Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Mass Declassified Documents At Midnight

Alchemist253 writes "Advocates of open government have another reason to celebrate New Year 2007: at midnight hundreds of millions of U.S. government documents that were classified more than 25 years ago got automatically declassified. Various agencies have applied for exemptions for specific documents, but nonetheless there should be a release of a number of interesting papers." From the article: "'It is going to take a generation for scholars to go through the material declassified under this process,' said Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists."

35 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. So ... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do we finally find out who killed JFK?

    1. Re:So ... by prelelat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What will this even prove, if there were conspiracies I'm sure they would have added them to the exemption pile. If not the conspiracy junkies will yell out that the documents were destroyed or put in the exempt pile. People will believe what they want, its all cloak and dager when it comes to the government.

    2. Re:So ... by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but since it goes back to the early 80s, maybe we'll find out who shot Ronald Reagan.

      Oh wait, we already know that. Oh well.

    3. Re:So ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes. It was Microsoft Bob.

      Hey! That's just as reasonable as most of the other "theories" that have been propounded in the decades since.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:So ... by yabos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of the possibly interesting documents are always censored when they're declassified. Various UFO documents are mostly blacked out and so are useless.

    5. Re:So ... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if someone could run for president on a single promise - release ALL the info on the JFK killing ... or how long they'd survive before an "accident", or a "deranged gunman" took them out ...

    6. Re:So ... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, Microsoft Bob was like herpes.

      1. Nobody would admit to having it
      2. It seriously damaged your reputation
      3. People shunned you
      4. There is no "cure", only treatment.
    7. Re:So ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      No, but since it goes back to the early 80s, maybe we'll find out who shot Ronald Reagan.

      Oh wait, we already know that.

      Or do we? I submit that the KGB grew genetically-altered assassins equipped with light-bending camoflauge armor to do the job, while using mind control to set up John Hinckley, Jr. as the fall guy (with the help of communist fifth columnists within the film industry who re-edited Taxi Driver to contain subliminal messages, which also caused the rise of MTV, which is a whole other conspiracy which I do not have the space to cover here), and that they in fact succeeded in killing him, but quickly switched the real, dead Reagan with a insidiously clever android based on alien technology. Did you ever seen Ronald Reagan around any large magnets after the shooting? Didn't think so.

      I suggest those of you who can see this memorize this information as quickly as you can, because the government DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS, and this post will surely not remain up for very long. (AND DON'T COPY AND PASTE IT. THEY HAVE CODE EMBEDDED IN YOUR BROWSER THAT SEND EVERYTHING EVERYBODY COPIES AND PASTES DIRECTLY TO THE NSA.) Don't worry about me, I'm posting from behind a proxy server (NOT Tor, which is in fact run by Dutch intelligence), and will be taking the next boat to another continent after I've sent out the signal. See through the lies. Good luck to you.
    8. Re:So ... by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Answer, no way. That's a really lame single issue. Besides Clinton pretty much did this as part of his policy of more openness in government. And he didn't have an accident or get assassinated.

    9. Re:So ... by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Big deal, the only thing the US Intelligence has to hide when it comes to the JFK assassination is its own incompetence (as to how they miserably failed to prevent it as Fidel Castro has survived 638 assassination attempts, part of them which had been directly ordered by JFK and RFK)

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    10. Re:So ... by rifter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Answer, no way. That's a really lame single issue. Besides Clinton pretty much did this as part of his policy of more openness in government. And he didn't have an accident or get assassinated.

      Why assassinate the man when you can assassinate his character?

  2. nothing to see here... by thelost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    move along. Oh the irony. Anyhow, while this may be good news correct me if I'm wrong but US government has made headway reclassifying previously unclassified documents, as reported for instance here. I don't really know the ins and outs, but isn't it kind of one hand giving while the other takes away?

    --
    Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
  3. Give and take by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This policy is one of the few things, in my libertarian-leaning mind, that Bill Clinton got very right. There needs to be give and take on both sides. The public needs to respect the need for state secrecy on certain issues, and the state needs to bring everything it can to the public when the problem has been fixed. The only exception that to me is valid would be one that could really cause a war or that would get a foreign contact of the US Government or their friends and family killed.

