Slashdot Mirror


New Declassification Process To Open 400 Million Pages of Records

linzeal writes "The newly minted National Declassification Center has been tasked by President Obama with eliminating the backlog of more than 400 million pages of classified records that are more than 25 years old by the end of 2013. The National Archives has prepared a draft prioritization plan to guide its declassification activities, and has invited public input on the plan. A public forum on the subject will be held on June 23. This may be a bonanza for the community of historians and intelligence buffs who have been left without significant source material to work with, in some cases since WWII, especially in terms of any information on cryptography, image analysis, and espionage."

135 comments

  1. ok everyone by Rallias+Ubernerd · · Score: 0

    a couple pages a person make sure we didn't become hipocrates

    1. Re:ok everyone by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Conspiracy theorists, start your engines! There's gonna be enough red herrings and other tidbits of fodder to keep them going until the next "great document declassification dump" comes along. Enjoy!

    2. Re:ok everyone by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's a hipocrate? A big box of short hippos?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:ok everyone by s122604 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind being a doctor, although I'm sure I'd need to refresh myself on the latest technologies...

    4. Re:ok everyone by icebike · · Score: 1

      One only hopes these make it quickly and unedited into public archives, preferably where they can be searched.

      (OK, notice how I avoided mentioning Google or Bing, but realistically those are probably the only venues that could carry the load).

      Historical research would probably account for the major continuing use of these documents after the Conspiracy and Cover-up crowd get done digging dirt on their pet theories.

      But yes, I agree, this will engender as many questions than it answers, as casual wording from 25 year old documents will inspire entire new conspiracy claims.

      UFOs, and Spies and Graft, oh My!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:ok everyone by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Conspiracy theorists, start your engines!

      Quite the contrary. Conspiracy theorists, run for the hills!

      You're all going to look interminably foolish when it comes out you were borked by transparently simplistic CIA misinformation campaigns.

    6. Re:ok everyone by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No, it's a single doctor, and therefore very rare in urban settings.

    7. Re:ok everyone by Surt · · Score: 1

      These are old documents. Assuming they are black and white scans or original sources in simple text based formats, you're probably looking at less than 100TB of data. Any medium sized business could build out the infrastructure to search that.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:ok everyone by Surt · · Score: 1

      That deserves a huge funny mod. I love the idea of the CIA being involved in a huge conspiracy theory to make conspiracy theorists look bad. And that the revelation of such a program is bad for the conspiracy theorists. Hilarious!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:ok everyone by ajrs · · Score: 1

      These are old documents. Assuming they are black and white scans or original sources in simple text based formats, you're probably looking at less than 100TB of data. Any medium sized business could build out the infrastructure to search that.

      Any medium sized business has better uses for its resources.

    10. Re:ok everyone by Surt · · Score: 1

      Maybe not if they are any of the 2nd tier search companies trying to distinguish themselves. Or alternatively, why wouldn't google/bing have better uses for their resources as well? It's not like this fairly substantial investment is going to bring in a lot of ad revenue.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    11. Re:ok everyone by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They don't do it to make the conspiracy theorists look bad.

      They use the conspiracy theorists to propagate the misinformation virally, because just posting "The CIA says Roswell was Flying Saucers" gives it no credibility at all, and in fact draws attention to the CIA's involvement, which gets non-conspiracy theorists thinking.

      But the CIA also doesn't care about the conspiracy theorists, because they can always get more, so whether the conspiracy theorists end up looking bad or not doesn't enter into the design of the misinformation.

  2. ya right by Izabael_DaJinn · · Score: 4, Informative
    Does anyone on /. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public. "Likelihood of Declassification – Factors include complexity of information, volume of tabs (exemptions, exclusions, referrals) and age of material. There are a number of lower level classified records which may lend themselves to quick turnaround, while other records contain classified information that must be protected under E.O. 13526 and will not result in significant public release."

    This is from: "THE NATIONAL DECLASSIFICATION CENTER Releasing All We Can, Protecting What We Must National Declassification Center Prioritization Plan" mmmk

    --
    Careful What You Wish For....
    1. Re:ya right by Peach+Rings · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Freedom of Information Act seems to be working pretty well despite resulting in mass humiliation for countless officials.

    2. Re:ya right by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      I believe that something interesting is likely to slip through if only through oversight or incompetence. Even that would not be a possibility if nothing were declassified and released, so I say bring it on and make the odds more favorable.

