Snowden Task Force Damage Report is Redacted

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256849173/Snowden-Task-Force-Damage-Reports-REDACTED

by Shank • 11 years ago

89 51 11 years ago

beedogs• 11 years ago

Welp, I'm convinced. Page 76 is key.

teamhappy• 11 years ago

I suppose releasing something that is completely redacted isn't the same as releasing nothing. That's the only scenario I can think of that doesn't make this look like self-sabotage. Makes you question the usefulness of FOIA requests.

Kenji• 11 years ago

So much for "Freedom of Information". This looks like straight from onion news it's so ridiculous.

eli2• 11 years ago

Well, I don't think anyone expects FOIA to apply to genuinely classified information. So I guess the issue is whether it actually needs to be classified.

jMyles3• 11 years ago

Some of us, though, think that "classified information" held by governments is an anachronism on its face in the information age.

And so yes, I expect that FOIA will apply to every shred of knowledge held by government once this misconfiguration is corrected.

ObviousScience3• 11 years ago

Someone asked the government for a sensitive report. The government replied that it had such a report, but while it would admit the existence, it felt the material contained in it was necessary to keep secret.

This gives the original requester a chance to address this and ask why the report is being kept secret and for a review of that, which is different than if the government had simply denied such a report existed.

This actually sounds like freedom of information happening, but it's reasonable to expect that kind of thing takes time and requires some back-and-forth to discuss what's the proper amount to keep secret or not.

So I'm curious what your actual objection is.

shit_parade6• 11 years ago

Releasing evidence to support claims is a quaint relic of when America was a Republic beholden to its citizens.

strictnein4• 11 years ago

This wasn't released to prove their point. This was released in response to a FOIA request.

shit_parade6• 11 years ago

" In fact, the existence of the DIA's report had been unknown until the White House secretly authorized the declassification of select portions of it so two Republican lawmakers could undercut the media narrative painting Snowden as a heroic whistleblower."

https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage...

s_q_b• 11 years ago

While it's amusing, it's not nothing.

The release of the document, even redacted, means that it exists. Proof that it exists gives legal purchase to challenge the redactions moving forward or to seek alternative means of disclosure on other grounds.

digitalneal• 11 years ago

Here is my CN:

G: You said something that hurt my feelings!

C: What did I say?

G: I'm not telling you but it hurt my feelings!

Paul-ish• 11 years ago

There seem to be a an unredacted footnote, for whatever good that does.

crazychrome• 11 years ago

amazing! more than 6 months of hard work to strip out 140 pages of info. My 5 years old son could do the job faster.

josefresco• 11 years ago

The idea that the government would release to a news agency (or anyone in the public) a document outlining how the "Snowden leaks" damaged national security is mind numbingly ridiculous. I agree with the comment that this at least acknowledges that these documents, and this analysis exist (for future requests). However, I wouldn't expect to see this information revealed until long after it's relevant to US security (think decades or more).

Unfortunately this means that most involved in this debate, will be without a complete picture of what benefits, or costs have incurred from either these "programs" or the leaks themselves.

We're (in the public) left to argue about whether or not we're "safer" in the most abstract terms. Both sides can point to terrorism, or the lack thereof without actually working with 100% of the data and therefore unable to make any conclusions.

ObviousScience3• 11 years ago

I agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see this information any time soon, but I want to point out that I think the government did the right thing in their response: they admitted they had such a document while at the same time saying that they believed the content should be classified.

This allows the discussion to move forward in a meaningful way, as people can petition to have the classification reviewed, asked for it in other contexts, etc rather than having just been flatly rejected here without any recourse.

This is a discussion between the government and the public through the appropriate channels and following the appropriate means (at least, so far). I'm not sure what else people could want, in this context.

exelius2• 11 years ago

The problem is that the U.S. Government had adopted a policy of "classified by default". It's impossible for us to have a public debate on this issue when anyone who knows about it is legally not allowed to discuss it with anyone who does not have the proper clearance.

It's important to note that discussing the content of a classified document - even if that document has been leaked and is in the public sphere, and regardless of whether or not the information really should be classified - is punishable by serious jail time. This effectively prevents public debate about any program considered "classified", which means if you're doing something shady that would be embarrassing if it came out, you just slap a security clearance on it and claim its for "national security", thus precluding any government officials from acknowledging it.

As more and more government programs are considered classified, the people are given less of a voice in how our country is run. That is the most scary part for me.

Lancey• 11 years ago

At least we know how many bullet points are in the documents

not_kurt_godel• 11 years ago

Link to the real article: https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage...

anonbanker• 11 years ago

this document is to be declassified in 2038, according to the poorly-blacked-out parts.

we won't know the truth for another 23 years.

billw224• 11 years ago

You are all idiots and don't understand, clearly, how FOIA works. B5, one of the exemptions the government uses here, is the delibertiave exemption that is one of the most abused and doesn't have to be used. It's done by choice. The fact that the government would classify EVERYTHING is ridiculous not that they wouldn't release a framework about the leaks. Try doing some research about the FOIA process.

Snowden Task Force Damage Report is Redacted

Related Stories