Does it matter that there are so many differences in how government agencies mark & handle classified info?

2016-07-18T13:41:05-04:00

Seen all the comments over the months this controversy has been going on, but it bothers me that our government seems to have no standardization on what is or isn't classified and how to deal with classified info. We all know the military position but that's just some branch's of the government, shouldn't we all have to follow the same rules?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2016 1:50 PM

2016-07-18T13:50:11-04:00

It matters, and it's a big problem. Not sure what the solution is though... since none of the Departments are required to answer to any other Department. The President is going to have to be the one to fix it, however I don't expect President Obama to be that President. Wouldn't it be ironic if it was President Clinton who get all the Departments to follow the same rules with regard to classified information?

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2016 1:50 PM

2016-07-18T13:50:18-04:00

Absolutely sir, great question, especially looking at all the recent cases of soldiers/civilians being caught in situations that causes security violations why do certain people (Hillary Clinton) get away despite others being charged more harshly for doing less or more severe security violations.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Jul 18 at 2016 1:52 PM

2016-07-18T13:52:54-04:00

Not only is there a lack of standardization on how to classify and handle classified information, there is no standardization on the process to grant clearances. A clearance from one department means nothing in another department. Personal experience: Despite having a DoD Secret clearance, when I was hired to work at a nuclear power plant, I had to disclose every run in with the law, including traffic tickets, going back to my 18th birthday. How many people can remember every ticket they received over a 30 year span? They almost refused me because I forgot one.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Jul 18 at 2016 1:55 PM

2016-07-18T13:55:01-04:00

In my career, I saw a lot of classified documents that did not need to be, or over-classified. I saw TS documents that should not even be FOUO. I think all departments of the government over-classify much of the information they get. It seems to make the job more important.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jul 18 at 2016 1:56 PM

2016-07-18T13:56:36-04:00

It all comes down to a need to know, the enemy knows what they are doing and our government with it lack of military experience as the lack to work as teams resort to child like behavior where they will not share nor cooperate with one another. Worst case was 911, were had CIA, FBI, and Military Intel spoke to one another it might have been possible to get the around middle managers that through ignorance and stupidity sat on info and data.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Jul 18 at 2016 1:58 PM

2016-07-18T13:58:24-04:00

They do have the same rules which are federally mandated. The military and other agencies can only add to those rules. All of which Clinton did made no difference between the military's guidance and the Dept of State. She clearly ignored her duty and her obligations as the head of a major department in the Federal Government. She should no longer be allowed to hold a clearance or a government position again.

With that said, I cannot answer your question because the premise is flawed. All agencies HAVE the same rules and the additional policies applies by each of the agencies are administrative, dictating how we are to implement those rules.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jul 18 at 2016 2:09 PM

2016-07-18T14:09:50-04:00

There is only one set of rules for management of classified material. It is here. Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Info dated 12/29/2009.

There may be subsets, but unless the cabinet secretary can over ride an EO, this provides all guidelines and hard rules.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 18 at 2016 2:13 PM

2016-07-18T14:13:45-04:00

I doubt if it's as bad as it was in my day. The Navy went nuts when the door on our division mail truck was improperly secured and it opened on the road in Vietnam allowing the sack of registered mail to fall out. We wondered at their reaction until we learned that the Navy used registered mail to transport cryptographic materials. What the hell! We used couriers. Later, when I was the operations officer at a strategic communications center, I was annoyed at having to secure documents that were highly classified to protect purely political matters. The case of Daniel Elsberg and the Pentagon Papers occurred during this time and I hoped that his tale would blow the lid off this misuse of secure document handling. Sadly it didn't when Nixon's crew engaged in shady handling of the case. Yes, we need someone to make sense out of all this an apply a universal standard on all agencies including the military.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jul 18 at 2016 2:20 PM

2016-07-18T14:20:32-04:00

I'm amazed at the lack of understanding of classified material control. The man that is at the top has provided the oversight, even though the FBI Director and AG didn't read it. I have posted it repeatedly today and in the past.

