well gee. You have to applaud the security of the secrecy, hmm? Seriously though... this does look like bad mojo
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Eric Roberts < ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Talk about more fascist... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:46 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Good News: Court allows NSA and Google to keep their ties secret > > > Court allows NSA and Google to keep their ties secret ( > http://rt.com/usa/news/court-nsa-google-agency-053/ ) > > > A federal appeals court has refused to force the US National Security > Agency > to explain any involvement it has had with Web giant Google, citing that a > revelation could threaten the entire United States government. > > Friday's decision out of US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of > Columbia Circuit reinforced a lower court's earlier ruling that the NSA > does > not have to submit to Freedom of Information Act requests for materials > involving any relationship that the federal agency has with the Google > search engine and its related entities, such as Gmail. > > The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, took the matters to the > appeals court after their February 2010 FOIA requests were ignored by the > federal agency. Last July, EPIC brought the NSA to US District Court to > demand for evidence, to which Judge Richard Leon opted to side with the > government's security team. On their part, EPIC had insisted that the NSA's > refusal to acknowledge if any ties even existed between the agency and > Google was insufficient, and that the NSA should be forced to at least > acknowledge any relationship between the two before fighting off the FOIA > requests. > > In legal fields, the NSA's claim that they could not confirm nor deny any > existence of ties is called a Glomar response. EPIC argued that that would > not suffice as far as even remotely fulfilling their requests. > > *"The Glomar response is appropriate where 'to confirm or deny the > existence > of records . would cause harm cognizable under a FOIA > exception,"* EPIC > argued earlier this year. On the contrary, however, EPIC claims, *"The NSA > has failed to meet this standard and has failed to perform the > segregability > analysis required by statute to determine whether non-exempt records may be > released."* > > *"Without first conducting the search, not even the agency can know whether > there is a factual basis for its legal position. The decision of the > District Court should be reversed and the case remanded with an order > requiring the agency to conduct the search for responsive records,"* EPIC's > attorney said in a statement earlier this year. > > Now this week in Washington, an appeals judge has upheld the last courtroom > ruling and the NSA will continue to be spared from responding to any FOIA > requests. Explaining the 3-0 ruling, Judge Janice Rogers Brown writes that > even acknowledging that a relationship exists between the government and > Google *"might reveal whether the NSA investigated the threat,"* or > "*deemed > the threat a concern to the security of the U.S. government."* > > EPIC originally became interested in any connection between the two after > the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists were hacked in January > 2010. At the time, Google responded and it was later reported in both the > Wall Street Journal and Washington Post that Google contacted the NSA. > > In this week's decision, the justices quote a past Post article in which > NSA > Director Mike McConnell said a collaboration between his agency and private > companies like Google was *"inevitable."* > > Even still, the NSA will not go on the record to say what role, if any, > they > have had with Google. The appeals court agrees, however, that saying > anything about *any *involvement would be bad for the US. > > *"[A]ny information pertaining to the relationship between Google and NSA > would reveal protected information about NSA's implementation of its > Information Assurance mission,"* explains the appeals ruling*. "The > existence of a relationship or communications between the NSA and any > private company certainly constitutes an 'activity' of the agency subject > to > protection under Section 6. Whether the relationship - or any > communications > pertaining to the relationship - were initiated by Google or NSA is > irrelevant to our analysis. Even if EPIC is correct that NSA possesses > records revealing information only about Google, those records, if > maintained by the agency, are evidence of some type of interaction between > the two entities, and thus still constitute an NSA 'activity' > undertaken as part of its Information Assurance mission, a primary > 'function' of the NSA."* > > * > * > > It's all good people. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing > to worry about, right? > > J > > - > > Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. > - Henry Kissinger > > Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, > go > out and buy > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350665 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
