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

"Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

projects.washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#41

Post by philwelch »

Tamerlin wrote: post #32
Robin_Message wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that you have to have a "need to know" in addition to your clearance. We can speculate that there are also levels beyond top secret. In particular, eyes-only for the most sensitive stuff [1], and (what I have seen called but can't find a reference for) code-word secrecy for particular projects/operations. [1] Which is where the Bond film For Your Eyes Only gets its title.

The clearance levels that I can remember are: confidential secret top secret top secret ssbi -- "single scope background investigation" top secret sci -- "secured compartmentalized information" IIRC There are probably others above that that I don't remember. TS and TS/SSBI might be the same thing with different investigations. I'm not sure.

"SCI" (Secured Compartmentalized Information) is a separate clearance for some specific set of information. For instance, since my dad worked with tactical nukes in the Marine Corps, he had a Top Secret clearance with SCI authorization from the Atomic Energy Commission. So he was cleared to access any information classified Top Secret as well as any information protected by the AEC on a need-to-know basis.

Arbitrarily high levels of clearance can probably be implemented as separate SCI authorizations.

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#43

Post by randallsquared »

mkramlich wrote: post #39
randallsquared wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like a pony.

that's fine. you work towards getting yourself a pony and I'll work towards a world without nuclear weapons.

You might well get it, but keep in mind that the only world without nuclear explosives would be a world in which we are technologically incapable of building them. Not saying that's an impossible dream, but it's sure not my idea of fun.

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#44

Post by thebigshane »

Charuru wrote: post #17

850,000 people have top secret clearance? It doesn't feel that secret...

Most TS information is protected by SCI (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information) which means that these secrets are sectioned off into smaller groups so if one group is exposed/infiltrated other sections are more likely to be safe. This also means that being "read into" one section does not mean you have access to other sections. My point is that the TS clearance mostly describes the process to get information not the collection of information itself. I doubt there are more than a 100,000 people that know any one (actively guarded) secret.

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#45

Post by thebigshane »

david927 wrote: post #5

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society…

That all sounds very nice, but secrets are important. Without getting into Personal and Financial information, military secrets are essential to military operations. Security by obfuscation is never the best way to go but security WITH obfuscation is a very successful and practical approach to keep an edge over others. This edge helps us remain free and open (open in as many areas as practically possible).

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#46

Post by thebigshane »

bmm6o wrote: post #25
Ardit20 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure. I think I would like the red button to be kept very secret.

What does this even mean? The existence of the button? If you're talking about "secret codes" for using it, that's just an implementation of an authentication/authorization scheme.

Secrecy is more about keeping details hidden than protecting something completely. If China found out we were developing some new awesome missile defense system (ignore the fact that they never work...) that wouldn't be nearly as bad China getting access to the developers of the system, blueprints, source code, etc.

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#48

Post by thebigshane »

philk wrote: post #15

You can get to the full text of the first article "A Hidden World, Growing Beyond Control" here: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articl... It paints the national security apparatus as the expensive, bureaucratic clusterfuck one would expect it to be.

Elsewhere in these comments I have defended secrets and secret keeping but I should make it clear that the security world is one HUGE, expensive, wasteful, overly bureaucratic, total clusterfuck. But that doesn't mean it is useless or even worse... "evil".

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#49

Post by kiujhygtfhyj »

mcantelon wrote: post #34
Charuru wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is the same thing. You're conflating a bureaucracy and expenditure problem with the CIA. I mean it's hard to say which one is the bigger problem, but they're very clearly 2 different issues. The problem with pointed out by the article is that there's a closed community within the security apparatus that has grown so big and extensive that it's difficult for the government to control, and could give…

>On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts. Whether the CIA is a net benefit to society is debatable.

>On the other hand I don't see how the CIA could work without secrecy. It's nuts

Names of agents in foreign countries secret = yes.

Existence of the CIA, the number of agents, the cost of operations, illegal operations, agents that have committed criminal offenses = no

Re: "Top Secret America": The Washington Post's contracting investigation

#50

Post by david927 »

thebigshane wrote: post #45
david927 wrote: post #5

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society…

That all sounds very nice, but secrets are important. Without getting into Personal and Financial information, military secrets are essential to military operations. Security by obfuscation is never the best way to go but security WITH obfuscation is a very successful and practical approach to keep an edge over others. This edge helps us remain free and open (open in as many areas as practically possible).

There's a big difference between saying 'no secrets ever' and a situation where secrets are the norm. Those in power will always have the urge to increase secrecy, but it increases their power. We, the people, have to be always diligent to fight against secrecy, because to do so is to fight for democracy itself.
Post reply on HN