Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Censorship

US Declassifications Delayed. Infrastructure Classification to follow? 223

Posted by chrisd from the formerly-free-country dept.
kiwimate writes "This article discusses an executive order issued yesterday which delays the release of millions of historical documents until the end of 2006. Apparently, the relevant agencies need more time to study the affected papers, even though it only affects papers more than 25 years old. Evidently a quarter of a century is not a sufficiently lengthy review period. For a slightly different version of the same story, see here." For further news on the classification of "critical infrastructure" see Declan's story.
In related news.. Phybersyko writes "Declan McCallagh at cnet.com(website) reports (story)that "President George W. Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet." Do we chalk this up to the cost of "freedom" or are we repeating the same mistakes the Catholics made in the Middle Ages (keep em' ignorant and our rule is secured)...."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Declassifications Delayed. Infrastructure Classification to follow? More

US Declassifications Delayed. Infrastructure Classification to follow?

Comments Filter:

  • Move Over Fox News (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ken@WearableTech ( 107340 ) <ken@kenwillia m s j r . com> on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:10PM (#5601755) Homepage Journal
    /. with "Fair and Balanced" reporting. Read the The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] for the Right and The New Zealand Herald [nzherald.co.nz] for the Left. Read it at C|Net [com.com] if you don't care.
    Don't worry if you forget a secret Echelon knows it already.

  • Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:11PM (#5601762)
    Is this to bury information about the actions of the current administration's people that they carried out when they worked for the Reagan administration?
  • Nothing too new hear. It is just Bush protecting us from ourselves.

  • Code (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Some US code relating to this...

    The President of the United States is authorized to designate and
    empower the head of any department or agency in the executive
    branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by
    and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without
    approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any
    function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any
    function which such officer is required or authorized by law to
    perform only with or subject to t

  • Eliminate Bush's WMD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by terraformer ( 617565 ) <tpb@pervici.com> on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:12PM (#5601767) Journal
    That's Weapons of Mass Distraction...
    The war is providing great cover for domestic changes like this. Another example [slashdot.org]
  • Do we chalk this up to the cost of "freedom" or are we repeating the same mistakes the Catholics made in the Middle Ages (keep em' ignorant and our rule is secured)...."

    Good to see chrisd is still wearing his tinfoil hat. We'll get Mulder and Scully to investigate this ASAP!
    • Well, that was the poster, not the editor. It's always tricky knowing what to excise.

      I mean, technically speaking, many consider the church to have preserved western civilization and not repressed it.

      chrisd

      • Well you will be identified with what you don't excise, and you chose not to excise some really idiotic stuff. This place isn't known for editorial excellence you know.
      • It's always tricky knowing what to excise.

        Here's a humble suggestion: excise the blatant flamebait.

        Of course, we must remember Slashdot's purpose: to generate page loads. The more hits Slashdot gets, the better their revenue model works, and by extension the better they look on paper when the time comes to cash out. I'm not saying Slashdot editors, least of all you, Chris, post flamebait deliberately to generate hits. I'm just saying that if that were your plan, it would be a grand success.
    • I don't know what the intentions of the poster were, so I won't comment on that, but this still is disturbing. I'm not concerned that the government is hiding anything, but that this is just an extension of "security through obscurity" rather than actually doing something to secure critical infrastructure.

      Case in point, a lot of municipalities still use chlorine gas for water purification, which makes it a big target for terrorist attacks. There are several water treatment plants in my neighborhood, thou
  • Its bad enough that once a war is over we don't just declassify that war's stuff, but delaying this is ridiculous.

  • This is very good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:15PM (#5601797)
    At least in intelligence, the point of classification is to protect the source. For example, if the enemy knows that by using system X, we are able to gain insight into their operations, they will cease to use system X.

    While some things (like out military tactics and battle plans) are not really relevant 25 years after the fact, these documents should still be examined to make sure that they will not divulge a still valid source of valuable intelligence information.

    It has happened in the past. Either through publication in the media or release of documents under FOIA, where later we went ... OOPS!

    • Re:This is very good (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zalgon 26 McGee ( 101431 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @10:59PM (#5602565)
      Yes, god forbid that government be open and transparent to its citizens. After all, in a democracy, who's really supposed to be in charge - the People???

      • Re:This is very good (Score:4, Interesting)

        by vandan ( 151516 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @11:33PM (#5603011) Homepage
        Democracy?
        George Bush is not an elected leader.
        He is appointed by the courts.
        Democracy?

        Even ignoring this 'incident', you think voting for one monkey over another every 3-4 years gives you any say in what actually goes on? I think not. Especially when the election campaigns cost millions of dollars. Your fine democracy is nothing but a corporation-run dictatorship, masquerading as a democracy.