    3. Re:ya right by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does anyone on /. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public.

      Depends on your definition of 'juicy' - this kind of information is a treasure-trove for historians. Not Nicholas Cage "National Treasure" 'historians' but the real guys who record the fundamentals of who/what/where/when/how and sometimes the why of our government operations. The motivation to over-classify is particularly strong - no one ever got sent to prison for not releasing a document. But keeping this stuff hidden has all kinds of long-term bad effects, such as an inability to learn from previous mistakes, duplication of effort and a bunch more stuff that isn't about malfeasance but is extremely important to healthy governance.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know, people bitch and moan about more transparency in government. When government finally gets off its ass trying to be more transparent like people want, what do they do? That's right, bitch and moan even more that its not good enough.

      Yes, this isn't perfect, but its a goddamn start, and never would have happened in a million years under the previous administration.

    5. Re:ya right by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Does anyone on /. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public.

      It's not going to be the equivalent of The CIA's "family jewels", but it will still be of interest to government watchdogs who are willing to sift through the data (by means manual or automated) to find contradictions, omissions and the like.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:ya right by Kenoli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not being 'seriously juicy or even particularly interesting' is probably the main reason many of them need to be declassified in the first place. Guarding worthless secrets is a waste of effort.

    7. Re:ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On that note, is there a site that posts the best examples of FOIA requests?

    8. Re:ya right by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wasn't too long ago that Project Oxcart was declassified, that was pretty juicy for me. Served as the precursor to one of the coolest, most impressive planes ever built.

    9. Re:ya right by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone on /. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public.

      That depends on your definition of interesting. There's lots of material that is still classified that would never make the evening news when it's released, but which would be of considerable interest to historians, economists, engineers, geeks, etc... etc...
       
      Just because it doesn't cause a scandal doesn't mean it's not important or interesting.

    10. Re:ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anyone on /. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public.

      Cool stuff gets declassified all the time. The Los Alamos Primer was a pretty awesome read, and it was declassified in 1965 - only 20 years after the bomb was invented.

      If you'd like something more recent, how about the SR-71 Blackbird Flight Manual?

    11. Re:ya right by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Does anyone on /. honest believe anything seriously juicy or even particularly interesting would *ever* be released to the public

      Considering there are numerous levels of classification above Top Secret (i.e. Cosmic Clearance), and that the President is not even allowed access to some of them, to answer your question: Sadly, no.

    12. Re:ya right by jd · · Score: 1

      Tidbits are said to include the following: "Our replacement for the SHA1 algorithm shall be SKA1, which will involve strangely-dressed men wielding saxophones".

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    13. Re:ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The motivation to overclassify is not very strong. It's blatantly against the rules to use classification to hide something embarassing to the US government; The classification on almost all classified documents "leaked" recently was decided long before the embarassing event occured. And yes, people do get reprimanded and punished for applying inappropriate classificiation routinely, since the system is way too complex to be done well.

    14. Re:ya right by kstatefan40 · · Score: 1

      I think you forget that the government just declassified portions of COMINT and SIGINT documents dating back to 1933. These documents were the precursor to the NSA run by the US Army Signal Corps. In the case of cryptographic information, 25 years is an awfully short period. I found many of the documents that were declassified from '33 to contain tons of extremely interesting and historically valuable information.

    15. Re:ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Freedom of Information Act seems to be working pretty well despite resulting in mass humiliation for countless officials.

      Yeah, it worked so well getting a copy of this ... oh wait, it didn't. Tell me, why is information like that even allowed to be classified? If my tax dollars are paying to have Beavis and Butthead murder children in the desert, I have a right to know about it.

    16. Re:ya right by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about that case but remember that there will always be unsatisfying answers given when something remains classified. You have to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to keep certain things classified. The problem is that in a case where it should stay classified they can't tell us what the good reason is, and they're forced to awkwardly say "Trust us we have a SUPER good reason" to little effect.

    17. Re:ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to keep certain things classified.

      That's my point. What is the reason? Everyone focused on the fact that our troops murdered a bunch of civilians and attempted to murder two children from an Apache gunship. Color me shocked. <sarcasm /> But now that it's out, NOBODY questions why that video was classified in the first place. I want the guy deciding what is and isn't classified brought up for review. What possible "SUPER good reason" resulted in this being classified? Just to cover up wrongdoing isn't a good reason to hide that video from the people who paid for that Apache.

