The mental gymnastics involved in having a high security clearance. • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by zacharycohn » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 1:26 AM UTC

bediger wrote: post #44

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 had a "Secret" clearance twice upon a time. Absolutely nothing I saw while I had that clearance was of the slightest interest. In fact, everything that I knew that was classified ended up appearing in Aviation Week. And no, I wasn't the leaker. But I regard that as a symptom of over-classification, and speaks directly to the "fifteen or twenty" clearances Kissinger was about to get that were above a Top Secret. Ult…

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.

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

#52

Post by zacharycohn » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 1:29 AM UTC

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?

You can say you have clearances, but you aren't supposed to talk about what level.

When I was leaving the agency I worked for, I had to get what I wanted to write on my resume approved. They told me I had to remove my clearance level.

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

#53

Post by true_religion » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 1:52 AM UTC

zacharycohn wrote: post #51

bediger wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a "Secret" clearance twice upon a time. Absolutely nothing I saw while I had that clearance was of the slightest interest. In fact, everything that I knew that was classified ended up appearing in Aviation Week. And no, I wasn't the leaker. But I regard that as a symptom of over-classification, and speaks directly to the "fifteen or twenty" clearances Kissinger was about to get that were above a Top Secret. Ult…

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.

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

#54

Post by mmaunder » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 2:18 AM UTC

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 when their competitor has the whole world helping debug and fix the system, including the goodwill associated with that.

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

#55

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 2:18 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

There's a flip side to this as well: as a voter, I don't know what information my elected leaders have when making decisions. In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense. The problem is that it's not actually working in practice. There are so many un-elected people who have jobs for life and also the ability to classify broad swaths of information that th…

Not only does it make it impossible for an elected official to take advice, it makes it impossible for voters to make reasoned and educated judgments about the actions of officials.

You know, here in San Francisco they put out a thick pamphlet every election with the full legal text of all statewide and city ballot initiatives, using typography to also show how the existing legislative language would changed or deleted if the ballot initiative were to pass.

I am the only person I know who sits down and reads them all every election cycle. I'm sure there must be others, but most people vote based on soundbites - and they might be making a more efficient use of their time than I do. economists refer to this as 'rational ignorance,' where the cost of educating oneself on a topic exceeds the value of the knowledge gained as a result.

Some people favor minarchy or isocracy; I used to, but have changed my mind. Call me paternalist, but I'd rather have a technocratic government, or maybe even a gnostocracy.

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

#56

Post by scottkduncan » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 2:19 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #27

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

There's a flip side to this as well: as a voter, I don't know what information my elected leaders have when making decisions. In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense. The problem is that it's not actually working in practice. There are so many un-elected people who have jobs for life and also the ability to classify broad swaths of information that th…

> In theory, with a small amount of secrecy needed to make diplomacy and security function, this makes sense. It does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain to me how you reached this conclusion?

More mundane than protecting secret codes and espionage, I think there's a strong argument for keeping the private conversations between the representatives of two governments confidential. Much as my conversations with my close friends would be very different if I knew the contents would be published in the New York Times today, to have functioning relationships governments need to know that some level of confidentiality will be kept when requested.

That said, over-classification is definitely a problem, particularly if done with domestic political considerations in mind. Even worse can be selective declassification, when the public is presented with a few bits of intelligence that present only part of the story and may lead to conclusions very different than had the full picture been presented (i.e. 2003 Iraq War run-up).

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

#57

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 2:24 AM UTC

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.

The flip side of that is that if a hostile power penetrates your network in one context and finds that you employ global clearance standards, the antagonist can roll up or contaminate your intelligence networks on a global scale.

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

#58

Post by ramchip » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 2:29 AM UTC

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...

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

#59

Post by sethg » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 2:38 AM UTC

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, what did I learn that it would then have been a felony for me to reveal? Nothing that would have helped the Russkis or the narco-bad-guys. But I did learn the names of assorted corrupt high-level officials in various of the Carribean banking havens Jeff MacNelly once lampooned as “Rinky-Dink and Tabasco.” No elaborate spying had been required to learn the names; apparently it was routine cafe gossip in the countries involved. So why, I asked, is this material classified? Not that I had any desire to reveal it, but I was curious.

The senior security guy in the Criminal Division set me straight: Yes, everyone knew that the Rinky-Dink-and-Tabascanese Finance Minister, or Central Bank president, or whatever it was, was crookeder than a dog’s hind leg. He knew, we knew, the Prime Minister knew, the Prime Minister knew we knew, we knew he knew we knew, ad infinitum. Maybe the Rinky-Dink-and-Tabascanese voters didn’t know; that was their lookout.

But it was our policy to make nice to Rinky-Dink and Tabasco (honest, I forget which contrylet we were talking about). If it were revealed publicly that the US Government had knowledge that Mr. So-and-so was on the take, that would embarrass the Rinky-Dink-and-Tabascanese government, thus impeding U.S. foreign policy. Ergo, properly classified.

[unquote]

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

#60

Post by v21 » Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 2:49 AM UTC

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...

He's not presenting it as evidence, but saying that it can help to illustrate a pattern of behavior. There's still the larger, more important task of showing that that pattern of behavior exists in the world, but this allows exemplars of this pattern of behavior to be internalized. The internalization process is obviously dangerous, but ultimately I'm not smart enough to make rational judgments on most things, so I need to rely upon intuitive understandings of things.

(Though one could argue that stuff like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLhFXkvugLM&feature=youtu... can be used as evidence of showing how leading language can work, if you can feel your own opinion being swayed, as Bernard talks. The extent to which one can rely upon one's own feelings of their opinions is another matter... but it's a stab in the right direction.)