A few days ago, I posted this: > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Security Agency warned President >Bush in 2001 that monitoring U.S. adversaries would require a >``permanent presence'' on networks that also carry Americans' >messages that are protected from government eavesdropping. > >... > > >``Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent >with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws,'' the document >says. >
Today, I happened to learn the URL for the document itself: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB24/nsa25.pdf . There's little that strikes me as sensitive in it, other than the (redacted) budget numbers. What's someplace between amusing and appalling is some of the other things that NSA had considered sensitive. For example, consider this paragraph, from page 5: The National Security Agency has a proud tradition of serving the nation. NSA has been credited with preventing or significantly shortening military conflicts, thereby saving lives of U.S. military and civilian personnel. NSA gives the nation a decisive edge in policy interactions with other nations, in countering terrorism, and in helping stem the flow of narcotics into our country. NSA has been the premier information agency of the industrial age, and through ongoing modernization and cutting edge research, will continue to be the premiere knowledge agency of the information age. That paragraph, believe it or not, was classified Secret. For what it's worth, the official definition of "Secret", from Executive Order 12958 (http://www.dss.mil/seclib/eo12958.htm), is: "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. What in that paragraph could cause "serious damage"? The notion that NSA gives the U.S. government an edge in policy interactions, i.e., it may spy on foreign governments? I'm shocked, shocked to hear that. Then there are the paragraphs on pages 16 and 17 that describe NSA's legislative lobbying on crypto legislation. Those were marked FUOO -- For Official Use Only. DD Form 254 says The "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) marking is assigned to information at the time of its creation in a DoD User Agency. It is not authorized as a substitute for a security classification marking but it is used on official government information that may be withheld from the public under exemptions 2 through 9 of the Freedom of Information Act. Why is that information eligible to be withheld? Because it tells the public that NSA is interested in legislation about crypto and exports? I could go on, but the topic of overclassification is well-worn. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