    18. Re:ya right by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      If I was the guy in the gunship, I would consider "to cover up wrongdoing" a SUPER good reason.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    19. Re:ya right by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are not releasing documents that even have one word of classified information on them, to err that far on the side of caution and refuse to attempt any redaction before releasing to the public means we are likely to be waiting till the next world war to read some of the documents from the second one.

    20. Re:ya right by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Or any one before that since FDR. Seriously, that is how old some of these documents are.

    21. Re:ya right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was the guy in the gunship, I would consider "to cover up wrongdoing" a SUPER good reason.

      Well, if I was the child of the reporter he killed, I'd want his name to be public record. He should have to meet the children of the men he murdered. He should explain why he felt it was a good idea to kill an obviously incapacitated, unarmed man trying to crawl to safety. He should share that with all of us, but he's a despicable, gutless coward.

      FOIA requests are a joke. They certainly won't be providing those kids with even that small measure of justice.

    22. Re:ya right by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "FOI and Adobe's PDF software....". Seriously, I find it hilarious that they keep redacting documents by drawing black boxes on top of the text like its a magic marker.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    23. Re:ya right by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the people saying this aren't trustworthy. And the "SUPER good reason" is usually that they personally benefit from keeping it secret.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:ya right by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Titbits, please! Tit is not rude, and doesn't need to be prudishly avoided. And, back on topic, you failed to specifically mention the pork-pie hats. ;)

    25. Re:ya right by HotBBQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone who holds a DoD security clearance I can assure you that nothing juicy will be released. This isn't because it would be harmful, but because 99.9% of classified material is spectacularly devoid of anything interesting.

    26. Re:ya right by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting that it's wiser to error on the side of disclosure?

      Sorry, but if a piece of information is borderline on it's sensitivity it would be stupid to release it. Better to classify it and correct the error later. You can't correct an inappropriate disclosure.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    27. Re:ya right by ajrs · · Score: 1

      The motivation to overclassify is not very strong. It's blatantly against the rules to use classification to hide something embarassing to the US government; The classification on almost all classified documents "leaked" recently was decided long before the embarassing event occured. And yes, people do get reprimanded and punished for applying inappropriate classificiation routinely, since the system is way too complex to be done well.

      I would like to think that, but my expectation is that classification is routinely used to cover up embarrassing events. The legal precedent for the "state secrets privilege" was nothing more that that. If we take the term embarrassing to include criminal, negligent, and treasonous.

    28. Re:ya right by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Oh please, have some perspective. The FOIA works on a national scale, with thousands of requests and sometimes millions of pages released. It's succeeded in transforming government transparency for more than 40 years. Don't let the the fumes of burning reporters get to your head.

  3. That's a lot of black Sharpies by aaandre · · Score: 1

    400m pages!!! = big win for PR.

    1. Re:That's a lot of black Sharpies by Jeng · · Score: 4, Funny

      No worries, that's what they have Adobe for.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  4. So everything about JFK & Marylin Monroe death by ymmv · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So everything about JFK & Marylin Monroe deaths ?

  5. Will they declassify UFO intel? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

    If so, looks like Gary McKinnon has really, really bad timing.

    1. Re:Will they declassify UFO intel? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      If so, looks like Gary McKinnon has really, really bad timing.

      Along with some bad judgement and a seriously bad obsession with UFO's, yes.

  6. A move in the right direction by alfredos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not that previous posters don't have a point, but transparency in governments has to start somewhere. Far from perfect, late, and everything else, but at least it's a start.

    1. Re:A move in the right direction by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      A P.R. move in the right direction is nothing more than a head-fake, resulting in a score for the other side.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  7. Kill it with FIRE by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...eliminating the backlog of more than 400 million pages of classified records..."

    Sounds like a job for FIRE!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Kill it with FIRE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your answer for everything...

    2. Re:Kill it with FIRE by daid303 · · Score: 1

      2 words: Orbit, Nuke.

    3. Re:Kill it with FIRE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yoga flame

    4. Re:Kill it with FIRE by Tinctorius · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to report that, ironically, mr. Fire was sacked last Thursday.

    5. Re:Kill it with FIRE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was a paper trail of financial records, just hire a few Saudis and get some airplanes...

  8. 25 years? Let's go 25 months... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    Twenty-five years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep things from the people that you were elected to represent. Please someone, anyone, name me an item from 1984 that would have ended the world as we know it were it discovered prior to this year.

    All the 'really juicy' things that would jeopardize anyone are either:

    A) Not going to be released anyway. Not ever.
    or
    B) Long since irrelevant.

