PDA

View Full Version : Social Scientists Work Being Involuntarily Classified



Abu Suleyman
07-07-2008, 03:52 PM
Recently I have run into a fear among social scientists that I think is a little paranoid and perhaps driven by ignorance, however, I may well be the ignorant one.

Several people I have talked to in the Academic community regarding working with the government have given as a reason for not doing so that they are afraid that the government will classify their work. I have heard that such things occuring in the physical sciences such as the young man who's PhD dissertation was on how to make a nuclear bomb. I also have heard that someone wrote a paper (possibly a dissertation) on the vulnerabilities of US civil projects to terrorist attacks.

However, I am talking to Social Scientists. My understanding is that unless they are using classified information to begin with (which they are not), the study should not be classified. Moreover, there should be no reason to classify that information. After all, most social science comes down to postulation, experimentation and theory, not exploitable hard fact. The fact that Dr. Foo of Bar University thinks that one thing is more likely than another is no more exploitable than the contrary argument that will doubtless arise in the journals.

I suppose what I am asking is: Does anyone out there know of a case where a Social Scientist has had their work involuntarily classified? If so, what was that person working on, and why was it classified? If not, is there anyone who has enough authority and breadth of knowledge that not having heard of such a thing is significant? (i.e. you have been in the business for X years and have never heard of such a thing)

Tom Odom
07-07-2008, 04:17 PM
I suppose what I am asking is: Does anyone out there know of a case where a Social Scientist has had their work involuntarily classified? If so, what was that person working on, and why was it classified? If not, is there anyone who has enough authority and breadth of knowledge that not having heard of such a thing is significant? (i.e. you have been in the business for X years and have never heard of such a thing)

Anything regardless of original source material can be classified if its conclusions or analysis is deemed detrimental to national security. That is a very wide description.

My Leavenworth Paper was held up by a certain agency for nearly a year before an assistant secretary of defense got involved and it was released. We were talking about a history written 24 years after the fact.

best

Tom

marct
07-07-2008, 04:25 PM
I know of several cases where this has happened, although it is usually the original reports rather than the final versions. If you want an example of some of the areas where it can happen quite easily, the most common ones I've seen are in analyses of target vulnerabilities and analyses of politically sensitive policy decisions. One of my students had a class paper classified :wry:.

selil
07-07-2008, 04:43 PM
I have had some of my work "classified" but not in the normal sense. I don't know of any social scientists that have had that laid upon them. I would think that most of it would be the yapping of tiny dogs. If they have federal/state grants then they know there work can be restricted by a variety of means. They got paid to do it and the customer is not giving them a "gift" but an expectation of performance.


ETA: As a clarification, I am NOT a social scientist, I am a technologist the most disrespected breed of researcher in the academe. As such I don't care what you think I just read your email.

John T. Fishel
07-07-2008, 05:43 PM
a political scientist, to be exact. I have worked at state universities (currently), private universities, DOD educational institutions (AWC/SSI, NDU, and CGSC), served on active duty and in the reserves. When I worked for the federal government (both as a soldier and as a civilian) I was subject to classification and clearance rules. If I was working with classified stuff, my stuff was classified derivatively. If I was not using classified materials my stuff was reviewed both to make sure nothing was classified and that policy was stated correctly. As an aside, it could not be legally censored for disagreeing with policy as long as the policy was stated correctly. (BTW I am not saying that improper censorship does not take place only that it is not lawful.) Technically, my research in those circumstances could have been classified (as Tom says) if it fell under the appropriate categories even if it was based on wholly unclassified material. That never happened to me.

As a faculty member at a university, unless I am working on a grant that requires a security review, my research is not subject to government review of any kind and I am free to publish it anywhere I can get it accepted. If, by some chance, I have illegally used classified material I would be subject to prosecution but that is very unlikely. The real bottom line for a civilian social scientist not working for the USG is that it would be practically impossible for the USG to classify his research before it was well esconsed in the public domain and available literature. This was true even before the internet and is even more true today.

Cheers

JohnT

John T. Fishel
07-07-2008, 05:49 PM
I assume you are talking about students and faculty in Canada. The US does not have an Official Secrets Act that would permit the kind of censorship you are talking about. If you are, by chance, talking about US cases, I would be very interested in knowing how the USG got hold of non-government research before it was published (ie all over the internet) in time to shut it down.:)

Cheers

JohnT

Schmedlap
07-07-2008, 06:06 PM
I'm not going to say the name of the publication, but I am aware of one that is classified as Top Secret, yet every single line of text has a (U) next to it. I was told that the collection of a bunch of unclassified material into something that gives us a competitive advantage over our adversaries is fair game to be classified. And that makes sense, to me.