        Unfortunately, us Australians are chasing hard on your tails (or whatever it is that Johnny Howard finds attractive in Baby Bush).
        • George Bush is not an elected leader. He is appointed by the courts.

          President Bush was elected according to the rules as set out by our Constitution. There were no irregularities in the 2000 election. It was an unusual election, but not a unique one; basically the same thing happened in both 1876 and 1888.

          Democracy?

          No: republic. Big difference.

          Even ignoring this 'incident', you think voting for one monkey over another every 3-4 years gives you any say in what actually goes on?

          Yes and no. Represent
          • The main problem with representative government is, to put it bluntly, people like yourself. People who don't understand how the system works, and who therefore see themselves as disenfranchised, are less likely to vote and vote wisely.

            I've heard it all before, and I'm not buying it. Here's why: I don't want to vote to fill your position of power. I want to vote to *eliminate* your position of power. Under our current system, there's no way for me to do that.

            Voting represents an endorsement of the curre

            • I don't want to vote to fill your position of power. I want to vote to *eliminate* your position of power. Under our current system, there's no way for me to do that.

              Yes, that's absolutely right. The body politic does not have the power, through political means, to abolish the government. For obvious reasons.

              I want a government which is strictly limited to protecting the people against force.

              Then why don't you get involved in politics? You can't affect that kind of change by just sitting on your couch
              • Putting a bunch of people, each motivated only by his own self interest, in a big room with some checks and balances to keep things steady and letting them fight it out is the best form of government ever devised by mankind.

                Twirlip,

                I generally find your posts to be informative, insightful, and entertaining. While I do not agree with everything you write, I generally do not respond unless something really bothers me.

                The statement above really bothers me. In a complex system, local utility optimization ge
                • If our leaders simply pursue their own self-interests, they will not be running our country as efficiently as they could be.

                  1. The purpose of government is not to govern efficiently. It's to govern well. These are not the same thing.

                  2. Leaders will pursue their own self interests. It is not possible for it to be otherwise.

                  I find idea that many people in government believe following the self-interest of our leaders is the best way to run our country really scary.

                  If you have a better idea, please share
                  • 1. The purpose of government is not to govern efficiently. It's to govern well. These are not the same thing.
                    I did not phrase that very well. Of course the purpose of government is not to govern efficiently (meaning governing with little work or waste), but to govern well resulting in a system that works efficiently (meaning little loss due to red tape, idleness, or civil unrest). I maintain that following personal self interest in a leadership position interferes with the ability govern well.

                    2. Leaders
                    • Of course the purpose of government is not to govern efficiently (meaning governing with little work or waste), but to govern well resulting in a system that works efficiently (meaning little loss due to red tape, idleness, or civil unrest).

                      No, I don't quite agree with that. It's an old saw that "that which governs least governs best," but like most witticisms that's an oversimplification of the truth. But in context of the present discussion this is neither here nor there.

                      However, that fact, and the fa
                    • But in context of the present discussion this is neither here nor there.
                      Agreed

                      It's like arguing that men should live without sin; a laudable goal, but not a very useful one
                      Societal expectations can influence behavior. Acceptance of selfish behavior as the norm makes it easier to act selfishly. I think that it is more than marginally useful to hold our elected officials to a higher standard.

                      they designed a system whereby the very best thing a legislator can do for his constituents is to act completely
          • "holds those leaders directly accountable to the people who elected them"

            Ha! What are you smoking?

  • 25 years... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tin Weasil ( 246885 )
    Having worked in the Government (military), I can assure you the 25-years is NOT enough time for the government to determine the effects of releasing information. This is because the deadline probably crept up on the affected agencies and they hadn't made any proactive measures to insure the document's declassification.

    Now that the deadline has actually approached, they have their pants down and don't know what to do.

    • Re:25 years... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KITT_KATT!* ( 322412 )
      I believe this but I don't think it's good enough. Giving an extension will only encourage the problem. Unless you give, say, a 12-month extension only.
      • what people doing USEFUL things are you going to pry away from doing their jobs - during war, i might add - and go and read stuff to declassify it?

        give them 36 months. at least. please be reasonable.

        remember - things are classified - most usually - because of their fragility.

        some of the most classifed things are those which are "simple" hacks.... that we have verified thru HUMINT that the other guys simply have NOT thought of... and therefore, we are still accomplishing missions.

        sorry to burst y'alls b

    • This is because the deadline probably crept up on the affected agencies and they hadn't made any proactive measures to insure the document's declassification.

      Now that the deadline has actually approached, they have their pants down and don't know what to do.