    Looking deeper into B, this would include anything that the enemy's own intelligence efforts would have obtained long, long ago. Troop movements are secure information, for example, up until the enemy can see them himself on the battlefield. Then, not so much. The 'collateral murder' videos? Not classifiable after the kids got out of the hospital. Etc, etc, etc.

  9. Finally!!! by Motard · · Score: 1

    We'll finally learn what was going on at Area 51 and the true origins of Marvin The Martian.

    But how much is this going to cost?

  10. declassification means... by IRoll11!s · · Score: 1

    ...removing all the juicy tidbits before releasing 400 million pages of meaningless filler.

  11. Re:MARTIN LUTHER KING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those sort of balance each other out. While it's bad to be a commie, being a womnaizer, I kinda like the idea.

  12. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by Jeng · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could be something as nice as when we set up the Soviets natural gas pipeline to blow by providing them sabotaged parts. Something that we couldn't really fess up to at the time, but now we parade it as one of the covert successes of the cold war.

    Could be something as wrong as Iran-contra.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  13. They said I was crzy by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally, you'll all see that there *were* aliens at Roswell. "Those Air Force bases were just testing secret aircraft and spy-gear," you said. "The military cover-ups were to keep the Soviets from finding out about our secret spying programs," you said. "It's no coincidence that all those UFO sightings just happened to be around secretive military bases at the height of the Cold War," you said. "Move out of my basement," my Mom said.

    Now you'll all see, and you'll finally respect me for realizing that the most obvious explanation for strange lights around Air Forces bases and secretive military coverups during the Cold War-era was that we were being visited by aliens who had traveled across the vast distances of interstellar space to shove probes up our asses.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:They said I was crzy by Tmack · · Score: 1

      The stock price of Alcoa will skyrocket as the national reserves of tinfoil plummets...

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    2. Re:They said I was crzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe you should take your girlfriend(1) to Cambodia. I hear you can get a lobster dinner there for like $1.

      (1) Yeah, I know this is /. but if he happens to be running a video store in New York.....

    3. Re:They said I was crzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey those alien probes have become a really successful business these days. Except now they call them vibrators. You can see them in action all over the internet. Maybe the aliens knew what they were doing after all.

    4. Re:They said I was crzy by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Um...2010-25 = 1985.

      Roswell was declassified decades ago.

    5. Re:They said I was crzy by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      A holiday in Cambodia?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:They said I was crzy by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps the aliens were shoving probes up our asses. After all, alien technology gave us teh Internet, and that gave us more examples of anal probes then anything in history.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    7. Re:They said I was crzy by Chih · · Score: 1

      I thought Al Gore gave us the internet. Have I been lied to?

      --
      For best results, avoid doing stupid things.
    8. Re:They said I was crzy by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, you just believe any old tripe that people tell you. Al Gore pushed for the funding to make the internet what it is today. Without him it would still most likely be an academic & military tool. But please, keep trotting out those old nuggets of shit.

    9. Re:They said I was crzy by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Um...2010-25 = 1985.

      Roswell was declassified decades ago.

      And the coverup that produced the 'declassified' Roswell incident was declassified when? ;)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    10. Re:They said I was crzy by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Al Gore ... is ... an academic ... tool.

      I like the way you think. Do you have a newsletter?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    11. Re:They said I was crzy by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Cannily enough, before Roswell even happened, so nobody would notice.

  14. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Agent A recruits Agent B recruits Agent C... Agent A retires and it is disclosed that he is an agent. Agent B had contact with Agent A and is therefore suspect and Agent C may be exposed by this. Similarly breaking Nazi encryption was kept secret because the mistakes allowing to be broken could be made with other ciphers and used to break them. 25 years is about the time after which we can assume the "bad guys" know anyway.

  15. National Security by kaoshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder how many black magic markers that takes.

    1. Re:National Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean african-american magic markers.

    2. Re:National Security by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      1) Invest in Magic Markers!
      2) Poke at old conspiracy theories.
      3) Profit.

    3. Re:National Security by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They don't use markers any more. Too prone to bleed-through of shading allowing the words to be read anyway.

      They redact with scissors now.

  16. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_of_the_United_States

  17. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Twenty-five years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep things from the people that you were elected to represent. Please someone, anyone, name me an item from 1984 that would have ended the world as we know it were it discovered prior to this year.