John T. Fishel
07-07-2008, 08:46 PM
Tom's first point. His second point, however, (if I read him right) ;) is that some efforts to classify documents are highly arbitrary - as, indeed, they are. A million years ago, in my current intel shop, we classified a story that was plagiarized from the CBS Morning News on the grounds that if it was not classified the Generals wouldn't believe it! I kid you not.

My point was, and is, that a not affiliated social scientist or historian, working with unclassified material need have no fear that his work will be classified without his agreement. And generally, the system does not even attempt to classify scholarly, unclassified work done under government auspices. Tom's story was more the exception than the rule, in my experience. I would also note that it was finally released, as well it should have been.

Cheers

JohnT

marct
07-07-2008, 08:52 PM
Hi John,


I assume you are talking about students and faculty in Canada. The US does not have an Official Secrets Act that would permit the kind of censorship you are talking about. If you are, by chance, talking about US cases, I would be very interested in knowing how the USG got hold of non-government research before it was published (ie all over the internet) in time to shut it down.:)

Yes, the instances I'm thinking of were in Canada. The case of the student paper was a real outlier as well - she worked in a classified area, but used unclassified material and basic theoretical works to develop models that were then classified (and I can't give any more details :wry:).

In the vast, 99.99999% of cases, there is no classification even when policy critical material is published. I am also aware of a very few cases of" voluntary classification", for want of a better term, where a paper is submitted to an organization rather than for publication due to some security consideration - red team scenario planning in all the cases I'm aware of.

Marc

TT
07-07-2008, 11:42 PM
Based on my experience as a Canuck academic working on US security issues, John’s explanation is spot on. My work on the US military (and other militaries) is by necessity based in part on interviews with current and past participants, so arguably in some senses my research is at the very edge of ‘open source’ (or possibly a bit over that edge). Indeed I have on occasion been asked up front whether I have clearance at the start of an interview.

The crux in John’s explanation is whether the researcher has clearance to work on classified material; if s/he does have clearance, then even their open-sourced work will be reviewed for the reason John notes, (this seems to fit Marc’s Canadian example as well), but if the researcher does not have any clearances then their work is not subject to review or classification. This has always been my understanding stemming from conversations I have had about the possibility of my shifting from ‘public’ academia to ‘military’ academia, or even to consultant work, for should I have agreed I would have had to obtain a certain level of clearance and hence my work, as it was consistently explained to me in all cases, would then be subject to review (if not, as John says, classified derivatively if my work was on classified issues/materials).

I have never gone that particular route for a variety of different reasons, but one reason is that if I ever was given clearance then my work would in the least be subject to review (but this has never been the main reason – cutting off my pony tail and wearing a suit daily always are much higher on my list of reasons :eek: ). Possibly the one gray area exception that I have run across is some work I did, based completely on my open source research, for the US gov't via a consultant; in this case I could/can disseminate what I had written but was asked not to distribute the final document in which that work appeared (in whole) without prior permission as the document was for 'internal use only' (this exception seems to sort of fit Marc's example re red teaming and self censorship).

So, all in all, concern by an academic (who works and researches solely in the public realm) about having their open source research censored, unless they have clearance and/or are working on classified issues, seems to me to be more than bit misguided.

selil
07-07-2008, 11:53 PM
The crux in John’s explanation is whether the researcher has clearance to work on classified material; if s/he does have clearance, then even their open-sourced work will be reviewed for the reason John notes, (this seems to fit Marc’s Canadian example as well), but if the researcher does not have any clearances then their work is not subject to review or classification.

This is part of the reason I have turned down work on classified projects. I'm a nobody so it isn't like I have people kicking down my door asking me accept a government security clearance. I have considered it though in the career pathway as an obstruction.

Rex Brynen
07-08-2008, 02:05 AM
So, all in all, concern by an academic (who works and researches solely in the public realm) about having their open source research censored, unless they have clearance and/or are working on classified issues, seems to me to be more than bit misguided.

I agree with John and Terry--however, the original question is whether academics working for government might have their output classified, even when working with open sources.

Well, yes--the work that they produce under contract might be classified for a variety of reasons. In my experience, not only is this usually clear from the start, but the USG in particular (and contractors working for the USG) usually have reams of paperwork to be signed agreeing to this.

Might their subsequent work be classified? It ought not to be, if they aren't currently working for government, it is not a reproduction of their for-government work, and doesn't use classified materials. Certainly I haven't heard of it happening.

All in all, I think concerns about this are overstated.

John T. Fishel
07-08-2008, 02:21 AM
there is one area that is particularly interesting in TT's presentation. That is the notion that if you carry a security clearance your work would be subject to review. For my entire reserve career - not on active duty - I carried a TS clearance. But my civilian academic work never was subject to review. Since I retired, reservists on inactive duty for training as well as annual training have come under the UCMJ. But my understanding is that it applies only when in those two statuses plus any active duty time. By that logic, a reservist (incl National Guard) when not in drill (IADT) or AT or AD status is still not subject to review for work done in an academic environment not under contract to the USG. That should help clarify this minor gray area unless I'm all wet or totally out of date!:rolleyes:

Cheers

JohnT

Rex Brynen
07-08-2008, 02:37 AM
there is one area that is particularly interesting in TT's presentation. That is the notion that if you carry a security clearance your work would be subject to review. For my entire reserve career - not on active duty - I carried a TS clearance. But my civilian academic work never was subject to review.

Ditto--I hold a current TS/SCI (or rather, the Canadian equivalent) and my regular academic work isn't subject to review.

TT
07-08-2008, 04:01 AM
Interesting. Any discussions I have had never got anywhere near the points you both mention, but it would seem that it comes down to Rex’s earlier point.


Rex posted: Might their subsequent work be classified? It ought not to be, if they aren't currently working for government, it is not a reproduction of their for-government work, and doesn't use classified materials.

That this is the way the situation applies makes sense to me. I know any number of people who publish who obviously had very high clearance at one time or another, and they may still have their clearance for all I know, for it never occurred to me ask them about this.

TT
07-08-2008, 04:24 AM
Selil posted: I have considered it though in the career pathway as an obstruction.

I never perceived the possible opportunities that crossed my path as obstacles to my academic career, but then I am a poli scientist, not a technologist, so our situations are different. Gov’t work and clearances obviously has not hurt John or Rex’s careers, but by the same token you clearly see career issues given your line of research.

Instead one of my abiding issues is that I prefer to be able to pursue research questions that I find interesting rather than doing work/research to answer questions/issues that others set for their own purposes, so those possible opportunities involving doing gov’t work direct or via consulting never appealed to me however much better paid than academia. Working in a military academic environment, of course, one retains academic freedom but for any number of reasons these particular opportunities either did not pan out or did not appeal to me at the particular time.

selil
07-08-2008, 05:28 AM
I never perceived the possible opportunities that crossed my path as obstacles to my academic career, but then I am a poli scientist, not a technologist, so our situations are different. Gov’t work and clearances obviously has not hurt John or Rex’s careers, but by the same token you clearly see career issues given your line of research.


As a technologist my research is highly applied. I don't theorize about the bomb I build it, then I build it better, then I produce the process to mass produce it. Technology faculty do a lot of consulting to various entities and corporations. In many ways that is what we do rather than sponsored research. As a specialist in information technology (networking and security) i look at ways to implement, integrate, adapt, change, model, infuse, fuse, the various disparate hard science disciplines through my research. In my world we do stuff. As a cyber warfare researcher I take all of the above.... and well you don't really want to know.

Because of the highly applied nature rather than basic science nature any knowledge derived and then utilized could in many ways be suspect. The things I know, the techniques, the skills, the methodologies, are what make my knowledge valuable. And, exactly the kind of things that would be classified. My mentors have warned me about this since the first major scholarship I was awarded.

wm
07-08-2008, 10:53 AM
Long ago and far away when the US first introduced classified info Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA), I seem to remember that a clause therein was interpreted such that any work produced by a person who had signed such an agreement was subject to security classification review. I also seem to recall that the NDA was subsequently changed to modify/remove the offending language and we all had to sign new NDAs. For what it is worth, here's a link (http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html) to the SF 312 (current US Govt NDA) briefing booklet from the Information Security Oversight Office of the US National Archives.

Abu Suleyman
07-08-2008, 01:35 PM
This is part of the reason I have turned down work on classified projects. I'm a nobody so it isn't like I have people kicking down my door asking me accept a government security clearance. I have considered it though in the career pathway as an obstruction.

BLUF: It would be better if being in academia or working with the government regularly weren't an either/or proposition.

Well, I keep learning when posting here, and that is the point. Based upon these responses, I would say that indeed I was wrong, but not in the way that I had originally believed.

Appartently, it is possible for things to become classified if you have to submit it for review, and I always knew that. While I have not successfully published (yet), I have had a few articles reviewed, and I have never had a problem. However, I have a good relationship with the SSO, and that seems to make a huge difference.

What I am more concerned about is the attitude stated by selil, which he is not alone in holding. While in general, I believe that better information is to be had on open source than classified sources, especially for theoretical purposes, I find it a shame that qualified and smart people are unwilling to accept or pursue security clearances that would greatly facilitate their work and would allow them to interact more directly with other members of the community.

I am fully familiar with the caprice of classification. I have fought the battle of classification many times. I have even had to deal with literally random classifications, at wholly inconvenient times. But I think that is a bad thing, that perhaps we want to fix.

The government keeps saying that it wants to have more academics involved with things like HTT and Minerva and the like, but what it gives with one hand it takes with the other. If people have to live in fear of their research becoming censored (for that is how they perceive it) simply because of they help the Army (or whoever) from time to time, then what do you think is going to win out?

Not to mention that most of this, especially in social science, is irrellevant. Of course there are issues, such as specific vulnerabilities, that probably deserve classification, but I would say that pure ethics should also compel someone to not release that. But those limited instances aside, Social Science is a conversation, and for every person who sees things one way there is someone who sees it another. If the information is already available in the public sphere then isn't it much better to have people discuss it and change policy, develop theory, or at least be aware of the confluence of facts, rather than burying their heads in the sand and hoping it goes away? (!!I am talking only of information that is already available to the public, not things that should otherwise be classified!!)

It strikes me as tragic, foolish, and illadvised that our government cannot consult freely with some of the smartest and well educated people on certain topics, because those people need to fear for the loss of their livelyhood by the mere act of consultation. Even if that fear is somewhat irrational, it is a fear nonetheless, and a large one to boot. How much better would it be if government to convoke the greatest minds at any time, be they military, academic, civil, or what have you, and present them with a problem and see what they come up with. I am not so naive as to believe it would always be good, but I do believe that more information is always better than less when making decisions.

Bottom line, by allowing classification to remain capricious and random, and (perhaps) requiring all people who hold clearances to undergo a process whereby their work may be censored based upon unclear guidance and the whims of an individual, holding a clearance, and by extension working with the government on military and security issues becomes an exclusive proposition. If this is not the case, it is apparent that there is enough confusion about the situation that one must operate on that assumption anyway. By so doing, the government de facto excludes all people who would also have interests outside of working with the government. Only those who are willing to potentially derive their entire livelihood from the government are therefore able to consult regularly and directly on issues facing the government today.

I may be wrong in this conclusion. I suspect the government thinks I am, but I think the discussion in this post is evidence of sufficient confusion that indeed that seems to be the perception, and while perhaps not the truth, at least the reality in which we currently live.

marct
07-08-2008, 03:22 PM
It may be useful to expand this discussion a touch beyond the classified/non-classified area out into "censorship". A lot of disciplines have forms of self-censorship built into them, usually in their so-called "codes of ethical conduct" but, also, in their traditions. Let me give you an example...

When I was doing my Doctoral fieldwork, I was informed by my ethics committee that I must change the names of all the companies I was working with. At the same time, as part of negotiating the informed consent forms, I was told by the companies that I must use heir real names in my work. This caused a few people on my ethics committee to have heart palpitations. You see, the rule/tradition about changing the company name is based on the perception that the researcher is in the position of greater "power" since they get to write up the results. The attitudes of the companies laughed at this pretension. As one of my informants noted "If you [i.e. me] screw up, we'll ship your a$$ out of here, so who really has the power?".

The entire anonymity / hidden identity thing in a lot of social science research is based on the assumption of a power inbalance. But what if there isn't one for a particular study?

