Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

m.motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#61

Post by kijin »

mmaunder wrote: post #54

I wonder if any game theorists have thought about whether a country with no secrets could be militarily stronger. It's similar to the Linux vs Windows debate: at first glance it seems ludicrous that an open source OS could be more secure than a closed source OS. But with enough eyes and enthusiasts, all problems are quickly fixed. A small inner-circle who have access to the inner workings may find it hard to compete…

I'm not sure if that analogy works. Wouldn't a country with no secrets like an organization whose source code is open AND all of whose encryption keys are public?

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#62

Post by teyc »

ramchip wrote: post #58
teyc wrote: post #8

If anyone has seen the comedy series "Yes, Prime Minister", they'll often understand how a leader can be manipulated by his mandarins through selective disclosure of uncorroborated information, present consequences couched in politically unacceptable terms, force the hand by setting the agenda. This is especially true if dissenting opinion is filtered before it gets handed to the President etc. I apologize if the fol…

I have no opinion regarding your post itself, but I'd like to point out that a comedy series is not evidence of anything. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...

I'm only trying to figure how Chalabi managed to fool the entire US intelligence machinery into invading Iraq, and the only logical conclusion is he couldn't. Facts were being created by the hawks and these people decides on who gets access to the President.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#63

Post by essayist »

teyc wrote: post #8

If anyone has seen the comedy series "Yes, Prime Minister", they'll often understand how a leader can be manipulated by his mandarins through selective disclosure of uncorroborated information, present consequences couched in politically unacceptable terms, force the hand by setting the agenda. This is especially true if dissenting opinion is filtered before it gets handed to the President etc. I apologize if the fol…

Here's an example of Bill Clinton, as President, calling bullshit in 1995. A while back, Pakistan had paid a lot of money to buy 28 F-16 fighters, but that sale was voided by the US Government because of Pakistan's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. However, since the planes had been built, and the money spent, the Pakistanis couldn't have their money back, either.

The State Dept. bureaucracy had already been mobilized to defend this decision and had so indicated at various levels to their Pakistani counterparts. Clinton, of course, was briefed on this decision and expected to go along. This was US policy, after all.

Instead, Clinton told the Pakistani prime minister that it was wrong for the US to keep the money and that he would find a way to resolve it.

http://auphr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...

I note this because, according to the author of the piece linked, it almost never happens, even when, as in this case, the information involved is largely unclassified. So when decisions rely on classified information, percolated through the policy apparatus, it's surely much worse.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#64

Post by throwaway31 »

sethg wrote: post #59
throwaway31 wrote: post #11

I used to be in the intelligence field, and I held a top secret SCI clearance for about five years. What most people don't realize about classified information is that it's not the information itself that's so sensitive; it's the means via which such information is acquired that must be protected. If this were not so, targets could simply sidestep our intelligence collection vectors. I rarely dealt with any classifie…

You don’t even need that much justification. http://www.samefacts.com/2002/12/secrecy-in-government/shhhh... [quote] When I was young and irresponsible, I worked for the Justice Department, analyzing drug policy. In that capacity, I was put through the full security mumbo-jumbo and received a Top Secret clearance and, on top of that, clearances for various very highly taboo Codeword categories.... Having been cleared…

This is a great, relevant quote.

It generalizes my original point better than I did: with classified material, the secrecy is always because of the how, not the what.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#65

Post by epoxyhockey »

lesterbuck wrote: post #28
throwaway31 wrote: post #11

I used to be in the intelligence field, and I held a top secret SCI clearance for about five years. What most people don't realize about classified information is that it's not the information itself that's so sensitive; it's the means via which such information is acquired that must be protected. If this were not so, targets could simply sidestep our intelligence collection vectors. I rarely dealt with any classifie…

I thought I read somewhere once that it was a violation of security procedures to reveal your security clearance level (unless it was in doing your job to access information). Is it ok to mention you used to hold a top secret SCI after the fact?

Security procedures don't apply to you once you no longer have a clearance. Except for, of course, revealing the protected information until it is declassified.

Yes, the security structure can seem a bit artificial at times, like: - During cleared professionals-only job fairs. - Leaving a cleared job and all of a sudden there are no reporting requirements or security procedures. It's as if the gov't refuses to acknowledge that sensitive info is still in your head.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#66

Post by rdtsc »

throwaway31 wrote: post #64
sethg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t even need that much justification. http://www.samefacts.com/2002/12/secrecy-in-government/shhhh... [quote] When I was young and irresponsible, I worked for the Justice Department, analyzing drug policy. In that capacity, I was put through the full security mumbo-jumbo and received a Top Secret clearance and, on top of that, clearances for various very highly taboo Codeword categories.... Having been cleared…

This is a great, relevant quote. It generalizes my original point better than I did: with classified material, the secrecy is always because of the how, not the what.

Well in this case it seems to be more of the "why". The information was easily obtained, the information was known in the country of origin. What was not admissible is for everyone to know that US govt. knows about the information.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#67

Post by rdtsc »

true_religion wrote: post #53
zacharycohn wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for so many different levels of classification isn't "this is more sensitive than Top Secret, and this is more sensitive than that, and THIS is even MORE sensitive, etc etc." It's about compartmentalization - a guy who works intel in Iraq doesn't need to know about North Korean intel collection techniques, so it's classified differently and compartmentalized.

Is that a good example? You may not need to know about the data collected in another compartment/agency but it would be useful to at least know how they are collecting data because you can then refine your own techniques.

Actually no. There is a trade-off there. Compartmentalization implies duplication of work and waste but it protects against one compromised person leaking a whole lot of information.

Imagine that North Koreans promised $2m to the Korean Intel Dept. employee to reveal their secrets. If the secrets and methodology is the same and shared as he Iraq Intel methodology that one person can cripple our the whole intelligence apparatus worldwide.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#68

Post by epoxyhockey »

dasht wrote: post #32
throwaway31 wrote: post #11

I used to be in the intelligence field, and I held a top secret SCI clearance for about five years. What most people don't realize about classified information is that it's not the information itself that's so sensitive; it's the means via which such information is acquired that must be protected. If this were not so, targets could simply sidestep our intelligence collection vectors. I rarely dealt with any classifie…

What authority creates and polices an SCI clearance? Who makes the decision about whether and when to extend that clearance?

File a FOIA request and tell us what answer you get back.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#69

Post by rdtsc »

lesterbuck wrote: post #28
throwaway31 wrote: post #11

I used to be in the intelligence field, and I held a top secret SCI clearance for about five years. What most people don't realize about classified information is that it's not the information itself that's so sensitive; it's the means via which such information is acquired that must be protected. If this were not so, targets could simply sidestep our intelligence collection vectors. I rarely dealt with any classifie…

I thought I read somewhere once that it was a violation of security procedures to reveal your security clearance level (unless it was in doing your job to access information). Is it ok to mention you used to hold a top secret SCI after the fact?

I think what is not OK is revealing the specific code word of the compartment not the fact that a person has a top secret clearance in general.

Re: The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance.

#70

Post by count »

dasht wrote: post #32
throwaway31 wrote: post #11

I used to be in the intelligence field, and I held a top secret SCI clearance for about five years. What most people don't realize about classified information is that it's not the information itself that's so sensitive; it's the means via which such information is acquired that must be protected. If this were not so, targets could simply sidestep our intelligence collection vectors. I rarely dealt with any classifie…

What authority creates and polices an SCI clearance? Who makes the decision about whether and when to extend that clearance?

DCI in general, and it depends on the specific SCI compartment.
Post reply on HN