Excising NSA Spokesperson's Information

[Boatwrite at aol.com]

I must raise a question about the  moderator's making edits to Mr. Ennis'
much needed questioning of the National  Security Agency about its returning
VENONA documents to its website. The  moderator's apparent blue 
pencilling excised
the surname of the NSA spokeswoman  who replied to Mr. Ennis. I would
sincerely wonder why the moderator felt it  necessary to do this. 
Has the moderator
decided to set up his own security  standards? Is there something about outing
an NSA employee like CIA officer  Plame was outted?

Yes those questions are tinged with  a tad of sarcasm. In this writer's
humble opinion, the signing of a letter by a  government employee 
signifies that
there is no reason that said employee's name  should not be made public (unelss
otherwise stated).  I think the moderator  needs to explain further whatever
standards he uses for such edits.

Tom  McNiff

**********

MODERATOR'S Response (Mike Dravis):

I thank Mr. McNiff for his inquiry, and will explain my reasoning.

First, it seems to me that the removal of the NSA spokesperson's last 
name and e-mail address does not alter the substance, meaning, or 
interpretation of the e-mail in question.

Second, the primary reason I removed the NSA spokesperson's 
information is because as far as I am aware, she did not give 
permission for her information to be publicly distributed or 
permanently archived on the IntelForum web site.  There is a 
difference between e-mailing one individual privately and having an 
e-mail distributed to a large group of people (and then having the 
e-mail placed in a permanent, public archive).  Previously, in 
similar situations people have requested ("demanded" might be a 
better word) that their information be removed from the IntelForum 
archive.  Removing specific e-mails from the IntelForum archive is 
not a simple procedure, or so our Internet Service Provider has 
informed me.

Overall, in this case removing the NSA spokesperson's information 
seemed like the prudent thing to do, but I am certainly open to 
hearing differing views on this matter.  What is the compelling case 
for including the name and e-mail address of the NSA spokesperson? 
Does that information lend credibility to the proffered explanation 
of the NSA's actions?  Would a spokesperson for NSA (a.k.a. "No Such 
Agency," "Never Say Anything") acting in this capacity use her real 
name in any case?


Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence
and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins.htm)