    Rockets

    We certainly don't want N. Korea to have our 1984-level rocketry capability, now do we?

    Atomic Weapons

    1984 atomic bombs are just as deadly ... why should we give Iran a leg-up?

    Spies

    Do we still have spies in place from the cold war? If it a long time to get them into place, you might as well leave them there for as long as possible.

    ------

    That said, 25 years is a long time for most things, and I believe the above have exceptions so that they wouldn't be released anyway. But maybe it's better to set a definite time period that's sufficient for most things than to make it too short.

  18. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    See the caveat labeled 'A'.

  19. That's a big tiwnkie... by HaeMaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The amount of documentation that the NDC considers of high public interest but difficult to declassify is 151,793 cubic feet of paper.

    That is a cube 1/10 of a mile on each side. Accoring to a random estimate on the internet, a cubic foot of paper is approximately 9.24 reams of paper (500 sheets). So, 151,793 cubic feet of paper is about 700 million sheets.

    That's a big twinkie.

    1. Re:That's a big tiwnkie... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes but paper is a relatively inefficient storage mechanism, if converted to a sensible text+images format (ie not just scanned to a bitmap dump), this wouldn't be especially large as digital data... I bet you could fit all of it on a single modern HD... Take a few copies for backup purposes and all that paper could be recycled.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:That's a big tiwnkie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      no, that's a cube a bit over 53 feet on a side.
      I expected better math here...

    3. Re:That's a big tiwnkie... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Yes but paper is a relatively inefficient storage mechanism, if converted to a sensible text+images format (ie not just scanned to a bitmap dump), this wouldn't be especially large as digital data... I bet you could fit all of it on a single modern HD... Take a few copies for backup purposes and all that paper could be recycled.

      I'll get right back to 1985 and tell them to start working on it.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  20. Don't feel bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't feel bad about the long time between when the events occurred and when they become declassified. In Canada, things like invoices and reciepts from world war two are kept classified for 35 years. Operational histories of events are published after 45 years (troop movements, etc). Senior staff orders at the secret level are kept classified up to 65 years, and top secret stuff is kept for 85 years (if its kept at all). Secret length is directly proportional to how juicy the bits of tid are.

    1. Re:Don't feel bad by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Troop movements are a pretty pointless thing to keep secret for a long time, sure it's important to keep them secret at the time the movements are taking place but once your troops have moved the enemy can simply see this for himself... Also once the war is over or the troops have moved on it's of little importance..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Don't feel bad by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      Canada has secrets? I knew you were up to no good up there in the snow! What is it, some kind of super-moose?

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    3. Re:Don't feel bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right because the shape of the terrain changes over geological time spans, and ... oh. General Patton used the troop movement strategies of Roman generals. But we don't defend out country from invasion anyway, and we don't defend our means of production from transfer to foreign ownership and physical transfer out of the country, so what's the point of even having a military, much less of protecting its secrets?

    4. Re:Don't feel bad by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      No, Canada keeps secret its contempt of the United States. Well, secret is a strong word really.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    5. Re:Don't feel bad by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Troop movements are a pretty pointless thing to keep secret for a long time, sure it's important to keep them secret at the time the movements are taking place but once your troops have moved the enemy can simply see this for himself...

      What if the enemy never DID see?

      There are reasons that the movements are kept secret.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    6. Re:Don't feel bad by shiftless · · Score: 1

      haters gonna hate

  21. Obama, giving our national secrets to terrorists? by s122604 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I give fox news about a day, to come up with story that implies that this means that Obama is wreckless, hates America, etc...

    surely with a headline as stupid as what I came up with

  22. Re:So everything about JFK & Marylin Monroe de by hguorbray · · Score: 1

    not until 2017:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Sealing_of_assassination_records

    and certain parts of the autopsy report X-rays and photos are in the National Archives under restricted access.

    According to Conspiracy buffs the Bush and the Hunt family had something to do with the assassination:

    http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm

    I'm just sayin'

  23. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Twenty-five years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep things from the people that you were elected to represent.

    Thanks to there being no term limits on Congress, there may be things in those documents about people who are still in office.

  24. Re:Obama, giving our national secrets to terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Obama is wreckless
    That word. I don't think it means what you think it means...

  25. I see a new bumper sticker in the near future by Message · · Score: 1

    "Classify everything, let NDC sort it out"

  26. Copyright vs Classified by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't it wrong when copyrighted material is protected longer than classified government secrets...

