Website posts sensitive government data it found on unsecured webpage - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MuadDib · 01-21-2005, 02:56 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Quote:

OTTAWA, Canada (AP) -- Dozens of people from Canada have been turned back at the U.S. border or prevented from boarding U.S.-bound airplanes in recent months because of suspected links to terrorism, sensitive U.S. government documents show.

The incidents are detailed in a series of daily briefs published between September and this month by the Department of Homeland Security's operations center. They contain no classified information but are generally intended to remain secret.

The briefs reveal details of numerous individual cases and provide insight into the close co-operation between Canadian authorities and the U.S. security department.

Alex Swann, a spokesman for Anne McLellan, Canada's Minister of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness, declined to comment Thursday on the specific type of information shared between U.S. and Canadian security agencies.

But Department of Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse confirmed that the memos posted this week on the Cryptome Web site, a New York-based resource dedicated to shedding light on the workings of the security world, were legitimate. Roehrkasse said they contained "sensitive information."

The publication -- at http://cryptome.org -- apparently resulted from an unsecured link on the U.S. Energy Department's Web site that has since been corrected.

The cases concerning Canada involved individuals on a U.S. "no-fly" list and others who showed up on the State Department's Tipoff watch list, which contains the names of more than 100,000 possible terrorists.

The memos feature a disclaimer noting the documents "may contain initial and preliminary reporting which may or may not be accurate."

Disregarding whether or not the people turned back were actually terrorist or not, doesn't it strike anyone else as wrong that supposed "journalists" think its okay for them to go hop through government websites looking for unsecured information that is likely sensitive and then proceed post it on the internet or through some other media outlet? I mean, I'm all about public accountability but the government does need some secrets and if the Canadians, who obviously are aware of the people turned back, don't make a fuss then perhaps its for the best to let the government do its job.

j8ear · 01-21-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Disregarding whether or not the people turned back were actually terrorist or not, doesn't it strike anyone else as wrong that supposed "journalists" think its okay for them to go hop through government websites looking for unsecured information that is likely sensitive and then proceed post it on the internet or through some other media outlet?

I don't think so at ALL. Not even for top secret labeled information.

In fact the supreme court ruled back in Nixon's days (the pentagon papers) that just because the government classifies something as top secret (or whatever) that doesn't mean a damn thing. If a journalist wants to distribute it...it is entirely his perogative. Assuming the government is unable to prove a crime was committed in obtaining them. (obviuously a rather dubious assumption, since these days they are required to prove nothing, and can obtain a conviction for every single person on the planet for something, anytime it wants).

I have no problem with that.

I have HUGE problem with any governments fixation on secrecy upon the alter of national security. HUGE. Especially, as in the pentagon papers case, this fixation is so blantantly and mailciously, abused.

-bear

ObieX · 01-21-2005, 03:36 PM

Imo the amount of secrets any government holds should be extremely limited. And limited to pretty much only the names/identities of any undercover agents (like in the CIA.) I dont see much use in keeping other things secret. Like the names of terrorists trying to enter our country. What good does keeping a person like this' name secret really do? Wouldn't it be better if everyone knew about this person? Wouldn't it be better for THAT person to know the government was watching every little move they make? I know if i was a terrorist and knew the feds were parked outside my house 24/7 i would think twice about commiting any terrorist acts. What about these people that are on the lists that may have legitimate business on airlines to only find out they cant conduct that legal business because their name may be on some list and they didnt know? I'm sorry mr. smith (while waiting to board the aircraft), you cant close that million dollar deal you had scheduled in chicago because you're on our terrorist list.

I'm trying to think of many reasons why secrecy would be good. Really i am. And the only thing i can think of is the names of undercover agents. Most other things it would be best that the public was completely informed. If there was news about a truck full of explosives heading from Canada through my town i would want my local police and town's citizen's informed. This way everyone can be on the look-out and possibly find this thing instead of waiting for one or two lucky agents or cops to stumble upon it.

j8ear · 01-21-2005, 03:48 PM

Here are some of the musings from the opinion and others involved in the Pentagon Papers case:

From Justice Stewart's opinion:

Quote:

For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained.

From Solicitor General Erwin Griswold (the Governments Lawyer before the SCOTUS) in an op-ed 20plus years after the case was decided:

Quote:

It quickly becomes apparent to any person who has consideration experience with classified material that there is massive overclassification and that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but rather with governmental embarrassment of one sort or another.

