NSA Can Neither Confirm Nor Deny It Uses The Phrases It Used On A Leaked Slide
from the NATSEC-shrugs dept
The NSA's ubiquitous Glomar response continues to appear on every FOIA request denial it issues. The entirety of the NSA's systems can neither be confirmed nor denied, no matter how much information has been leaked to the press over the past year.Investigative reporter Jason Leopold recently filed a FOIA request asking the agency to turn over any documents related to the phrases displayed on the leaked slide pictured below.
Leopold asked the NSA about its variations on the phrase "collect it all" (a.k.a. former NSA head Keith Alexander's personal motto), including "sniff it all," "process it all," "exploit it all," "partner it all" and "know it all." As is its particular idiom, the NSA Glomared all over the response letter. (via Freedom of the Press Foundation's Trevor Timm)
Your request appears to be related to recently published information about alleged NSA activities. Therefore, to the extent that your request seeks any information about NSA intelligence programs, or in relation to any specific methods or means for conducting the programs, we cannot acknowledge the existence or nonexistence of such information.Quick question: if the material, in fact, does not exist, is it still "properly classified?"
We have determined that the fact of the existence or nonexistence of the materials you request is a currently and properly classified matter in accordance with Executive Order 13526, as set forth in Subparagraph of Section 1.4. Thus, your request is denied pursuant to the first exemption of the FOIA which provides that the FOIA does not apply to matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign relations and are, in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.
In addition, this Agency is authorized by various statutes to protect certain information concerning its activities. The third exemption of the FOIA provides for the withholding of information specifically protected from disclosure by statute. Thus, your request is also denied because the fact of the existence or non-existence of the information is exempted from disclosure pursuant to the third exemption.So, not only are the phrases apparently subject to a variety of FOIA exemptions, even a simple nod of recognition in the direction of the NSA's "collect it all" aspirations is strictly forbidden. It's enough to make you want to drag the NSA into the nearest interrogation room and yell at it while jabbing repeatedly at the slide above, "THIS! THIS! DOES THIS LOOK FAMILIAR?!??"
As mentioned earlier, this is standard operating procedure for the agency, which has greeted this new, forced era of openness with begrudging releases (compelled by court orders) of previously classified documents and an unwillingness to confirm or deny anything about its programs. People who have requested anything the NSA has gathered on them personally are familiar with this response. Even the FBI will cough up its own files if asked, but the NSA can't even let respondents know whether or not it's siphoned up any of their metadata, presumably because doing so allows the terrorists to win.
At the bottom of the response letter, the NSA includes its token spiel about the possible avenues of recourse requesters can avail themselves of should its "neither confirm nor deny" response fail to satisfy, but it's not like anyone believes anything short of a federal lawsuit will loosen the agency's grip. And even then, that's not a sure thing. The best case scenario is a long-delayed, heavily-redacted document that provides little to no insight into the NSA's activities.
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: collect it all, foia, glomar response, jason leopold, nsa, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Does that EVER work?
If something doesn't exist, then it can't be classified, therefor there's nothing to deny, so if they're refusing to say anything, that's a pretty obvious admittance that the whatever-it-is in question does in fact exist.
I suppose it's the difference between 'We know it's happening but can't confirm it' and 'We know it's happening and have proof to back it up', as nothing else makes much sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does that EVER work?
Theoretically, if someone were to ask for the release of any information they have on something which genuinely does not exist, they would be able - and quite possibly required - to make the same response.
It's the same rationale under which your lawyer might advise you to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement even when the answer is "no, I'm not guilty of that".
If you answer "not guilty" to most questions, and "no comment" to a few, that reveals information; if you answer "no comment" to all questions, even if no one believes a word of it, you haven't revealed anything they didn't already know.
Similarly, if they answer "the information you have requested does not exist" to requests where that is true, and "we cannot confirm or deny" (or even "we refuse to turn over any such information") to ones where the information does exist, that reveals something about which requests are about information which does exist.
That may be a relatively unimportant point in the present context, depending on whether any of the requests which are being made are about information which happens to actually not exist. But the same governing principle still applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
we *are* the death star, silly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
External validation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We have determined that the fact of the existence or nonexistence of the materials you request is a currently and properly classified matter..."
What they meant to say was...
"We have determined that if the materials you request do exist they would currently and properly be classified matter..."
For people that like to weasel word things their game is slipping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They aren't wrong, and this is longstanding practice. If they denied the existence of things, then it would be possible to find out what does exist through a process of elimination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
F*** You! We aren't telling you anything.
It would save us a lot of time trying to interpret what they are saying if they stated it clearly. It would also use less ink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
physicists at the NSA
this explains how the requested materials might both exist and not exist, allowing proper classification until the point someone opens the folder to see if the material is there or not. then it takes on a finite state, allowing for a more mundane answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let he who is without sin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the Executive Branch is stating that "everything" is classified. Even the nonexistent stuff. Talk about abusive over classification in the most extreme way possible!
"We'll just classify everything. Problem solved."
It's too bad average citizens can't use this excuse when questioned by government agencies.
"I can't answer that question, or any of your questions, because all my answers are classified."
It's impossible to take the US Government seriously anymore. Their refusal to be held accountable or answer to the American People, is causing them to become illegitimate tyrants who lack the credible authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You already covered this
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/01395323446/dod-if-you-see-leaked-nsa-document-pr ess-shift-delete-to-get-rid-it.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]