Court Seals Unclassified Document In Whistleblower Case... After Gov't Falsely Says It's Classified
from the attack-on-leakers dept
We've discussed how, despite all his talk of "transparency" and the importance of whistleblowers, President Obama has been the most aggressive president ever in terms of attacking any whistleblowers. The administration has brought more indictments for leaking than all other presidents combined. Think about that for a second.In one such case, against former NSA employee Thomas Drake (accused of leaking NSA info to the press), the feds are now trying to falsely claim that unclassified documents are classified -- which is actually a key point in the legal fight. Slashdot points us to the latest news in which Drake's lawyers submitted some evidence to the court concerning how the NSA classifies documents. Drake's team is arguing that nothing he had in his home or which was sent to the press was "classified," and that the NSA is falsely claiming unclassified works were classified. So here's the issue: the feds asked to court to seal the exhibits, claiming they were classified:
"As grounds [for sealing the records], the information contained within the exhibits derives from NSA. As the holder of the privilege for this information, NSA has classified the documents as 'FOUO', which means 'For Official Use Only.' This means that the information is not for public dissemination. Until such time as NSA downgrades the information to 'Unclassified,' the exhibits should not be publicly filed,"And, as seems to happen all too often, the judge immediately agreed, sealing the "official use only" filings. Except, here's the thing, contrary to the statement above, "FOUO" documents are, by definition, not classified. As the report linked above points out, under DoD regulation 5200.1-R (pdf) "By definition, information must be unclassified in order to be designated FOUO."
In fact, one "sealed" document, which is still available (pdf) on the Federation of American Scientists web site, quite clearly shows that the document itself is marked unclassified:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: classified, leaks, nsa, thomas drake, unclassified, whistleblowers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There seems to be an inherent assumption on the part of people within the government that people in a particular position are competent and honest.
ICE takes it's cues from the entertainment industry. "They said it's infringing, so it must be infringing!"
Here, the judge takes the government's word for it that the documents are classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, it's been marked as FGUO (For Gwiz's Use Only) and is classified.
I would have it unclassified for you to read, but the procedures to do that are FGWUO (For Gwiz's Wife's Use Only) and since she has a higher security clearance in my house then me (of course) I cannot.
I will attempt to have my comment reclassified as FAWFCU (For Anyone Who Friggin Care's Use Only) later when I get home with the proper bribes...er...gifts of flowers and chocolate. Will keep you advised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know why anyone is shocked about this. Obama received his political experience and training in and around Chicago. Did the people who voted for him seriously believe that Obama was the one Chicagoan politician with integrity and honesty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey, you son of a--
Nevermind. You're right....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then vote for me, Dark Helmet. I'm telling you flat fucking out that if some dude with cocaine dripping from his nose hands me an envelope with thousands of dollars in it, you're damn right I'm going to vote however he wants me to. And don't kid yourself, you would too! Don't like it? Change the damn law to outlaw lobbying. What did you idiots think lobbying was, after all?
Secondly, I promise not to give one single squirrel shit about you or how you want me to vote. That's fucking honesty. But the news isn't all bad, my friends. I'm going to plow ahead with my own insane initiatives and make them federal policy. Be prepared for an official federal holiday called "Steak and BJ Day". Ladies, if I were you, I'd vote for the other guy....
So please, vote for me, because you know exactly what you're going to get: an egotistic maniacal elitist who barely knows you exist but is happy to tell you so. Unless this is all the lie, in which case I WILL represent you and I DO care what you think. How's that for a mindfuck?
(Paid for by the Dark Helmet For President Because He'd STILL Be Better Than Anything We've Had Since Lincoln comittee)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the funniest part. Like we would have a chance at that.
You've got my vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Steak and BJ Day" - Got my vote.
This has got to be on the funniest list next week even if it doesnt get voted so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Still, with McCain's age and health, who seriously would risk putting that nutjob in the white house?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Attacking Obama for being a Chicago politician is just insane. The US Senate and House of Reps are far more corrupt than any single municipal government, as they are just used to constant bribes ( errr.... lobbying).
Im guessing Chicagoans get a bad rap because we just call them bribes openly. Oh wait, that's classified information. oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know what Obama's grades were.
Need I say more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it is reasonable to ask for a FOUO document to not be public record, although parties to the case can see it freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The document is not classified. FOUO is an official designation that limits the distribution of unclassified documents.
In the following statement:
"As the holder of the privilege for this information, NSA has classified the documents as 'FOUO',"
The verb "classified" means "has assigned a classification level to." You can say "x has classified the document as unclassified." It is not the best verb choice; "designated" or "marked" would be less ambiguous. The statement is not incorrect as it is, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it's pretty clear that the feds meant "classified" in terms of it being secret/classified. Otherwise, why would they say it couldn't be released until the NSA downgraded it to "unclassified."? The problem is that it already was downgraded to unclassified...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It cannot be released publicly because it is marked FOUO. As I said, this is an official designation that limits the distribution of unclassified documents.