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Copyright vs Classified by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Well, no.

      Copyright belongs to a private citizen.

      Government information belongs to you.

      You don't want it kept from you, since it's yours, and you paid to create it. You want it kept from you only so long as hiding it keeps people, maybe including you, from dying at the hands of our enemies.

      The private citizen who owns his own copyright material doesn't want you to have it for free, since it's his, and he paid to create it. He wants it kept from you essentially forever, or at least as long as he and his first generation of children are alive to profit from his investment and creativity.

      If you want something to be yours, and you want it now, create it your own damned self, or buy the rights to it.

    2. Re:Copyright vs Classified by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      You want it kept from you only so long as hiding it keeps people, maybe including you, from dying at the hands of our enemies.

      It would be frightening indeed if the state were to somehow shift the definition of "enemy" into an intangible concept. Fortunately we're too informed and, damn it, too smart to fall for a cheap trick like that.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    3. Re:Copyright vs Classified by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Isn't it wrong when copyrighted material is protected longer than classified government secrets...

      If that were the case, you'd have a point. But while copyright has a finite length and automatically expires, classification is forever - unless and until it is specifically released.

    4. Re:Copyright vs Classified by grahamd0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...copyright has a finite length and automatically expires...

      In theory. We'll see about that the next time a corporate copyright is close to expiration.

    5. Re:Copyright vs Classified by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The private citizen who owns his own copyright material doesn't want you to have it for free, since it's his, and he paid to create it. He wants it kept from you essentially forever, or at least as long as he and his first generation of children are alive to profit from his investment and creativity.

      Sure, he can keep it forever, no argument here. Keep your CD, DVD, tape, HD, whatever. Just don't tell me I can't tell others the contents in whatever detail I wish if you showed them to me.

      Once you give a copy of information to someone, it's not yours anymore; your copy is yours and his copy is his. Copyright law tries to interfere with this, and fails miserably, since it's completely contrary to human nature: we create new, derivative works of everything we've seen or heard, and distribute both those and the original works to everyone who wants them. That's how human culture has always advanced. If you actually managed to stop that, you'd stop progress itself.

      If you want something to be yours, and you want it now, create it your own damned self, or buy the rights to it.

      Or download it from the Internet, if applicable. You aren't entitled to get paid for a single work for two generations just because you're an "artist", no matter how much you want to :p.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Copyright vs Classified by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When was the last copyright extension...

      A quick look at google/Wikipedia, and it appears that the next expiration date for "Steamboat Willie" is around 2019, so that's when "limited time" will be redefined yet again.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:Copyright vs Classified by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Er, you have that backwards.

      You aren't entitled to sell someone else's creation, ever, at all, but the law recognizes there are limits to how much burden the law can take, so it gives you the privilege of doing so after two generations.

      This also has the consequence that the people holding the copyright have a limited time to profit from it, and so they will make it available to those who want it.

      How much you pay for it depends entirely on how much you're willing to pay for it. That's true of every transaction for anything, even in command economies (and the failure to recognize that is why command economies are even more inefficient than free markets).

    8. Re:Copyright vs Classified by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      You aren't entitled to sell someone else's creation, ever, at all

      If I print and sell copies of "Alice in wonderland," for a decent profit, I have made the world a better place by increasing access to a good book. Your myopic theory that I have made the world worse by stealing from Lewis Caroll is, in technical terms, Bullshit.

      If Mr. Caroll feels that he needs more money, then he can damn well write another book. I have to work for a living, so should he.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    9. Re:Copyright vs Classified by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You aren't entitled to sell someone else's creation, ever, at all, but the law recognizes there are limits to how much burden the law can take, so it gives you the privilege of doing so after two generations.

      You created it. Then you sold someone a copy. At that point, the copy is that someone else's property. It's not yours anymore. That someone else is, in fact, entitled to sell it, or make a hundred thousand copies and sellign them. Copyright law tries to subvert this to give financial incentive for creation, but has itself been long since twisted to the point of being a hindrance rather than help for the growth of human culture.

      Unlike, say, property laws, copyright law is contrary to human nature and most people's understanding of right and wrong. That's why it gets broken constantly and casually. Your assertion that making copies of information after mere two generations(!) have had a monopoly artificially enforced is a "privilege" is ridiculous.

      How much you pay for it depends entirely on how much you're willing to pay for it. That's true of every transaction for anything, even in command economies (and the failure to recognize that is why command economies are even more inefficient than free markets).

