dieseltaylor Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Despite having clear rules on when not to invoke the state secrets privilege, the Justice Department has been blocking disclosures about a dubious technology that could prove embarrassing for the U.S. government. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, a computer programmer who claimed his technology could help the U.S. track terrorists received at least $20 million in government contracts [1] for this software, which intelligence officials suspected to be fake even in 2003. While contractor fraud isn’t new [2], what’s unusual here is that the U.S. isn’t trying to recover those funds or penalize the contractor, Dennis Montgomery. Instead, it’s fighting in court to keep information about the technology secret, arguing that the details could compromise national security. The Times notes that the clampdown in this case started under the Bush administration and continued under Obama’s Justice Department: The Bush administration declared that some classified details about the use of Mr. Montgomery’s software were a “state secret” that could cause grave harm if disclosed in court. In 2008, the government spent three days “scrubbing” the home computers of Mr. Montgomery’s lawyer of all references to the technology. And this past fall, federal judges in Montana and Nevada who are overseeing several of the lawsuits issued protective orders shielding certain classified material. A 2009 memo from Attorney General Eric Holder laid out the circumstances in which the state secrets privilege could be invoked [3]. Preventing embarrassment and concealing inefficiency or error were not legitimate reasons, according to the memo: The Department will not defend an invocation of the privilege in order to: (i) conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States government; (iii) restrain competition; or (iv) prevent or delay the release of information the release of which would not reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security. The Justice Department wouldn’t comment to the Times about its dealings with Montgomery. (Montgomery also declined to comment and when asked at a November deposition whether his software was a "complete fraud," he pleaded the Fifth, the Times noted.) Use of the technology led to several false starts and dead ends over the years, including a 2003 scare that prompted U.S. officials to order that several international flights be turned around or grounded. It even led to discussion of shooting the planes down, according to the Times: French officials, upset that their planes were being grounded, commissioned a secret study concluding that the technology was a fabrication. Presented with the findings soon after the 2003 episode, Bush administration officials began to suspect that “we got played,” a former counterterrorism official said. The C.I.A. never did an assessment to determine how a ruse had turned into a full-blown international incident, officials said, nor was anyone held accountable. http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/after-spending-on-dubious-technology-justice-invokes-state-secrets-details 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Well as someone who thinks wikileaks is never useful, I would say no. However, as someone who would like also to see justice prevail, this case would come close. Really all that is needed is simply going after the guy though.It really seems it should be an open and closed case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 But it seems to me that some guys don't want to be seen as schmucks and would rather the citizens lost $20million than face up to the con-job they fell for. Of course admitting the French rumbled it might mean IT IS natioanl security : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Reminds me of the Quadro Tracker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro_Tracker and ADE 651 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 magic wands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 And they got off? How can you falsely claim it was tested by the FBI and then get off! WTF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 as someone who thinks wikileaks is never useful http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/17/japan-citing-wikilea.html#comments 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/03/16/bloomberg1376-LI7CHJ07SXKX01-27JLEJH6UQPBTE0NLL2I2HSRRJ.DTL&tsp=1 This source is actually quoted in your article there, and it shows that wikileaks did not bring "first light" on the subject, as it lists a date in 2002 as the company being caught falsifying reports. That said however, touché...wikileaks did ...!gasp!...help in something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Wikileaks is not the enemy. As a government employee (and thereby a member of the executive branch of government) I am in favour of open government. I seem to recall that members of the Nixon administration (Dean, Halderman and Erlichman) justified persecuting Daniel Elsberg (who leaked the pentagon papers) on grounds of national security. (Bizarrely, they were all lawyers and it was only after the watergate scandal broke and they went to jail that they realised that breaking into Elsberg's psychiatrist’s office was illegal). Unless a very bright light is shined on government decision making tyranny will ensue. On this basis I think Wikileaks has an important role to play making governments accountable for their actions. Wikileaks is, after all, doing what the press is supposed to do. That being said, I can’t see the justification for members of the government leaking the documents to Wikileaks (or the press). While it can be argued that the press has an obligation to print the news, government employees have a statutory obligation to keep confidential information confidential. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 That being said, I can’t see the justification for members of the government leaking the documents to Wikileaks (or the press). While it can be argued that the press has an obligation to print the news, government employees have a statutory obligation to keep confidential information confidential. I would agree with that 99% of the time. The exception being when a government employ knows that officials are doing something that is illegal and/or clearly not in the best interests of the citizenry. It's a tough call and it should be. But sometimes it's what conscience dictates. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user38 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 If government officials are doing something illegal that is a matter for the Federal Police, not the media. Although I agree sometimes it is a tough call. Going back to Watergate, the FBI director in 1972 was Pat Grey - a Nixon appointee. I seem to recall he was taking his instructions from Halderman (Nixon's chief of staff). That's corruption on a massive scale and people went to jail. A lot of the stuff that is leaked by whistle blowers is more embarrasing than illegal. I think if you scratch that scab you will find poor administration, nepotism and a disgruntled employee, but usually not corruption on a criminal scale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Media has a role in exposing crime of all varieties - it's not like they aer actually usurping hte role of federal or any other police force. If the populace is rarked up by media expose's then that then becomes the population usurping the police role - not the media. And since the police are, arguably, acting as the agents of the wider population/social structure there's at least an argument that the population has the right to do so. Certainly no-one supporting the Libyan/Egyptian/Bahrain/Saudi/ etc populations in their objection to oppression could logically claim otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I am in favour of open government. How open is "open"? Should every branch of the government publish every single piece on information they have? Should the DoD publish everything it knows about the Taliban and how they got that information? Should the NSA publish all it's spy satellite photography? I could go on but I think the point is made. Transparent government sounds great in principle but as a practical matter 100% transparency is not feasible. It comes down to where do you draw the line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Should the NSA publish all it's spy satellite photography? I would be surprised to discover that the NSA has much in the way of satellite photography. That is more in the bailiwick of the CIA and the DIA. NSA is probably monitoring your phone calls though, if that makes you feel better. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yeah, I meant NRO. So many agencies... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So many agencies... True. A veritable alphabet soup. I understand the Pentagon has a directory just listing them all. And that's just theirs. Now if we were to get into the civilian agencies too... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 http://file.wikileaks.info/leak/novas-scarman-audit-2009.pdf the juicy bit is off course the end few pages though where a charity misses a few millions goes bust while the chief shags the staff on company time and pay. I was looking for Barclays Bank "defrauding" the UK taxpayer and got sidetracked into this case. It seems to me most people are very unaware of all the dirt that is usefully dished by Wikileaks. A citizens duty is to his country not his Government. And bear in mind the "Government" you may have voted for is probably as equally unable to deal with the entrenched hierarchies as you and I. Those at the top only get to hear what people want them to know - generally. Here is an example of a firm using the English legal system to bar its affairs being discussed at all in the UK. In fact you are not even allow to say there is a gagging order! http://mirror.wikileaks.info/leak/bbc-trafigura.pdf Freedom of the Press my eye and Fanny Adams 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Looks like American Humane Society might be finding a use for Wikileaks in the future: In Florida, the Humane Society of the United States and other groups pushed for the adoption of the first statewide law in the country to restrict the extreme confinement of animals on factory farms. In 2002, voters there passed Amendment 10, to phase out the caging of breeding sows in gestation crates. In Iowa, HSUS and other animal welfare groups have conducted a series of undercover investigations (see the video) to expose cruelty in the nation's biggest factory farming state. Now, these two states have something else in common. They are trying to make it a crime to photograph or videotape farm animals. They don't want to criminalize animal cruelty, but they do want to make criminals of people trying to document abuse and to put an end to the cruelty. Lawmakers have introduced bills in both states to establish criminal penalties for going undercover at agricultural facilities and simply taking pictures. http://www.alternet.org/story/150312/big_ag_wants_to_make_it_a_crime_to_expose_animal_abuse_at_factory_farms?page=1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well, farms are personal property, not to mention, also the home for the farmer and his family. I would be pretty annoyed if someone came to my home to take pictures..stay off of my property, is not to much to ask, I think. And the large farms, the same goes for, it is their property. If I were they, I would hire armed guards anyway to keep the eco-terrorists away. These laws are being pressed because the "undercover" groups have been just that, trying to not only take pictures and film, but also to sabotage farm equipment, etc. Living in Missouri farm country, just below Iowa, we have had to deal with it alot here as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well, farms are personal property, not to mention, also the home for the farmer and his family. I would be pretty annoyed if someone came to my home to take pictures..stay off of my property, is not to much to ask, I think. I think you will find you don't have to be on the property - I recall this from a few months ago - taking photos from the raod would be a crime, or from an aircraft. Even "innocent snaps" would be a crime if they happened to include a cow or a sheep in the idyllic countryside. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I think you will find you don't have to be on the property - I recall this from a few months ago - taking photos from the raod would be a crime, or from an aircraft. Even "innocent snaps" would be a crime if they happened to include a cow or a sheep in the idyllic countryside. If that is correct, then I agree with you, somebody pushing too far... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.