It has to be "downgraded" because "unclassified/FOUO" is more restrictive than "unclassified."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Feds argued that it was Classified (with a capital C.) This is in spite of the fact that it is FOUO AND UNCLASSIFIED. IT doesn't matter who the Official Use belongs to - the argument was, "It's for official use only, therefore it must be sealed away as though Classified - for the public's benefit, of course!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not familiar with the grounds for sealing documents but unless only classified documents can be sealed then it seems conceivable that they wanted them sealed for being sensitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is that they could have been arguing based on that, but just worded it badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would wholeheartedly agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the case is over whether the documents are classified or not. If the NSA are admitting that the documents are unclassified then that would seem to sink their case. The language is plausible, the context isn't so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure you're conflating two entirely separate sets of documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right. I guess I do wholeheartedly agree then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In certain functions (government, finance)all documents get a classification. in some places you have a default classification, and this default will most likely involve some level of restriction on its distribution. In the military (and certain businesses) the default will be Restricted, in other cases it may default to something like "Internal Use Only". To become public or unclassified, the document will need to be reviewed and deliberately classified that way.
For the purpose of this discussion it should be noted:
UNCLASSIFIED –not technically a "classification", this is the default, and refers to information that is not sensitive and can be freely disclosed to the public. Information that was previously classified under one of the above levels is often declared "unclassified" at a certain time because its age has made its classification no longer necessary.
(Source: Section 2.1, http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/assurance/security-issues-data-traverses-information-do mains-guards-effectively-address-problem_1418)
So, while something may end up and Unclassified, it probably didn't start that way, and a deliberate decision was made to classify it as "Unclassified"
Additional references:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bell%E2%80%93LaPadula_model
and
http://ist.mit.edu/security/data_classification
or
https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/display/itsg2/Data+Classification+Toolkit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOUO used to have stronger meanings. It does generally mean that the documents are not cleared for disclosure, as unclassified does not of itself mean "cleared for public release.
Strictly speaking, FOUO means one thing - the documents contained herein MAY be subject to one of the nine FOIA exemptions. The may is important. Legally, FOUO is as binding as carving "self defense" in the forehead of the person you jsut killed - it may be true, but it is not a binding judgement.
So, yes, this is weaselly. Yes, FOUO is largely misunderstood and abused. But, strictly speaking, FOUO documents are not automatically cleared for release, and may have information that should not be released. They COULD be harmless, but a FOUO document could also list the names, addresses, SSNs, etc., of all employees. So it's worth being sealed at least so the court can examine the documents adn see if they're sensitive in nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Defense of the Judge
If I were that judge (which thankfully I'm not) I would have immediately sealed any documents the government said were classified. A little extra caution with information that is classified is in order, and the judge should assume the government is telling the truth in this case and act rapidly. Of course after sealing the documents, I would have had my clerks evaluate the validity of the government's claim and if I find that the government has lied to me I would charge the government with contempt and unsealed the documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA has classified the documents as 'FOUO'
NSA has classified the documents as 'FUD'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Classification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Information that is unclassified but which the government does not believe should be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests is often classified as U//FOUO—'Unclassified—For Official Use Only'"
Therefore, whatever quoted text you smugly posted in your article is explicitly on point with their workflow.
Good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Admittedly, the news agencies have professed standards for accuracy, whereas this, being only an "opinion blog," doesn't. You have to have standards to be held to them.
This is another example of a Techdirt article where something didn't immediately make sense (an unclassified document not being publicly distributable) and it was immediately ascribed to malice and corruption because the government and a judge were involved. The actual situation seems to be that this is a typical and mundane bit bureaucracy. To make that leap, you have to assume you know better than the judge, the NSA, and a lot of other people, despite their having extensive direct knowledge of the situation and you having none. That's pretty bold.
It must be very depressing to hold a worldview that so much of what goes on in the world is the result of corruption and malice. Of course these things happen, but when you see it around every corner and in every mundane bit of bureaucratic procedure, it's not the world with the problem anymore - it's you. The lack of empathy is truly stunning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If only I could see your comment history to better judge whether you're empathic or not. Judging someone while posting anon rather lacks weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So if it's really the case that corruption is around every corner (and it does seem to be, I can back that up with plenty of evidence) and one sees the world for what it is, then it's the person who sees reality for what it is that's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Coverups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course that's not how it really works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Let's see how aligned your perceptions are with reality. What country are you from, and if you had to rank most of the countries in the world (let's say about 180 of them) in terms of corruption (with 1 being least corrupt and 180 the most), where would yours end up, in your estimation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and don't take the words "on every corner" too literally, it's just an expression. It just means there is a TON of corruption out there, it's pandemic, it's not simply an issue of, "Of course these things happen" it's an issue of the problem is pandemic, it's all around us at all times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOUO
The public sure did pick a wet noodle when it elected Obama or I mean when Obama was allowed to be put in office.
How can the public stand for the abuse of real patriots that stand up for their rights. Are their any Americans left worth fighting for?
Look at Bradley Manning, no charges yet he is being confined and tortured by Obama.
We treat our pets better than this and lock up animal abusers while the torture of innocent humans goes unpunished.
We talk about recalling governors for union busting but maybe we should thing more about recalling Obama and getting him out of the White House while we still have a law to impeach him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOUO
You mean no charges except the two from last July and the 22 from this month, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOUO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leakers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]