Secrecy News -- 07/08/04 (IF)

[Bill Gross]

I find myself somewhat bemused at Secrecy News latest efforts.  The article
below includes the Army's explanation of why it did want to make its
material widely avialable, according to Mr. Aftergood, the Army states it
did so to protect the original copyrights holders.  Without bothering to
refute the Army's contention he then goes on to praise those who found ways
to get around this.

If the copyright argument is valid, should Secrecy News circumvent
protecting those rights? If it is not valid, should they not present
information showing that it is an invalid postion?

Bill Gross

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aftergood, Steven" <saftergood at fas.org>
To: <intelforum at his.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Secrecy News -- 07/08/04 (IF)


[. . . ]

>  ADDENDUM REGARDING THE ARMY'S "ON POINT" STUDY
>
>  In the Secrecy News story yesterday about the online version of the
>  Army's "On Point" study of the Iraq war that cannot be normally
>  printed, copied or saved, we were remiss not to have included an
>  Army viewpoint or explanation regarding the unusual formatting of
>  the document.  Here it is.
>
>  The Army concern was that the document contained non-governmental
>  materials including graphics and photos which might be
>  copyrighted, said Dan French, a spokesman for the Center for Army
>  Lessons Learned said.

[ . . . ]

>
>  Thanks to several Secrecy News readers, more adept than I, who
>  proposed a variety of ways that the existing Army format
>  restrictions could be overcome without much difficulty.


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