    1. Re:Give and take by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. However, I don't think the people should ever passively accept classification of documents or withholding of information. Every decision in that direction should be actively questioned and debated. There should be a constant public push to declassify everything, because only when you have that impetus, will anything ever be declassified, particularly because you have a government with an obsession to act secretive and horde information.

      The only legitimate reason for secrecy is when the disclosure of a document would result in direct and immediate harm to a U.S. national, ally, or key national interest. The classification of documents for "face saving" reasons is harmful and should be stopped. If we as a nation have made mistakes in the past we should be upfront with them to ourselves and move on.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Give and take by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No shit.

      Theres only three things that shouldn't automatically be declassified after 25 years: The names of operatives and assets, and blueprints of weapons and stuff, and intelligence gathering methods, like the fact we have a tap hooked into the closed circuit TV in a certain hotel in London that ambassadors always stay at.

      Anything else should be public, and I personally think 25 years is way too damn long. Let's go for five years. This is our country, we are in charge, and we can't make decisions without knowing what's going on, as I think Iraq has adequately demonstrated. (And I just realized five years would almost exactly hit the start of the Iraq war, but I swear I just chose that number randomly.)

      Yes, that means that covert opts will be harder to keep secret. But I might suggest we should only do opts against people we're at war with, not, for example, Castro.

      However, note I said automatically. I'm not trying to change the whole system at once. Anything the government agencies felt was actually worth classifying they could keep reapplying every 5 years.

      Clinton gave a nice start, such a nice one that Bush hasn't managed to fight it so far. What Bush himself does he's classifying, but meanwhile the background 'automatic review and declassify' thing Clinton got started kept running.

      What we really need is laws about what type of information can be classified, and how long. Congress at least has a law saying that you can't classify something just because it's politically embarrassing that has no national security aspects, but there's almost no enforcement of that. But we need more laws about what kinds of things you can't keep secret, like government contracts.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  4. Saig anyone? by bunhed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps we need a seti type project to go though it all. We could dub it SAIG, Search for Any Intelligent Governance. I figure it would get the same number of false positives seti does.

    1. Re:Saig anyone? by FinnWinter · · Score: 3, Funny

      More importantly, one would expect it to get exactly the same number of true positives.

  5. not surprising by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is going to take a generation for scholars to go through the material declassified under this process,' said Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

    Well, if the government really wanted to keep people busy, I'm sure they could just use an algorithm to randomly generate a few million pages of government-speak, formatted to look important, but containing no information whatsoever. That way, they could mask the few nuggets of truly important information in a mound of nonsense and red herrings.

    Wait, that's congress' job. Nevermind.

  6. How do they change over? by PurifyYourMind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Secret documents 25 years old or older will lose their classified status without so much as the stroke of a pen"

    I'm curious as to how they switch the documents over. 25 years ago it's not like everything was computerized. Are they having people manually sort through classified docs in an "old documents" area, looking and the date, and moving them? I doubt they'd just let historians in to do the sorting.
  7. Among the secrets, cause of Slashdot's dupes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It seems that Slashdot's offices and many of its editors are infected with top secret radioactive element duplonium, resulting in dupes like this.

  8. Re:Is this new? by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read the article, you'd find that this is the first time. Clinton enacted a law, and Bush (!) has enforced it. From here on in, it will happen every year, but this is the first.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  9. UFOs by trelayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If FOI in the UK is any indication, the top topic of requests will be
    regarding UFOs. We should expect a lot of revelations on this in the New Year
    (Kecksburg to name one...)

    1. Re:UFOs by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm from Pittsburgh. I have heard secondhand stories about Kecksburg from my grandfather. He was a steelworker and some of his coworkers lived in Kecksburg.

      SOMETHING definately crashlanded there, but I suspect that it may have been Soviet.

      Either way, I'd like to find out for sure.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  10. Biggest Personal Bombshell: by mr_luc · · Score: 3, Funny

    It turns out, I wasn't born in Creston Iowa to Matt and Barbara at all. I was created as part of a series of a domestic experiments with in-vitro fertilization, and ... and my father ...

    My father is Margaret Thatcher. /me sits on ground and cries.

