[pasmafaute]

It's very common for "technical details" of a system to receive a different classification than the "fact of existence" of said system.

In other words, it's widely known that the Navy has a system for listening. The internal designation, capabilities and limits of operation are not widely known and that information should be kept secret.

> The Navy asked that the specific system used not be named, citing national security concerns.

[listenallyall]

So the name, and internal designation, is "top secret"? You're saying the capabilities are also secret but the newspaper just reported the data it generated, which certainly suggests what its capabilities are.

And why is it "widely known" that the military has this listening system? If it's really "top secret" then no, the public shouldn't know about it. Seems like everything is "top secret" until someone wants to show off all the cool toys.

[rich_sasha]

I think existence of automatic surveillance isn't a secret.

The secret bits would include what this can detect, but I guess the presumption here is that an imploding civilian sub is easier to hear than a Russian military sub. So not really giving anything away.