I don't know, and I won't bother to do the research required to vet this, but it really wouldn't surprise me too much: baltimoresun.com - New book on NSA sheds light on secrets
. It is little old; it's funny how you miss some things.
And then there's this that I got via Juan Cole * Informed Comment *
: Democracy Now! | Publishers Face Prison For Editing Articles from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya or Cuba
. This one is a little scary in the first amendment area, but if you read the article, it also appears somewhat stupid:
"It is very peculiar. You can divide the so-called services into two categories; one is the traditional peer review function whereby noted scientists in given fields are asked by our editors, who are also experts, to review a given article and make a judgment about it, whether it is publishable or not, whether it's important work, and also to offer comments that might improve the work. The second category has to do with what is regarded as copy editing and this means, of course, correcting grammar, rewriting some sentences in minor ways, changing punctuation, and conforming the material to a given style guideline. Curiously, the OFAC ruling when it came out in late September seemed to permit peer review, but very definitely prohibited this copy editing function. We had clarification from OFAC that probably peer review is indeed permissible and does not violate the trade embargo."
Wait, I can't correct the spelling, but I can peer review the work? Who wrote this? And, if I ever learn how to indent quotes, I won't have to use quotation marks.