IMHO..it is essentially a duty and responsibility of "journalists" to report things and make the public aware of them. Fake national security and government official embarrassment BE DAMNED.

Here is the standard opined that would permit the government from overcoming the the restrictions it can place on speech with regards to 'classified material:'

Justice Stewart wrote:

Quote:

disclosure must “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to our Nation, or its people

Just felt like reviewing some old schooling and fascination I had with some key Supreme Court decisions, and this thread turned my wheels in that direction.

-bear

martinguerre · 01-21-2005, 07:07 PM

in theory, i don't take issue with it. The Pentagon Papers, is case in point.

there are circumstances in which it's not appropriate...but i don't take issue with it this instance.

MuadDib · 01-21-2005, 08:02 PM

I suppose what strikes me wrong about this particular scenario is that only a couple of dozen Canadians got turned back. Is it remotely a big deal? No. The names of people turned back who are on the suspected terrorist list is a big deal because that's one of the main ways we ID people at borders and at airports. When one of the people with a name on list pops up upon a passport check we can easily detain them or turn them away based upon their name being on said list. This also makes it easier to ID them later if they try to enter with a false passport. If it is known that their name is listed before and they initially try to enter with a false passport then it will be just that much harder to keep track of them.

I would also like to point out that this information isn' t classified per se, but it is sensitive. It was also apprehended in a less then honest manner. Also, at the point that it doesn't reveal some dirty government secret perhaps its best left alone. I agree that theres a ton of overclassification out there and, personally, I think this administration has a lot it's not telling us that it should be, but sometimes I think you just have to defer to the person or body with greater operational intelligence and their decisions on what we are told.

Zeld2.0 · 01-22-2005, 12:57 AM

I pretty much agree with j8ear - i'd rather have journalists post stuff that might embaress the government or even reveal 'top secret' stuff to keep them accountable and to keep the people informed.

01-21-2005, 03:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Imo the amount of secrets any government holds should be extremely limited. And limited to pretty much only the names/identities of any undercover agents (like in the CIA.) I dont see much use in keeping other things secret. Like the names of terrorists trying to enter our country. What good does keeping a person like this' name secret really do? Wouldn't it be better if everyone knew about this person? Wouldn't it be better for THAT person to know the government was watching every little move they make? I know if i was a terrorist and knew the feds were parked outside my house 24/7 i would think twice about commiting any terrorist acts. What about these people that are on the lists that may have legitimate business on airlines to only find out they cant conduct that legal business because their name may be on some list and they didnt know? I'm sorry mr. smith (while waiting to board the aircraft), you cant close that million dollar deal you had scheduled in chicago because you're on our terrorist list. I'm trying to think of many reasons why secrecy would be good. Really i am. And the only thing i can think of is the names of undercover agents. Most other things it would be best that the public was completely informed. If there was news about a truck full of explosives heading from Canada through my town i would want my local police and town's citizen's informed. This way everyone can be on the look-out and possibly find this thing instead of waiting for one or two lucky agents or cops to stumble upon it. __________________ We Must Dissent.

01-21-2005, 07:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	in theory, i don't take issue with it. The Pentagon Papers, is case in point. there are circumstances in which it's not appropriate...but i don't take issue with it this instance. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

01-21-2005, 08:02 PM	#6 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	I suppose what strikes me wrong about this particular scenario is that only a couple of dozen Canadians got turned back. Is it remotely a big deal? No. The names of people turned back who are on the suspected terrorist list is a big deal because that's one of the main ways we ID people at borders and at airports. When one of the people with a name on list pops up upon a passport check we can easily detain them or turn them away based upon their name being on said list. This also makes it easier to ID them later if they try to enter with a false passport. If it is known that their name is listed before and they initially try to enter with a false passport then it will be just that much harder to keep track of them. I would also like to point out that this information isn' t classified per se, but it is sensitive. It was also apprehended in a less then honest manner. Also, at the point that it doesn't reveal some dirty government secret perhaps its best left alone. I agree that theres a ton of overclassification out there and, personally, I think this administration has a lot it's not telling us that it should be, but sometimes I think you just have to defer to the person or body with greater operational intelligence and their decisions on what we are told. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

01-22-2005, 12:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I pretty much agree with j8ear - i'd rather have journalists post stuff that might embaress the government or even reveal 'top secret' stuff to keep them accountable and to keep the people informed.