINE
        • LOST PROFITS
        • ZYKLON
        • JEW SOAP

          (dont use so many caps its like yelling lol@bush)
    2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      It must be hell to live with yourself.

  2. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    In Soviet Russia, we secretly give information about hippie singers TO YOU!!!

  3. Or... by wicka_wicka · · Score: -1, Troll

    We could just keep secret. It's not hurting anyone not knowing what's in these documents...all it COULD do is hurt national security, if the FBI is serious.

    --
    hi
  4. Re:Say What? by Babbster · · Score: 0, Troll
    I'm sorry. Has there been an FBI investigation of The Dixie Chicks that I'm not aware of? Has Alec Baldwin's garbage been tossed by the feds?

    In other words, shut the hell up.

  5. Gee, I wonder WHICH country...? by jhealy · · Score: -1, Troll

    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?

  6. Re:Good news by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 0, Troll

    One thing is to hide an email that, theoretically will never be revealed and is known to absolutely anyone but me (and a trusted party, in this case, slashdot).

    And anyone else who monitored an unencrypted connection, and the email provider itself, and anyone who manages to hack into slashdot or yoyur slashdot account, and anyone who looked over your shoulder when you created the account, and anyone with access to a computer you used to log in...

    This is not obscurity, but rather, impossibility. It is theoretically impossible for you, or anyone else (in principle) to find out the address.

    Right... Cause finding out top secret military information is easy, and figuring out an email address, now that's impossible!

    In the case mentioned, at least one other party knows about the details of the deeds the documents are trying to hide, and it may be pointless to try to hide this information.

    It may be, but it may not be, and the government is saying it isn't.

    So, for instance, you may be trying to hide the fact that the US had a deal with someone who's an enemy of a current ally, but in this case, *that* person knows that and can certainly use it against you.

    Of course it may not be in the best interests of that country to use the information. In fact, maybe it can't be used against us, maybe it can only be used against them.

    Is security through obscurity completely worthless in certain situations? Sure. Should it ever be used as the sole method to protect something important? Of course not. But is it useful, in certain situations, to hide information from the public? Without a doubt. This isn't even really what is meant by the term "security through obscurity".