NSA warned Bush it needed to monitor networks
Steven M. Bellovin
smb at cs.columbia.edu
Fri Mar 18 22:52:04 EST 2005
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 majordomo at metzdowd.com
More information about the cryptography
mailing list