Slashdot Mirror
FBI's Secret Interrogation Manual: Now At the Library of Congress
McGruber writes "The FBI Supervisory Special Agent who authored the FBI's interrogation manual submitted the document for copyright protection — in the process, making it available to anyone with a card for the Library of Congress to read. The story is particularly mind-boggling for two reasons. First, the American Civil Liberties Union fought a legal battle with the FBI over access to the document. When the FBI relented and released a copy to the ACLU, it was heavily redacted — unlike the 70-plus page version of the manual available from the Library of Congress. Second, the manual cannot even qualify for a copyright because it is a government work. Anything 'prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties' is not subject to copyright in the United States."
"A document that has not been released does not even need a copyright," says Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists. "Who is going to plagiarize from it? Even if you wanted to, you couldn't violate the copyright because you don't have the document. It isn't available."
"The whole thing is a comedy of errors," he adds. "It sounds like gross incompetence and ignorance."
It's genius, all the way down.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
A useful way of leaking a document to the public while maintaining plausible deniability? The author may be sympathetic to ACLU.
People who see conspiracy theory nuts everywhere are even worse than conspiracy theory nuts.
lucm, indeed.
It could easily be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
In the Reynolds case that established the state secrets privilege of the executive branch, the government fought hard to not disclose the accident reports that the widows of civilian contractors were trying to obtain to show that the government had been negligent in maintenance of the aircraft and that they should therefore receive substantial awards. The case started in 1949, and ran into 1953 before it was finally closed by the supreme court in favor of the government.
In the meantime, a routine review in 1950 declassified the disputed reports from "secret" to "restricted", which is the equivalent of FOUO, which would have allowed the use of the reports in the case. Everyone involved in the case, from the plaintiffs up to the supreme court, and including all witnesses, was unaware of the declassification, which wasn't discovered until the 2000's. The case ran to its conclusion with everyone involved continuing to believe that the documents were classified. The case went on to be the legal basis for all future claims of state secrets privilege by the executive branch.
ref:http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?civilliberties_patriot_act=civilliberties_state_secrets&timeline=civilliberties
Why the hell is there an article about the manual being found and not an article containing the portions of the manual that were previously redacted?
It's ignoring the meat to talk about the how the potatoes were picked at the farm.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The document is available for review, but not scanning it, or even writing your own notes about it.
The questions stands. Where is the .pdf?
It appears we can only discuss ACLU criticism of the FBI manual, and in a favorable light at that.
Oh get over it. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've seen your comment modded as Troll when you disagree with that assessment. I think the day has come for the moderators to be a little less sympathetic to the authority/FBI side of the debate, and more sympathetic to the dissenters/ACLU side of the debate.
While your 'spin' on the meaning of the content may be plausible at first, the key angle is why the narrow redaction to the ACLU if truly there was no valid interpretation of the sort the ACLU and dissenters might jump to. The wonder of this discovery is in the DIFF between redacted and unredacted versions. That output of diff is what can shed the necissary light on sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
So you're saying that all the teeny tiny CCD cameras available in shops in the recent years are completely useless? If this is not the case for having one of them at hand, I don't know what is.
Ezekiel 23:20
As to your first point, you are mistaken as to the purpose of moderation. Too many moderators make it their mission to suppress valid viewpoints in a discussion, ones they personally disagree with. That isn't the purpose. They should be moderating up good arguments, good data, even if they disagree with it. I've certainly done that in the past. Saying that "this isn't the first time you've seen your comment modded as Troll" is a considerable understatement. I regularly get mod bombed for the simple act of presenting minority views or evidence that other people want to suppress. You can't really have a good, reasoned debate when that happens. It makes it much harder to learn anything useful, or to change your mind, if you never encounter other viewpoints. If you think that there isn't considerable hostility to the "authority/FBI" side here I wouldn't need to look at your ID number to say, "Hi! You must be new here!"
As to your second point about redactions, the first redaction would conceal information about the structure of the FBI's counterintelligence apparatus. The second redaction protects a technique to limit fabrications by prisoners, the knowledge of which could lead to a new tactic for fabricating evidence. I have one in mind myself.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Why go that far, just stuff it down your pants leg and sneak it out. Then destroy it so you don't get caught, and if you do, plead guilty for a $50,000 fine and some community service. That is all you need to do Mr. Sandy Berger.
Well said.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Sounds to me like some genius at the FBI was trying to gain additional control over that manual. If they could copyright it, they could issue DMCA take down notices to anybody hosting a copy of the manual when it finally does get out in unredacted form. Somebody who didn't know the law thought they could give themselves a club to use against sites publishing it. Too bad for them that it's not legal to copyright it.