Response by SPC(P) Patrick Westbrook made Jul 18 at 2016 2:25 PM

2016-07-18T14:25:48-04:00

Different needs are always needed. At least that's what I thought the different unclassified/classified/secret/top secret...etc were there for, how can we say one place has a different rule for secret than another, it should be universal for the meaning of the document. But then again the AG says they just hand stuff out and keep it broad so they don't have to micromanage is what I took away from her being questioned.

It seems to me that if you do something and don't admit to it you're not wrong, just extremely careless, but the moment you say 'yeah I did it' you're gonna get fired, or wanted for treason and have to hide away forever...

We need one standard for everything to spell out the rules for those who 'interpret' the rules differently than another. That's why I loved being in the military, the AR's leave no rules for interpretation except for a commander to add to the standard, to further dumb it down for PVT John "Drunk" Snuffy who can't even get to formation on time.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2016 2:29 PM

2016-07-18T14:29:09-04:00

All agencies handling national security information are subject to the same rules for safeguarding that information.

What is particularly disturbing with regards to HRCs mishandling of classified information is that she was granted Original Classification Authority by virtue of her position. Meaning that she HAD to know what was classified and what wasn't and what the appropriate measures are to protect that information. She CHOOSE to ignore and disregard the protection required for handling classified material, some classified beyond Top Secret.

Top Secret, is information whose unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave danger to the nation.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2016 4:23 PM

2016-07-18T16:23:57-04:00

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - While there is supposed to be only one standard . . . the various agency interpretations, guidelines, and practices re granularity of marking, storage, processing, courier, and transmission protocols . . . often leave consumers and users of classified material without fully conscious notice of what is the proper classification level of the original source, digested, and product material classification levels. More to the point, classification standards developed in exclusively physical paper and communication environment may difficult to apply to newer differing organizations, workflows, and operational environments. Not infrequently, information collected, processed, stored, and transmitted in one security level / compartment may exceed prior classification when aggregated, exploited, or applied to planning in a new compartment. Finally proper authority can dynamically downgrade and/or release classified data to whomever / wherever required to meet operational needs. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jul 18 at 2016 5:21 PM

2016-07-18T17:21:11-04:00

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen As always, someone must be in charge! And set the rules and examples!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 18 at 2016 5:49 PM

2016-07-18T17:49:39-04:00

There is a "standard" however... What is or isn't classified can be Subjective.

Remember the word Unclassified does NOT mean "Isn't classified" it means "Has not been classified (yet)"

Example: SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" and myself (both Intel analysts) are working in PARALLEL on a project. He has access to Source (Classified) material, and develops a "Product" and Marks it accordingly (classification of the highest source used, and each paragraph has it's highest source).

I develop a "similar" Product using only Open Source (available to the Public) information, and MY OWN analytical skills. Since I never used Classified materials, is my Product Classified? What if it contains "similar" information to what is in SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" Product? (to the point of being virtually identical).

As (military) End Users we tend to think of the INFORMATION as Classified or Unclassified, as opposed to the MetaData behind it (where it came from). Whereas it is possible to provide a FACT (singular or multiple) that is EITHER depending on its SOURCE.

Example: An Image taken by a tourist is Unclassified. The same Image taken by an Embedded Operative standing next to the tourist would be Classified.

This isn't an EO or a Regulation or even a Law issue. But it does add a hell of a lot of confusion "after the fact" if you are trying to figure out something that is Unmarked.

Response by Cpl John Mathews made Jul 18 at 2016 10:18 PM

2016-07-18T22:18:30-04:00

Not only do different agencies have different approaches to classification, there are also different Security Classification Guides (SCG) within agencies. There is an attempt to standardize "sensitive but unclassified" and whatever its equivalents are in other agencies (DHS uses FOUO) to something called Controlled Unclassified Nformation (CUI). You can find more information on it at the National Archives website. I have been involved in the process for 5 years (!!!!!) and it us behind schedule and I couldn't tell you when we will actually start using CUI. I imagine any attempts to standardize classifications would meet a similar fate.

I have a hell of a time explaining the rules on classfication and handling if classified materials to new politicals when they come onboard. Thankfully, my politicals have always listened to my (and others') advice and we haven't had any violations in my office.