Slashdot Mirror
Federal Prosecutors Tempt the Streisand Effect
decora writes "As the case of NSA IT guru Thomas Andrews Drake nears trial, the fur has been flying between the defense and prosecution lawyers. Earlier this week the judge ordered the sealing of a defense motion because the government claimed it contained classified information. The problem? The document had been sitting on the Federation of American Scientists website for several days. Another problem: the document is marked 'Unclassified' in big bold letters at the top of the page."
Given that this has hit /. I'd say the Streisand Effect is starting to ramp up to full force....
As the original article suggests, this just highlights the silly classification system of the government.
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
My knee-jerk reaction would be that somebody not familiar with the technical details may have marked this incorrectly and then posted it. Just because the top of the page says unclassified doesn't mean an honest mistake couldn't have occurred to cause it to get labeled incorrectly. If wouldn't surprise me if they are trying to protect one individual number within that document with the new (more protective) classification.
I'm in Canada. I have downloaded the document. I await the black helicopters...
please move along
They're tempted to have a big nose and be immensely popular with homosexuals?
/me ducks
If I were the defense attorney, I'd be drafting a subpoena right now for the federal staffers who wrote up the document(s) to have them answer three questions:
1) Is this the document you wrote: yes or no.
2) Are these the same classification markings you applied to it: yes or no.
3) Has this document been otherwise tampered with since it left a secure federal facility: yes or no.
If the answers are yes, yes and no respectively, all that'd be left to say on that charge is:
The document was marked unclassified.
The document was disseminated properly.
The document has not been tampered with.
The document is unclassified.
QED, mofo.
All your boarders are belong to us.
Since when is Canada not a state in the U.S.? :)
It doesn't appear the government has asserted the document is classified - that's a term of art meaning that the release of the data would compromise national security in some way. Instead, they've declared that the data was marked For Official Use Only, which means the data is unclassified, but not for wide dissemination.
Let's break it down. We have classified information, which is data that, if released, would affect the national security. This determination is made by the President or directly appointed representatives only - I think Deputy Secretary of the Army/Navy/whatever is the lowest level with classification authority. Everyone else is merely applying the policies as determined by the originating authority. So I, as a low-level contractor, cannot unilaterally decide to classify a piece of information. Instead, I apply a predetermined set of rules (does it come from system A or mention topic B) to data I sort, and mark it appropriately.
For classified data, there are three broad groupings - Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. Secret has a subcategory of NoForn - not to be shared with foreign governments. Top Secret has a bazillion "code-word" subcategories - my favorite was Cosmic Top Secret.
There is also a category of unclassifed information that should not be in wide release. This is information that would not impact national security, but should still be controlled. The classic example is Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Leaking your address and social wouldn't impact national security, and neither would leaking your medical records or job evaluations. But I think we'd all agree this information should be kept out of the public eye, so it's marked FOUO. Not classified, but still not for dissemination.
The other category of FOUO information tends to be operational details for a command. This would include unit movements, detailed meeting schedules, specific evaluation criteria, etc. The stuff that, in a corporation, would be tagged Company Propriatary.
Finally, there is unclassified information that is treated as classified. This is generally any build media used for classified systems. The media itself isn't classified - it's straight from the vender. But once we have it, we treat it as if it's classified at the level of the system it was used to build. That way, no one can modify the unclassified source material without already having access to the classifed data.
Why do people keep treating freedom and security as being in conflict?
This is America. Security is the defense of freedom.
There have been many governments in history, and still are today, where liberty has been extinguished. They were and are not safe to live under.
Barbra Streisand is sueing anyone who uses the term "Streisand Effect".
So much wrong in the summary and all the linked stories. I expect more from slashdot.
First, FOUO is a handling instruction, not a classification. There are only 4 classification levels (unclassified, confidential, secret, top secret), and there are hundreds of handling instructions and classification combinations. FOUO, however, can only be used with UNCLASSIFIED, and merely exempts unclassified information from Freedom of Information Act.
Second, the individual pages of that letter is marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO top and bottom, but that is only the highest classification of the particular single page in question. If these pages are in a larger document with higher classifications, they indeed take on the highest classification of the overall document. We don't know, because the title page with the classification authority is not present. My guess is that it comes from a document of higher classification.
Finally, the analyst is guilty of leaking information that has handling instructions of FOUO--information that is not to be disseminated to the public. This means he is not authorized to release this information. It's a security violation. Not as severe as leaking classified information, but still a violation.
According to TFA, he currently works at the Apple Store. Anybody know which Apple store he works at, because I'd like to shake his hand.
Just more douchebaggery, obfuscation and flimflamization on the part of lawyers.
And redundant.
Lawyers.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I tried reading the link article about the whatever it was prize, and fell asleep about two paragraphs in. Can someone provide a link to something that explains his significance? Something that is to the point. Something that doesn't ramble on about his grade school or who changed his diapers?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Now legally define "an honest mistake" and everything will be fine.
Just asking, ya know.
Me thinks you spend too much time on http://timecube.com/ ...blathering idiot.