SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for DrexlSpivey
The CIA can selectively divulge classified information to selected reporters in emails yet withhold that information from other journalists or members of the public when they seek the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal judge in New York has ruled.
The decision appeared in the court record on Friday but became more widely disseminated Monday.
The ruling comes amid vigorous national debate over leaks to the media and the use of anonymous sources in covering national security news, including an ongoing FBI investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York ruled that the CIA does not have to release parts of five emails senior CIA officials sent to journalists from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and The Washington Post in 2012. At the time, the CIA was facing pressure over links it may have had to a Pakistani doctor who helped American forces hunt down Osama bin Laden.
Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article210169704.html
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday May 01 2018, @06:27PM (5 children)
Maybe the CIA should not be sending classified information to journalists.
Fun fact: Journalists are in the business if publishing things and disseminating them widely and in perpetuity.
(yes, really!)
If you send classified information to journalists, then it should be considered to have been released to the public.
If you don't want to disclose it in a FOIA, then don't send it to journalists. I know such a radical concept will require much debate, consideration, deliberation, careful analysis, extreme scrutiny, due care an careful review.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 01 2018, @06:31PM
Much, much more. Even years worth.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday May 01 2018, @07:01PM (2 children)
Unless said journalist has a security clearance and it is provided under that classification and transmitted in the same method all other such material of that clearance is, and with the understanding it remains under the protection of that classification. (In which case, why did the journalist need to be exposed to it?) If all the prior happens, they can still assume it is classified. If any element is missing, it has already been provided to the public by an official source and if they want to change that then the official responsible for disclosure is guilty of providing classified information to uncleared sources (and/or via insecure methods if the information calls for that.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @08:38PM
Journalist with a security clearance! Ha, you make a funny!! Do you know what you call a journalist with a security clearance? An operative, specifically a disinformation operative in Information Warfare Division, Perception Management Area, NOC.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 02 2018, @03:20PM
If you (a hypothetical "you") were to pass classified information to one of these mythical journalists with a security clearance, wouldn't you find it easier to just Tweet the classified information to the journalist instead?
Twitter is a highly reliable way to ensure that your intended target will receive the classified information.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Tuesday May 01 2018, @07:16PM
From TFA:
Whether this is the real explanation is up to anyone's guess. But it is one plausible explanation, how classified information might have come to be included/implied in that conversation.