      Yeah, command economies usually develop a black market where the real economic activity takes place, since people find the rules ridiculous. The black market for getting around copyright law is known as "Pirate Bay".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Copyright vs Classified by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If you can write a book, print all the copies you want.

      It's up to Mr. Carroll, and his heirs, to decide whether to perform his work for the world's benefit, and none of his concern whether you live or die.

    11. Re:Copyright vs Classified by blair1q · · Score: 1

      "or make a hundred thousand copies and sellign them"

      No. They can sell the copy they bought. Unless what they bought was a non-transferrable license to possess a copy, but that's beside the point, we're discussing innate legality, not negotiated contracts.

      Copyright exists so that people with no creativity can't steal the value of things that are created.

      As for command economy, it's not about finding the rules ridiculous; it's about the difference between value and price. A command economy can't possibly have the granularity and fluidity of an open market to change the price to match the value. When the posted price is significantly out of step with the value, black markets or rotting waste will ensue.

      But if you're paying attention, you'll notice that 90% of the consumer economy has exactly this problem. Prices posted by manufacturers and retailers that have no relation to value; the results being counterfeit products and bankrupt companies. But when a company goes bankrupt, a tiny percentage of the population loses their jobs. When a command economy goes bankrupt, the tanks roll in and start shelling the politburo and everyone loses their jobs and a couple of mooks from Kazakhstan get their names mysteriously printed on title deeds to the nation's oil fields.

    12. Re:Copyright vs Classified by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      You do realize that Alice, written in 1865, finally came out of copyright in 1964.

      Mr. Carrol's heirs have done nothing to earn any royalties on a book written some 150 years ago, and none of my concern whether they live or die.

      That's capitalism, not this everything-belongs-to-the-dead hippy nonsense you're proposing.

      --
      Changa hates change.
  27. Forget the past. Start with the present by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

    Can we get the ACTA declassified?

  28. Can handle these sentences in email... by Frankenshteen · · Score: 1

    Blog posts, even the newspaper. Is anyone else bothered by the fragment, "records are reviewed in a timely and efficiently", from a government document that took ~six months to prepare?

    --
    "It's a doughnut stuffed with M&M's. That way when you finish the doughnut, you don't have to eat any M&M's."
  29. Re:So everything about JFK & Marylin Monroe de by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What matters is that Fidel Castro be dead PRIOR to releasing classified JFK files. Also worth noting why we still have embargo against Cuba.

    This feud runs long and deep.

  30. Old news? by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Haven't we seen this all before? Didn't the same happen with Clinton? 2013, so if Obama doesn't get reelected then we get what happened the last time, the next administration blocks it from ever happening. If he does get reelected then the documents will be so blacked out that the only visible words we be less then informative or even relate-able to any context. In other words it's a red herring of red herrings.

  31. Oh boy! by nsaspook · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, all the KGB blackmail porn was on Betamax tapes. The transcribed copies might still be in there somewhere.

    http://english.pravda.ru/fun/2002/07/08/32009.html

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  32. Wake me up.... by crhylove · · Score: 1

    When you can tell me definitively who shot JFK.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  33. Re:So everything about JFK & Marylin Monroe de by linzeal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Who wants to bet Kissinger will die laughing as he is pulled into the earth by thousands of filthy sore-ridden hands on December 31st in a whirling cloud of shrieking flaming gnats, bilious yellow smoke and obese demon farts?

  34. Ah the DKs by linzeal · · Score: 1

    At least throw up a link or two (live).

  35. t-shirts by Larafabian · · Score: 0

    Great information thanks for getting this out there for people like me to read.Excellent post. I like such themes and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read more on that post soon. Cheap Online Whole T-shirts

  36. unjustified priapism by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I know everyone seems to be popping wood over the treasure trove of 'secrets' expected, but honestly: the point of Obama's efforts is that far, far too much material was going into 'classified' status that just wasn't justified. As I recall it had also been a stated goal of Bush II and Clinton, to reduce the amount of overclassification going on. Futher, this isn't some sort of swath of automatically-declassified docs, I think we can all be sure that this pile has been thoroughly sorted through and culled for anything that should, in fact, be justified in remaining classified.

    This would suggest to me that the tremendous bulk of material being declassified isn't worth being classified, and thus no more interesting generally than someone's grocery list.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:unjustified priapism by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      a stated goal of Bush II and Clinton, to reduce the amount of overclassification going on.