      Pardon my saying so, but boo-fucking-hoo. Whatever moron was responsible for this deserves to be fired--immediately. I have lost a job for being too good at what I do (ie. being a threat to my boss' fat salary.) It makes me sick enough to spit when I

  • we might be more than 25 years ahead of everybody else

  • biased (and uninformed) commentary... (Score:4, Informative)

    by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@NOspAm.yahoo.com> on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:17PM (#5601815)
    Do people really think government agencies are sitting there for 25 years trying to figure out what documents to declassify? When a document is released, that someone gets assigned to it specifically to determine the precise point at which it can be declassified? Of course not - it'd be a complete and utter waste of resources. These reviews are done periodically and cover reams and reams of documents that can't simply be glanced at and passed through - they must be studied down to the individual words used. No doubt it takes quite a while.

    But I guess, since we're dealing with Bush, there must be some nefarious governmental conspiracy behind it, right? It can't possibly be that it just takes a while to do the work properly, can it? "No more documents for oil!"
  • ...why historical documents have be "released" to us anyway? What exactly needs to be kept from us and why? Yikes.


    Maybe I've just been reading too much Noam Chomsky [zmag.org]lately, but they are some pretty interesting questions, with more than one logical explanation.

    • I hear earlier the Bush speech where it talks about freeing Iraq and iraquis, and how the speech was done sounded a ring. What if the "clasiffied" documents includes a Hitler speech that is almost word by word almost the same that what Bush said?

      Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it

      • A Hitler speech? From 25 years ago, a good long time after WW2 stuff was done with? In german? Repeated by GW Bush word for word? The same GW Bush that's President of the USA?

        Brahahahahahahaha

        Thanks, I needed a laugh.
      • Adolf Hitler's public speeches are, just that, public. I'd imagine that there's been quite a few academic publications recording and discussing his speeches. There's absolutely nothing classified about them.

        And while I'm certainly no fan of Dubya, drawing parallels between him and Hitler is just stupid.

    • One of the great things that Chomsky points out is that top secret actions of the US government are not so top secret to the subjects of that action. A classic example is the very under-the-table sale of arms and munitions to Indonesia during its brutal suppression of East Timor. Of course, those Indonesian troops were using shiny M-16s and getting air spotting from US-made Broncos. Something quite apparent to their victims. But this wasn't known to the US public, because, other than East Timor being fairly
  • Apart from disco music? Are these George W Bush's lost years? When he wasn't really doing what he said he was doing? What did he have to do with the loss of the America's Cup?

    Either that or the money that they would have spent properly reviewing (read shredding) sensitive stuff, is now being dumped from a great height on Iraq.

    And do you think I can get google to tell me who was president in 1978? Google: President 1978 USA - gets me stuff on a maths club.
    • Oh yeah, thats when Russia invaded Afghanistan and USA sponsored Osama B-L's resistance movement. I wonder if there is a similar aged connection to USA support of Saddam?

    • Re:So what does 1978 to 1983 have to hide (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm not surprised in the least by Bush's action, and given that this may violate the Freedom of Information Act you can be pretty damn sure there's something he's trying to hide.

      Some things that Bush could be trying to keep under wraps:
      - US support of Osama bin Laden
      - US support of Saddam Hussein
      - Iran/Contra scandal
      - The taking of hostages in 1980, with the hostages mysteriously released the moment Reagan took office replacing Jimmy Carter (who was president in 1978)
      - US support of Chile and Pinochet
      - gen

  • CNET article a bit misleading (Score:5, Insightful)

    by extrarice ( 212683 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:19PM (#5601821) Homepage Journal
    The linked CNET article [com.com] has a bit of a misleading title.
    The title and by-line states: "Bush order covers Internet secrets" and "President Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet."

    But the last paragraph states:
    "Steven Aftergood [fas.org], an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists who tracks government secrecy, says the change in definitions "creates an opening that could be exploited in the future, but in practice the previous policy would have permitted much of the same thing."

    Meaning that the previous act (signed into law by President Clinton in '95) would have allowed the same thing as President Bush's re-do of the act.

    Unfortunately, most people won't read the entire article to see what the real information is.

    • Declan's story points to the Executive Order itself [whitehouse.gov], and it only applies to information about the Federally owned parts of the infrastructure and things owned, built for, or under control of the Federal Government. The Internet doesn't fit into that, as much as ICANN might like. That fact re-does emphasize the importance of having critical infrastructure that's not owned by any single government or under the control of any single government - it's better off in the private sector, and distributed around t
  • Information will continue to be restricted, at an increasing pace, until the citizens know nothing..( except what they are *allowed* to know )

    A govermnet cant control society if the citizens can learn from history, and think for themselves.
  • The administration official said there may be cases in which information that has already been made public needs to be retrieved and made confidential because it compromises national security.

    There's an easy technical fix for this problem. Everybody out there mirror whatever info you can get your hands on, before they try to reclassify it!

    • OF something is classified then it now becomes a crime to mirror the data. And were talking a Jack booted Homeland security breaking down your door sort of crime. A government has a valid need to keep things secret now with that being said we do still need ballance and this looks like nothing more than keeping things in the closet duing a war.

      • OF something is classified then it now becomes a crime to mirror the data.

        Huh? This isn't Soviet Russia (yet). Remember the Pentagon Papers [state.gov]?

        The Constitution, the justices asserted, has a "heavy presumption," in favor of press freedom. The Court left open the possibility that dire consequences could result from publication of classified documents by newspapers, but said that the government had failed to prove that result in this instance.

        The government can, and has in the past, won temporary restraining

  • 2003-25=1978

    Everybody knows that 1978 was actually when the aliens arrived...how else could explain those afros, bell bottoms and all those trippy drugs? It was a cover up!!!! No wonder they want to delay releasing those documents!

    -psy
  • Considering that the data in question is 25 years old and that we are at a critical juncture in the current administration's PR strategy, it seems clear that this blatant stalling tactic was undertaken for reasons of PR rather than national security.

    In the past, the declassification of historical documents about American security activities has been damaging to the public perceptions of security agencies (mostly because it reveals them for the unscrupulous bastards they are, or at least were), and this is a time when the US government can hardly afford to risk further losses in public opinion.

    They don't want you to know about this stuff because they are afraid you won't like it. It's that simple.

    • it seems clear that this blatant stalling tactic was undertaken for reasons of PR rather than national security.

      I agree with you absolutely: Most of these sorts of releases (or lack thereof) more or less have to do with reasons of PR (or covering someones ass) rather than national security. For instance, even though my late grandfather has been out of the precursor of the CIA for 57 years, his work is *still* classified and my (limited) understanding is that national security has little to do with it.
      • Most of these sorts of releases (or lack thereof) more or less have to do with reasons of PR (or covering someones ass) rather than national security.

        Probably to the point that "national security" actually means CYA in most cases. e.g someone did something stupid, someone wasted lots of money, even that there are high crimes involved.

        For instance, even though my late grandfather has been out of the precursor of the CIA for 57 years, his work is *still* classified and my (limited) understanding is that n
    • When the time limit was set at 25 years, people knew that the information released could be embarrasing to the government, but they didn't think it would matter anymor. After 25 years, they assumed that nobody at the top levels of government then would still have a visible role. Any really dumb stuff (like trying to kill Castro with an exploding cigar) could be blamed on people who were dead or at least retired.

      Then Dubya got "elected". We expected him to dig up members of his father's and Reagan's cabi
  • In his own words....
    the war on terrorism is an excuse for a power grab,

    Hang Bush! (after a fair trial, of course!).

  • repeating the same mistakes the Catholics made in the Middle Ages (keep em' ignorant and our rule is secured)...

    I'm sure you aren't being anti-Catholic or anything here because of course at the time there weren't too many muslim goat-herders or Confucian? rice threshers with degrees in astrophysics let alone literate.

    Your main error is in assuming that "'em" weren't happy being ignorant or at least ruled. People basically fear change and will accept restrictions if change can be avoided. At some stage th

    • Your history is a bit weak. The serfs were kept down by military dictatorships called Lords, Barons, etc. (Kings didn't get much real power until toward the end of the Middle Ages.)

      The serfs didn't like being serfs, and frequently attempted to run away. Hunting them was a popular noble sport. If they managed to stay away for a year and a day without being caught, they were free, but until the rise of the towns they had nowhere to go.

      No. They weren't "happy being ignorant". Of course, what they reall

  • I am not surprised. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @09:42PM (#5601986)
    This administration has been really secretive with documents that should be released to the public. Remember couple of years ago Bush jr passed some executive orders preventing some of the papers of his fathers administration from being released.

    Even looking at the way the present administration holds press briefings it is obvious that they want to completely limit and control information flow.

    And yes 25 years is long enough. Remember if you go 25 years back you get smack in the middle of Reagan's time. Reagan is in the process of being turned into a living saint by the republicans, and it would be really inconvenient to provide some details about all the nasty things that happened during his presidency. Not to mention that some of these nasty things happened in Iraq, and would be really embarassing given the current reasoning for the war effort.

    On top of everything, most of the powerful people of the bush administartion (such as Cheney, Powel and Rumsfield for example) were important people in the reagan administration. This decision shows that they are not quite eager to be judged for their actions back then. That is completely understandable. Powel, for example was implicated in transfering shitloads of anti air missiles to a certain "axis of evil" country.

    So it is not surprising at all. But if we are to function as a democracy, these papers should be revealed. Politicians should be accountable for their actions, they should not be able to delay the release of truth indefinately. And who knows the papers may make the Reagan administration look good. Maybe there was a good reason for iran contra, and all the killing in south america. Dont know what that would be but it is possible, I suppose.
    • oops maybe my math is wrong ... it seems it was before reagan... anyways too late for me to think... and i am willing to bet $100 that there will be problems releasing the reagan papers as well.
    • That dingbat? Regan had a nice smile, and a charming manner, but his brain was gone long before his second term. The final analysis of Alzheimers only confirmed what should have been obvious.

      OTOH, the Evil Empire speech would have been funny, if he hadn't been president.
    • And yes 25 years is long enough. Remember if you go 25 years back you get smack in the middle of Reagan's time.

      Hmm. I remember the night Regan got elected. I was just about interested. I'm 30. Methinks your history is a bit off. (hint - he was elected in 1980).

    • And yes 25 years is long enough. Remember if you go 25 years back you get smack in the middle of Reagan's time.

      Yeah, look at what Reagan did to education. Edmund can't subtract (2003 - 25 = 1978) or doesn't know that Reagan was elected in 1980. Reagan probably gutted both math education and history education and now W is trying to cover it up.

  • JFK (Score:2)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )
    I suspect the same thing will happen to the JFK assassination papers. I doubt they even still exist, but the gov't will likely claim they're being held for 'further study' - even though the gov't claimed back then that there was nothing to study, and the case was closed.
  • It only makes sense that all the information intended for declassification does not contain a hint of what might be vital information to US secruity. For instance stuff that happened during the Cold War - tapping cables in the ocean, encounters with Russian subs and so on. Some information has been declassified about the Cuban missile crisis largely found here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/ . I sure this is not all the information on the CMC and some might still be "sensitive". It took th
  • So when exactly was Daddy bush head of CIA? And when did he go to Iran to delay the release of the U.S. hostages until after the election so Reagan would be more likely to win?

    Hmmm.

  • Well, you know... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Wednesday March 26, 2003 @11:18PM (#5602816)

    "Of the people, for the people, by the people" is great and all... but some of those people just might be terrorists! Therefore, it must be a reasonable idea to remove the people's abilty to review the actions of their government, in this best of all possible worlds.

    Ryan Fenton
  • We never get to see it....

    For those who don't get it:

    The law makers change the rules as they go along.
    Once upon a time a copyright was only good for 17 years... now with the changing the rules as they go along.... a copyright can last forever....

    And so it is with classified information........
  • I was talking to a Sr NASA engineer a few years ago and he told me about how parts of the space suits are still classified. He claims that the offical reason for that was that Russians hadn't figured out how to use peilter effect devices for space suit cooling and still use a compressed gas cycle. Until they publish a design using pielter effect devices, the US system will stay top secret and the offical reasons for the space suit temperature system will remain the false statement of keeping the astronau
    • Excellent points, sir.

      Similarly, from an `inside the war machine` perspective of the present day, classification guidelines are used not only to protect national secrets but also full details of our infrastructure. While it's obvious we can't openly discuss network address ranges, share classified documents, or do other really insane things, note that the guidelines extend all the way to the very end of the spectrum: We can't discuss the types, locations, numbers, etc. of any of our infrastructure. Period.
  • I have an idea... You know how copyright terms keep getting increasingly longer? Well... they should treat declassification the same way. First, they'll increase the time to 70 years... then 170... then 570... and finally, they'll realize that keeping track of the age of documents takes too much resources, so they'll make it an infinite time limit and simply destroy all classified documents, a la 1984.
  • Can someone post some currently available links to online declassified resources like those mentioned? I have at home lots of these relating to the US's involvement in the 1973 military coup in Chile - but they are paper based and it would be better to know about online links.

    For people like me who oppose the war, these documents are extremely important in refuting people's arguments about how "we have to take out saddam because he's such an evil guy".

    If the average pro-war person gave this as reason for
  • Does it ever occur to people that the government is not doing this to keep secrets, but that there just aren't enough resources to get it done? Anyone who has done classified work for ANY government knows that there is always a shortage of individuals cleared to do anything. Civilians contractors for this sort of work do not come cheap, because they know how hard it is to find people. Many government documents are hundreds if not thousands of pages long, and to understand a document, many other relevant doc

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close