Re: US Navy could be crippled by software backdoors.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :> Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :> :> Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :> :> :> Vince <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote:
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :> :> :> :> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :> :Fred J. McCall writes:
> :> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :> :> You might want to look at some classified documents and read the
> :> :> :> :> :> :> statement regarding under what authority they are classified.
> :> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :> :With a few exceptions, all classified material in the U.S. is
> :> :> :> :> :> :classified under direct or indirect authority of the President. Thus,
> :> :> :> :> :> :the President can authorize its disclosure. (A notable exception is
> :> :> :> :> :> :certain information on atomic weapons, which is classified under
> :> :> :> :> :> :Congressional authority; I don't know if the President has authority
> :> :> :> :> :> :to allow disclosure of this material or not.) Military classification
> :> :> :> :> :> :proceeds directly from an Executive Order of the President, which is
> :> :> :> :> :> :periodically updated.
> :> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :> Precisely the point. Hence the President, by definition, cannot
> :> :> :> :> :> 'leak' non-nuclear weapons related classified information.
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :Actually he can. He can declassify it and then "leak" it.
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> But then he isn't leaking classified information.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :if he has declassified it sure
> :> :> :> :But he says "here this is classified, so dont tell anyone I gave it to
> :> :> :> :you " its a leak
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Not even then, actually, since as President he can simply decide
> :> :> :> you're 'cleared' for that particular piece of info and it is therefore
> :> :> :> no longer a leak.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :But, to use
> :> :> :> :> :an analogy, the presidents pardon power does not give him the authority
> :> :> :> :> :to order the release of a convicted criminal without exercising it
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> It's not quite the same thing unless you postulate that the convicted
> :> :> :> :> criminal was convicted and imprisoned by the direct authority of the
> :> :> :> :> President.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :The presidents pardon power is constitutional. It has no limits but he
> :> :> :> :has to actually exercise it.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> The President's classification power is regulatory. He can either
> :> :> :> declassify by mere declaration or declare the recipient as cleared for
> :> :> :> the data by mere declaration. No 'exercise' required. By definition
> :> :> :> the President cannot 'leak' classified information, since if he shows
> :> :> :> it to you he has automagically cleared you for it (as is his right).
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Provide a cite for this interpretation please.
> :> :>
> :> :> Investigate where the whole classification scheme originates from.
> :> :>
> :> :> :You are conflating "authorizing the individual" with "declassifying
> :> :> :the material".
> :> :> :They are not the same.
> :> :>
> :> :> No, they are not. If you actually read what I wrote you will see that
> :> :> I am doing no such thing and am quite explicit about these being two
> :> :> separate things.
> :> :>
> :> :> :If he shows a reporter a classified document but does not declassify it.
> :> :> : the reporter is under criminal penalties if he uses or discloses it.
> :> :>
> :> :> True, but once gain the President has not 'leaked' it because, by
> :> :> definition, that is impossible. He has merely disclosed it to another
> :> :> individual whom he has cleared on the spot.
> :> :>
> :> :> The person he showed it to may 'leak' it, but the President cannot (by
> :> :> definition). If the President shows it to you, you are authorized to
> :> :> see it (by definition). Hence it is not a 'leak'.
> :> :
> :> :Why did he show it to the reporter? If he intended the reporter to
> :> :report it, its a leak
> :>
> :> Nope. Cannot be a leak BY DEFINITION. It's not a leak until the
> :> reporter reports it (if it is still classified) and at that point the
> :> REPORTER is leaking it (having been an authorized person BY DEFINITION
> :> when they saw it).
> :>
> :> The President CANNOT LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION BY DEFINITION.
> :>
> :> Which part of that is unclear to you, Vinnie?
> :
> :The US President can be an accessory to the leak.
>
> How?
>
By maliciously or recklessly failing to declassify the document. When
he gives a copy to the journalist the President knows that a news
article will be written.

By actively returning his copy of the document to the safe/registry the
President has show that he still thinks the document is classified.

UK law is different but this article shows the similar situation in Britain.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4555396.stm>

Andrew Swallow
Received on Mon May 1 01:58:27 2006