  11. Yeah right! by ratzmilk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is not a government on the planet that is ever going to tell it's people all their dirty little secrets.

    And they don't keep stuff buried for national security, or to protect the innocent, or what ever other reason you may think. The one and only reason any government keeps secrets from it's people is because if they were to get out, they would be lynched.

    They are only ever going to release the shit that doesn't matter.

    Besides, the most foul things perpetrated by governments usually start with "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?", or words to that effect.

    --
    I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
    1. Re:Yeah right! by cheesygrapes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love how when Bush tries to spy on the American people, all the neofacists chime in with the "if people aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't mind if the government knows their business" bit but when people want to be able to see what the government (also made of people, but with more power and more corrupt) is doing, the neofacists instantly defend the government's right to privacy. I'm sorry but this is America we're talking about. We the people, rule America. The government should answer to the people and report to the people. Instead of the government spying on the people, the people should be spying on the government. This shouldn't be about left or right, liberal or conservative, it is about being American or being Facist.

  12. Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, where the hell can we find these documents?

    1. Re:Where? by AlXtreme · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not sure if declassified documents have already been placed online for the FBI or NSA, but the FBI, NSA and CIA FOIA sites might be good places to start. The CIA does have a few new documents online. Pick your favorite incident and happy hunting!

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Where? by manastungare · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haven't you heard? They have been on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

  13. Don't be silly by symbolset · · Score: 3, Funny
    When a document is classified, that doesn't mean it's pressed on thick orange cardboard with brown ink to prevent photocopying. The government has millions of classified documents and some of the most wonderful document scanners you've ever seen. The original documents were all probably scanned and archived long ago. If they want to, they can release the documents on DVD.

    It seems likely they won't want to.

    I imagine google will do a nice index and we'll know why Kennedy had the CIA assassinate the guy who invented the 100MPG on tapwater carbeurator shortly.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  14. Re:Is this new? by OriginalArlen · · Score: 2, Informative

    A similar process happens here in the UK every year. (That article's from 2001, but it's still current info.) There are various documents that are classified for 30, 50 or 100 years. Eventually everything gets turned over to historians, in theory at least. It'll be interesting to see how the digital age will affect this process in 25 years' time...

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  15. NISPOM tells us by DragonHawk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Are they having people manually sort through classified docs in an "old documents" area, looking and the date, and moving them?


    Well, I can't speak for everybody, but in the industrial part of US classified world, the NISPOM spells it out pretty clearly. One has to mark every classified document with the date of declassification. The "Declassify On" date comes from the Classification Guide delivered with the contract.

    The NISPOM (National Industrial Security Program - Operating Manual) is publicly available; Google for it. Contrary to popular belief, classified information is mainly about accountability and trust, not dark rooms and guys in trench coats. Classified information is about letting information *be distributed*, in an accountable fashion. If somebody in a government position is doing something illegal, they probably just won't tell anybody about it. Calling it "classified" would just draw attention to it.

    Which is not to say declassifying old, benign information isn't a good thing; it is. It increases public knowledge of our government while decreasing operating overhead. Indeed, it's generally preferred to have the smallest amount of classified information one can. It's a lot cheaper to work with unclassified material. Better to spend the money on men and equipment.
    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:NISPOM tells us by theLOUDroom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If somebody in a government position is doing something illegal, they probably just won't tell anybody about it.

      That statement is based on the ridiculously flawed assumption that these actions involve only a single person.

      If you want to do something like assasinate a foreign head of state are you going to hop a plane and try to do it yourself, or are you going to collect the right people and develop a plan?

      Watergate would be a great example of how totally full of shit this statement is.
      The NSA wiretapping program would be another.

      The whole point of doing illegal things in government is that you have the resources of the gov't at your disposal. To take advantage of this you need to communicate with your underlings and co-conspirators.
      How is the NSA going to set up an illegal wiretapping program if you don't tell them to? How are they going to keep it secret without piles of secret money?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  16. How long until Google gets a copy? by abb3w · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems something like this would fit in well with their "Google Books" virtual library.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  17. A Generation?? by electronerdz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Give it to Google, let them index it, and then we can all work on it. They everyone will Myspace and blog it, and the world will know everything.

    --
    Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS