US Declassifications Delayed. Infrastructure Classification to follow? 223
kiwimate writes "This article discusses an executive order issued yesterday which delays the release of millions of historical documents until the end of 2006.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)...."
Move Over Fox News (Score:3, Informative)
Don't worry if you forget a secret Echelon knows it already.
Re:Move Over Fox News (Score:2)
p.s. Your web site says "./" when linking to "slashdot.org". You might want to fix that.
Re:Move Over Fox News (Score:1)
Re:Move Over Fox News (Score:1)
Re:Move Over Fox News (Score:4, Informative)
The Guardian is regarded as the most left-wing of the mainstream UK press.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Move Over Fox News (Score:1)
Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:2)
Re:Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:2)
Re:Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:2)
Yup, caulk me up with those Americans who support our troops, but think our president is a jackass...
Oh yeah, Rumsfield is a piece of civil liberties stealin shit as well...
Re:Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:2)
Re:Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:1)
Re:Reagan administration vs. Iraq? (Score:2)
Actually, 2005 minus 25 would be 1980, the year before Reagan entered office (January 20, 1981).
Nothing... (Score:1)
Re:Nothing... (Score:1)
Re:Nothing... (Score:1)
Code (Score:1, Informative)
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
Re:Code (Score:1)
Eliminate Bush's WMD (Score:3, Insightful)
The war is providing great cover for domestic changes like this. Another example [slashdot.org]
Re:Let's all get scared now, children. (Score:2)
tinfoil hat (Score:2)
Good to see chrisd is still wearing his tinfoil hat. We'll get Mulder and Scully to investigate this ASAP!
Re:tinfoil hat (Score:2)
I mean, technically speaking, many consider the church to have preserved western civilization and not repressed it.
chrisd
Re:tinfoil hat (Score:2)
Re:tinfoil hat (Score:2)
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.
Re:tinfoil hat (Score:2)
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
Not right. (Score:2)
This is very good (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is very good (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:This is very good (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
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
Re:This is very good (Score:2)
Ha! What are you smoking?
25 years... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re:25 years... (Score:2)
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
Better performance from government (Score:2)
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
It makes me feel safe to know (Score:1)
biased (and uninformed) commentary... (Score:4, Informative)
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!"
Re:biased (and uninformed) commentary... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:biased (and uninformed) commentary... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, maybe they want to make sure that no controversial infomation reaches the public.
An Example: Operation Northwoods [go.com]
Not Just Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with petty politics. It has to do with a federal government run-amok and lying to everyone to cover up that fact.
Re:biased (and uninformed) commentary... (Score:2)
Ever wonder... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Ever wonder... (Score:2)
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it
Re:Ever wonder... (Score:2)
Brahahahahahahaha
Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Re:Ever wonder... (Score:2)
Ludicrous... (Score:2)
And while I'm certainly no fan of Dubya, drawing parallels between him and Hitler is just stupid.
Chomsky (Score:2)
So what does 1978 to 1983 have to hide (Score:1)
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.
Re:So what does 1978 to 1983 have to hide (Score:1)
Re:So what does 1978 to 1983 have to hide (Score:2)
You mean like this [guardian.co.uk]?
Re:So what does 1978 to 1983 have to hide (Score:1, Interesting)
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)
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.
Infrastructure part only covers Feds' stuff (Score:2)
Just the begining of this. (Score:2)
A govermnet cant control society if the citizens can learn from history, and think for themselves.
Mirror currently available info! (Score:2)
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!
Re:Mirror currently available info! (Score:2)
Re:Mirror currently available info! (Score:2)
Huh? This isn't Soviet Russia (yet). Remember the Pentagon Papers [state.gov]?
The government can, and has in the past, won temporary restraining
Let's see... (Score:2)
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
PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
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.
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
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
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:3, Insightful)
Then Dubya got "elected". We expected him to dig up members of his father's and Reagan's cabi
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
No.
I prefer we overreact and keep info out of the hands of the public (read historians who travel to the National Archives) for a little longer then run a security risk, however slight.
"Any nation which will sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will get and deserve neither." --Thomas Jefferson
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
Now, you know you are taking this completely out of context. Do you think that Thomas Jefferson revealed all the strategic and tactical capabilities of the country? Of course not, the government is obligated to provide defense for the country, and that would undermine it. Now, how about these quotes:
They that can give up **essential** liberty to purchase a little **temporary** safety
Some Arguments from Authority (Score:2)
Ah, sorry for the misquote, and thanks for correcting me. I think you can still see what I am trying to say. And, as I said before, I do not remotely buy that this is being done for actual reasons of national security, and I am furthermore highly suspicious of anything done in the name of national security anyway.
It has come to my attent
Re:Some Arguments from Authority (Score:2)
Oh, your quote was correct. They both said essentiual the same way but in slightly different ways. However, I do believe that this is done for the purposes of national security. Intelliegence a
Re:Some Arguments from Authority (Score:2)
Now why on Earth would you do a thing like that? What reason have they given you to trust them, except that they say "trust us"?
I understand what you are saying with your quotes, but you and I knbow that the first two cxan be interpreted a million ways (in different contexts).
Well, this is true, these statements can and have been interpreted in many ways. However, they are, in and of themselves, fairly unambiguous. The fact that warmongers, politicians, and tyr
Re:Some Arguments from Authority (Score:2)
>>Now why on Earth would you do a thing like that? What reason have they given you to trust them, except that they say "trust us"?
Why do you think?
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
Exactly that. And I expect that people were, and you are right, I should have been one of those people, and so should you.
And sorry for not having a sense of humor about your sig, but these are very serious times, and it's hard not to be a little hard-nosed about things. I think that when people are wrong, especially at a time like this,
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
so, have a nice day
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
Oh, I totally agree with you, voiceofthewhirlwind (cool handle, BTW). I guess I wasn't being clear on how I feel about this. This sort of secrecy and censorship is totally wrong, the people have a right to know what the government is doing. Indeed, the government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, though it clearly is not.
Thanks for backing
Re:PR reasons, NOT national security (Score:2)
Anyway people can't learn from history if that history is kept secret.
But 25 years for some old skeletons in the closet? If they actually did the right thing the public should be able to come to the same judgement.
Or if they did the rong thing the appropriate judgement.
Bush hit the Trifecta (Score:1)
the war on terrorism is an excuse for a power grab,
Hang Bush! (after a fair trial, of course!).
neo-cons are the new catholics. i like it. (Score:1)
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
Re:neo-cons are the new catholics. i like it. (Score:2)
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
Re:neo-cons are the new catholics. i like it. (Score:2)
I wonder how many
"By the 11th century the Arabs had founded, developed and perfected geometrical algebra and could solve equations of the third and fourth degree."
Arabic News.com [arabicnews.com]
I am not surprised. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I am not surprised. (Score:2)
Re:I am not surprised. (Score:2)
OTOH, the Evil Empire speech would have been funny, if he hadn't been president.
Re:I am not surprised. (Score:2)
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).
Re:I am not surprised. (Score:2)
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)
They have good reason not to (Score:2, Interesting)
hmmm...25 years ago... (Score:2)
Hmmm.
Well, you know... (Score:3, Interesting)
"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
heheh....copyrights.... you know what that means.. (Score:2)
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........
What does this cover? (Score:2)
Re:What does this cover? (Score:2)
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.
Oh well. (Score:2)
Current declassifieds please (Score:2)
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
Time and money (Score:2)
Re:Hey, if the Catholics had (Score:2)