[107260] in Cypherpunks
Re: maginot line, er, Great Firewall, political spam (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jukka E Isosaari)
Thu Jan 7 19:12:24 1999
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:47:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Jukka E Isosaari <jei@zor.hut.fi>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com, ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Reply-To: Jukka E Isosaari <jei@zor.hut.fi>
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
> ( FYI I heard Clinton added a $12 Billion dollar bonus on the US
> defence budget, to 'help counter future threats'. )
And, reading between the lines of this document, I would say that
the US Intelligence budget has also got a very big bonus, as they
seem to have a reason NOT to release the sum for the next year.
Also, judging the recent Cyberwar FUD that the press been spewing,
(ex: How 30 crackers can wreck the entire US), we can guess where
the money will be going.
Too bad the only possible casualties in Cyberwars are civilians.
++ J
-----
http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/tenet1298.html
...
7. In March 1998, I publicly disclosed that the aggregate amount
appropriated for intelligence and intelligence-related activities for
fiscal year 1998 was $26.7 billion. I did so only after evaluating
whether the 1998 appropriation, when compared with the 1997
appropriation, could cause damage to the national security by showing
trends over time, or otherwise tend to reveal intelligence sources and
methods. Because the 1998 appropriation represented approximately a
$0.1 billion increase-- or less than a 0.4 percent change-- over the
1997 appropriation, and because published reports did not contain
information that, if coupled with the appropriation, could allow the
correlation of specific spending figures with particular intelligence
programs, I concluded that release of the 1998 appropriation could not
reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security, and
so I released the 1998 appropriation.
8. Since the enactment of the intelligence appropriation for fiscal
year 1998, the budget process has produced: 1) the fiscal year 1998
supplemental appropriation; 2) the Administration's budget request for
fiscal year 1999 (the subject of this litigation); 3) the fiscal year
1999 appropriation; and 4) the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental
appropriation. Information about each of these figures-- some of it
accurate, some not-- has been reported in the media. In evaluating
whether to release the Administration's budget request for fiscal year
1999, I cannot review this possible release in isolation. Instead, I
have to consider whether release of the requested information could
add to the mosaic of other public and clandestinely-acquired
information by our adversaries about the intelligence budget in a way
that could reasonably be expected to damage the national security. If
release of the requested information adds a piece to the intelligence
jigsaw puzzle-- even if it does not complete the picture-- such that
the picture is more identifiable, then damage to the national security
could reasonably be expected. After conducting such a review, I have
determined that release of the Administration's intelligence budget
request for fiscal year 1999 reasonably could be expected to cause
damage to the national security, or otherwise tend to reveal
intelligence sources and methods. In the paragraphs that follow, I
will describe the information I reviewed and how I reached this
conclusion.
...
Damage to National Security
14. Disclosure of the budget request reasonably could be expected to
cause damage to the national security in several ways. First,
disclosure of the budget request reasonably could be expected to
provide foreign governments with the United States' own assessment of
its intelligence capabilities and weaknesses. The difference between
the appropriation for one year and the Administration's budget request
for the next year provides a measure of the Administration's unique,
critical assessment of its own intelligence programs. A requested
budget decrease reflects a decision that existing intelligence
programs are more than adequate to meet the national security needs of
the United States. A requested budget increase reflects a decision
that existing intelligence programs are insufficient to meet our
national security needs. A budget request with no change in spending
reflects a decision that existing programs are just adequate to meet
our needs.
...
