The New York Times Fiasco

I saw an AP article yesterday about the disclosure by the New York Times of the United States' government's efforts to track terrorist finances through accessing data held in the SWIFT clearinghouse in Brussels related to international transfers of funds. The article, like all of these types of articles, has pretenses to objectivity in that it quotes both sides of the issue. On the one side is an irate President Bush, bemoaning the publication of classified information about an intelligence-gathering operation that is working to help us identify and interdict terrorist activities. On the other hand -- supposedly -- there are people who claim the public's "right to know" and individuals' "right to privacy" must be weighed against the national security interest.

The problem with this formulation -- so even-handed, so judicious, so balanced -- is that one side is clearly, indisputably right, and the other side is clearly, indisputably wrong.

First, there is no such thing as the public's "right to know" classified information. The notion is a non sequitur -- by definition, classified information is information that it is illegal for the public to know. The public does not have a right to know classified information, period.

Second, there are no privacy rights implicated. Again, by definition, you don't have a privacy interest in information that you have given to a third-party bank. There is no such thing as a banker-customer privilege, like an attorney-client or doctor-patient privilege. I get people's bank records in litigation all the time as a matter of course.

Sheesh! Aren't there any grown ups editing newspapers anymore who can see through these obvious fallacies?