The information released today includes a number
of internal NSA documents, training slides and
internal guidance, which demonstrate the care
with which NSA’s foreign intelligence collection
pursuant to Section 501 is run, managed, and overseen.
In other words, this selective declassification is not about being transparent and open. It's propaganda designed to take some of the flak off the administration. Not that there's anything inherently wrong or surprising about that since it's the kind of thing we've come to expect from our politicians. It's just that if I knew how different the Obama administration's actions would be from what 2008 candidate Obama's rhetoric led my 20-year-old self to believe, I wouldn't have donated money to him.
> It's just that if I knew how different the Obama administration's actions would be from what 2008 candidate Obama's rhetoric led my 20-year-old self to believe, I wouldn't have donated money to him.
If enough people felt this way, things could be a lot better. I can forgive someone who believed the rhetoric the first time, even though a lot of us didn't. It's a lesson we all have to learn, and if the lesson is learned, the mistakes aren't so bad.
Unfortunately, a majority of voters didn't think this was enough to prevent them from re-electing him in 2012, nor I fear, from electing another person just like him in 2016.
> In other words, this selective declassification is not about being transparent and open. It's propaganda designed to take some of the flak off the administration.
That was pretty much the public explanation given when the order for declassification was issued (it was framed as an effort to reassure the public about the programs in the wake of the leaks), so that shouldn't be too surprising.
>I look at it actively -- as a starting point to motivate more whistleblowing, as a ratchet to push for more release, as a tool to promote more openness in government.
I agree, that would be the ideal outcome of this trend of whistleblowers and the subsequent reactions. But the government will fight tooth and nail every step of the way. Julian Assange wrote a very cool essay about the role of information flow in an authoritarian conspiracy and how if the different nodes in the graph can't trust each other with information then the conspiracy breaks down and, presumably, truth and transparency replaces it [1]. I'm cautiously optimistic.
This isn't a reaction to Snowden so much as the EFF's ongoing FOIA lawsuit explicitly seeking release of the documents, which are still pretty heavily redacted. (Among the blackouts: the name of an official that briefed FISA court judges, the number of years that the Bush warrantless wiretap program had proceeded without judicial sanction, and solid pages of blackout apparently characterizing what it collected.)
Clapper may claim instead that the release was the result of a sudden dedication to openness, but he did also claim before Congress that there was no ongoing widespread surveillance of Americans at all.
Strikes me as a smooth blend of both. But the segment of the public that inspired this move can see through the translucency and won't be satisfied until they stop giving us scraps and start inviting us to the table, so to speak.
I love how key definitions of terms are redacted for purposes of national security. For instance, the definition of the term "associated" is redacted in the training guides for establishing an RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) used to justify targeting of communication metadata.
It Just Works. Good enough for me, especially if it was something they needed to throw up in a day vs. waiting months of decision-making from managers and authorizing IT resources to build a public site.
>Created at the direction of the President of the United States, IC ON THE RECORD provides immediate, ongoing and direct access to factual information related to the lawful foreign surveillance activities carried out by the U.S. Intelligence Community.
from the about us column. You could probably credit Obama's social media team, or maybe the man himself. Interesting.
"The information could be used only for counterterrorism purposes."
Am i understanding correctly that all instances where parrallel reconstruction was employed were in fact terrorist cases?
Terrorism is anything the government doesn't like.
In all seriousness, how would we realistically ever find out which criminal cases were hinged upon parallel construction of evidence? The whole point is to conceal from judges and prosecutors (not to mention defendants) the true nature of the evidence-gathering techniques used. This completely flies in the face of due process of law, and I doubt anyone in government would willing own up to specific examples.
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ConceptJunkie|12 years ago|reply
If enough people felt this way, things could be a lot better. I can forgive someone who believed the rhetoric the first time, even though a lot of us didn't. It's a lesson we all have to learn, and if the lesson is learned, the mistakes aren't so bad.
Unfortunately, a majority of voters didn't think this was enough to prevent them from re-electing him in 2012, nor I fear, from electing another person just like him in 2016.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
That was pretty much the public explanation given when the order for declassification was issued (it was framed as an effort to reassure the public about the programs in the wake of the leaks), so that shouldn't be too surprising.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
I agree, that would be the ideal outcome of this trend of whistleblowers and the subsequent reactions. But the government will fight tooth and nail every step of the way. Julian Assange wrote a very cool essay about the role of information flow in an authoritarian conspiracy and how if the different nodes in the graph can't trust each other with information then the conspiracy breaks down and, presumably, truth and transparency replaces it [1]. I'm cautiously optimistic.
[1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
[+] [-] rst|12 years ago|reply
See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/victory-government-rel... on the lawsuit.
Clapper may claim instead that the release was the result of a sudden dedication to openness, but he did also claim before Congress that there was no ongoing widespread surveillance of Americans at all.
[+] [-] deaconblues|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcphilip|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkHarmon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zts|12 years ago|reply
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/victory-government-rel...
[+] [-] dublinben|12 years ago|reply
I didn't realize that our intelligence services were using Tumblr as an official communications channel now.
[+] [-] opendais|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattlutze|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradleysmith|12 years ago|reply
from the about us column. You could probably credit Obama's social media team, or maybe the man himself. Interesting.
[+] [-] hugogee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubbingalcohol|12 years ago|reply
In all seriousness, how would we realistically ever find out which criminal cases were hinged upon parallel construction of evidence? The whole point is to conceal from judges and prosecutors (not to mention defendants) the true nature of the evidence-gathering techniques used. This completely flies in the face of due process of law, and I doubt anyone in government would willing own up to specific examples.
[+] [-] MarkHarmon|12 years ago|reply
Comment [a1]: Graphic of 2 terrorists sending email to each other, show email indicating threat and containing a number without country code
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]