      And Jr. did it by losing material? There's only so much stuff you can stuff in man-sized safes.
      My point is: Bush Jr. had stuff RE-classified, so I'm thinking that his stated goal might have been the opposite of his real goal.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:unjustified priapism by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      ...and Clinton was too busy getting blowjobs to care.

      Neither point is actually relevant, but one of us is so seething with hatred for Bush II that it just HAS to be said, right?

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:unjustified priapism by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      ...and Clinton was too busy getting blowjobs to care.

      Neither point is actually relevant, but one of us is so seething with hatred for Bush II that it just HAS to be said, right?

      No, Bush2 RECLASSIFIED documents. Do you understand that word? Do you know what it means? Can you comprehend the difference between declassifying things that are secret, and making secret again things that had been declassified?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:unjustified priapism by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      You might want to check your facts before sparking the Lefty nerdrage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._reclassification_program

      "The U.S. intelligence community's secret historical document reclassification program is a project to reclassify certain documents that have already been declassified and released to the public through the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The program was started under the Clinton administration in the fall of 1999 (Executive Order 13142). It sought to be covert for as long as possible, but was revealed by the National Security Archive in February 2006. By that point over 55,000 pages had already been reclassified, many dating back more than 50 years.

      During the George W. Bush administration the scope of the program widened (Executive Order 13292), and was scheduled to end in March 2007. The program has been criticized by experts, journalists and authors for reclassifying documents that there is no reason to keep secret anymore[citation needed]."

      Isn't it funny that it was only a heinous thing suddenly when BUSH was president? I'm sure that's just coincidence.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:unjustified priapism by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Isn't it funny that it was only a heinous thing suddenly when BUSH was president?

      Dear fucktard, I didn't say anything that would lead an honest and intelligent person to think I like Clinton, but you're so busy virtually sucking Bush cock you just can't help but assume I would be the same kind of lowlife as you but with a different cock. Please DIAF and never ever again spew your bullshit at anyone else.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  37. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by ultranova · · Score: 1

    We certainly don't want N. Korea to have our 1984-level rocketry capability, now do we?

    North Korea doesn't have the industrial capacity to manufacture your old rockets, even if they obtained full blueprints. Neither do you, for that matter.

    1984 atomic bombs are just as deadly ... why should we give Iran a leg-up?

    Nuclear physics aren't secret. The hard part in building nuclear weapons is obtaining sufficiently pure uranium/plutonium, not assembling it into a bomb. And even if it was, do you really think that everyone who's worked on atomic weapons through the years on both sides of Atlantic/Pacific is incorruptible?

    Also, since most conflict in Middle-East seems to be initiated and driven by Israel nowadays, it could well be that Iran having the bomb would pacify the region.

    Do we still have spies in place from the cold war? If it a long time to get them into place, you might as well leave them there for as long as possible.

    This one might actually be a legitimate concern, if simply because any local collaborators might not be hailed as heroes as their countries, and it would be poor thanks to risk exposing them.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  38. What I want declassified by LeepII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I would like declassified is the Nov 1941 intercepts of the Japanese fleet. The United States had cracked the Japanese code early in 1941, and you can read transcripts of their radio messages up to July-August of 1941, then nothing. What could still be vital to national security that over 70 years later it is still classified?

  39. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Of course the difficuly is that after 25 years, it's often difficult to find anybody who knows enough about the material to KNOW whether it should be declassified or not.

  40. Re:So everything about JFK & Marylin Monroe de by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the old SNL skit?

    JFK and MM checked into their hotel room. She put on her glasses and began giving him political advice, both domestic and international - helping him run the country. He gave her career advice. Later they discussed how the "affair cover" wasn't going to last forever, and they'd have to think of a new way to exchange advice and information.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  41. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be something as nice as when we set up the Soviets natural gas pipeline to blow by allowing them to steal designs for sabotaged parts.

    Fixed.

    We had a leak that we detected without them knowing and fed them false information. You make it sound like they submitted an order and we 'accidentally' sent them defective parts.

  42. Re:25 years? Let's go 25 months... by Jeng · · Score: 1

    You have an interesting interpretation of my post.

    Did I really have to explicitly state how it was accomplished?

    Should I also have given a detailed explanation of Iran-contra while I was at?

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  43. Project Stargate by Subratik · · Score: 1

    Speaking of declassified documents, I'm so surprised that the movie 'The Men who Stare at Goats' was actually based off something real. I'm curious as to what else the DoD does with its time.