Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday May 01 2018, @05:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the freedom-of-some-information-act dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday May 01 2018, @07:01PM (2 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday May 01 2018, @07:01PM (#674262) Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @08:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @08:38PM (#674307)

    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

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 02 2018, @03:20PM (#674598) Journal

    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.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.