John Kelsey writes:
| I think a bigger issue here is a sort of rational (to the bureaucrat) risk a
| versity: if he declassifies something and it turns out he's leaked somethin
| g valuable (in the eyes of his boss), he's in trouble. As long as there's
| no cost to stamping "secret" or "F
...
>Obviously any bureaucrat with the authority to categorize
>something as secret will more or less automatically so stamp
>any information that passes through his hands, to inflate his
>importance, and thus his job security and prospects for
>promotion.
I think a bigger issue here is a sort o
--
On 18 Mar 2005 at 22:52, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> 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 informatio
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.
>
>...
>
>
>``
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Spy-Agency-Documents.html
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 govern