Please bear that in mind, anybody who does publish it. You will probably get take down notices. Ignore them. They're illegal. If you're using third party hosting and your host removes it, file the counter notice immediately. The take down notice they receive will be illegal.
I'll bet a pizza that there will be at least one DMCA notice issued before somebody gets a handle on this idiot lawyer at the FBI.
The only problem I had with your comment was the sentences I quoted. If that took the entirety of your comment out of context, I'm sorry. It was the principle of the content on those sentences I intended to address and I intended it to be open to others in moderating too.
That being said, I disagree with down moding your comments too. It isn't about what you said or what someone else said, down moding is not supposed to mean "I disagree" or "we better hide dissenting views to make out position stronger". It is supposed to remove the rubbish comments that are intended to disrupt debate so we can have a debate and communicate. It really does seem like there are some who do exist on this site to either push for or object to a specific ideology without care of the facts or objective opinions of others and I think that can be a dangerous thing. I also think it is pointless in calling it a debate when it happens- whether it is you, me, c.f. or anyone else being down modded.
27 July 2012, to be precise: linky [redacted PDF].
I'll post a link to the unredacted version if I can find a non-walled URL.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
"Anything 'prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties' is not subject to copyright in the United States."
But if the data is sent to a private company who then processes it does that still apply.
Because the DoD is doing exactly that.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
..but torture wasn't supposed to be official, so the thought he could copyright it!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Copyright != classified. If you want to copyright something, you don't do it to keep it classified, but to prevent people making unauthorized copies of it (for profit). Publishing about the content is still legal and quoting is too, up till a certain degree, when it comes to copyright. When you want it classified, you don't want the contents in any form to become public. It's not about copies being made, but about the actual things that are in the document. Quoting or describing what's inside is prohibited then.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Then the next thing they will do is increase penalties for copyright violations for "national security".
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Well, where is it? Post a torrent link or I don't believe you.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
what about contractors?
foreign militaries like the Czech Republic?
and even if it's true that only 3 were waterboarded (which just seems ridiculous), one of those was Kalid Sheik Mohammed, and they waterborded him **every day** for 200 days in order to get him to confess to masterminding 9/11
how fucking reliable is that confession?
its not
even if it was just once it's too much b/c it **doesn't work** and we know this, look at our interrogation manuals from WWII...the interrogation was like an intervention practically...they were all lawyers, all spoke fluent German...done in a professional setting.
stop justifying and just accept what happened...
Thank you Dave Raggett
I regularly get mod bombed for the simple act of presenting minority views or evidence that other people want to suppress.
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but have you considered it might be because of how you phrase the view or evidence?
I've also from time to time posted minority views or evidence, but have never been modded down because of it. In fact, I'm generally always either unmodded or modded up for all my posts.
On the occasions I've been modded down, it's usually mixed with up-mods. For example, I'll often post something only slightly interesting, watch it go up to "+5 Interesting" and than down to around +3 from a couple of "Overrated" mods. This seems fair to me.
Wording is usually the culprit when people complain about unfair downmods. You should read your post back to yourself and consider if someone may be able to misinterpret it, or assign a 'mood' or 'feeling' to it that you didn't intend.
Of course, there is always also 'reputation' to take in to account. There are probably people who see "cold fjord" and immediately want to mod down. It sucks, but it happens. Perhaps try creating a second account, post a few replies with the same viewpoint that you'd normally use but be painstakingly careful about the wording. Then, if those get modded down, you may be right; but I suspect they won't be.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
You regularly get mod-bombed because you're a fucking idiot who is presenting the most inane and stupid ideas, and you expect people to treat those ideas (and yourself) as if they had the same validity as actual sane (even if wrong) ideas.
A lot of people with different opinions get modded up on /. even if those opinions go against the 'group-think'. You, however, are either a troll, or just stupidly crazy (shaken too much as a baby?). Either way, you're opinions are not presented in a manner that justifies giving them anything but contempt.
Maybe if instead of sucking on the NSAs hypothetical cock/cunt so much, with such "oh yes, I love Big Brother", and your shit about "Al Qaida" being at war with the USA (and being so successful, that they have had one attack in the USA in the last 200 years, unlike the Christian fundamentalists who have had at least three that i can think of), and thus justifying bombing weddings, funerals, and anyone who looks at the drone funny, you just stuck to non-political subjects, you'd get on better. (I've seen +5 posts of yours, so it is possible.)
You are a caricature.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
[scopolamine's] use in medicine is relatively limited, with its chief uses being in the treatment of motion sickness and postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Scopolamine has no side nor primary effects that would make it suitable for use as you claim. So, are you an idiot, or did you mean something else?
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.