John T. Fishel
07-08-2008, 04:14 PM
Abu Suleyman, you are spot on!:) Far more insidious than classification is the new twist on the old theme of "administrative protection" usually FOUO. We all understood pretty well tha FOUO was not a classification but was used to protect privacy or the government from running afoul of plagiarism charges and copyright violations. But now some idiot has come up with Sensitive But Unclassified - whatever the hell that means! By the EO that establishes US classification (see Wm's link for the ref) information is classified if its unauthorized diclosure will harm (classification guidance provides the terms for degree of harm that establish whether information is Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) the security of the US. If the information doesn't fall into that category, it is unclassified - period! SBS is just what the las 2 letters say - BS, designed to protect the guilty!!!!!:eek: So much for my rant of the day.

Marc, when I was doing my dissertation on local politics in rural Peru (1966 -68) I followed the anthropological convention of disguising the names of my informants and the people under observation. At the time, we didn't assume a power relationship, rather it was simply to protect their privacy. Had my dissertation been translated into Spanish, anybody from my towns could easily have identified the people I was talking about. As to the English, since a couple of key players were Peace Corps Volunteers, it was a matter od peotecting their privacy and not much more. Again, any social science researcher could easily have discovered the identities of my informants and the people I observed - even if they didn't ask me. I would have been happy to have given them that information anyway.

Cheers

JohnT

wm
07-08-2008, 04:38 PM
Far more insidious than classification is the new twist on the old theme of "administrative protection" usually FOUO. We all understood pretty well tha FOUO was not a classification but was used to protect privacy or the government from running afoul of plagiarism charges and copyright violations. But now some idiot has come up with Sensitive But Unclassified - whatever the hell that means!

John T

It gets better and better. SBU is being replaced by CUI, which is supposed to roll up most of the handling caveats into a couple of categories,


The White House has issued a memorandum on the designation and sharing of information that is unclassified, but is deemed sensitive in nature. The new Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) framework replaces the existing Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) categorization; three new categories replace the "at least 107 unique markings and more than 131 different labeling or handling processes and procedures for SBU information"Here's a link

John T. Fishel
07-08-2008, 06:27 PM
I was so lost in my rant that I forgot how to create an abbreviation.:o

Wm, your link didn't work... Is CUI a formal EO or merely a BS designation? After all, Congress has never passed a classification law, so we operate on an EO. That being the case, an EO has more of the weight of law than a mere statement of policy. Hence my question?

Cheers

JohnT

marct
07-08-2008, 06:37 PM
Hi John,


Marc, when I was doing my dissertation on local politics in rural Peru (1966 -68) I followed the anthropological convention of disguising the names of my informants and the people under observation. At the time, we didn't assume a power relationship, rather it was simply to protect their privacy. Had my dissertation been translated into Spanish, anybody from my towns could easily have identified the people I was talking about. As to the English, since a couple of key players were Peace Corps Volunteers, it was a matter od peotecting their privacy and not much more. Again, any social science researcher could easily have discovered the identities of my informants and the people I observed - even if they didn't ask me. I would have been happy to have given them that information anyway.

Very similar to my MA research. The names of individuals were changed or obscured from the general public, but anyone in the community would know who they were. In my case, since I was looking at the institutionalization of modern Witchcraft, the concern was both with privacy and a certain amount of paranoia. The only record of real name = pseudonym I kept was in my head, and I would never give that information to anyone (it was a field condition; FYI, the informed consent forms were signed with "craft names" not legal names).

The "power relationship" is an interesting problem, and I've watched a shift over the past 20 years in how it is portrayed in the classroom from a privacy concern to a power relation concern. One of my best students make a comment to me over a couple of beers to the effect that Anthropologists had an insanely inflated ego if they thought they had that much power :wry:.

wm
07-08-2008, 06:49 PM
I was so lost in my rant that I forgot how to create an abbreviation.:o

Wm, your link didn't work... Is CUI a formal EO or merely a BS designation? After all, Congress has never passed a classification law, so we operate on an EO. That being the case, an EO has more of the weight of law than a mere statement of policy. Hence my question?

Cheers

JohnT

Since my time to edit the original post has elapsed, here (http://www.intelink.gov/blogs/das/2008/05/20/sbu-is-dead-long-live-cui) is a revised version of the original link.

CUI is found in a Presidential memorandum, not quite of the same exalted status as an Executive Order--a link to the press release of the memo is [/URL][URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080509-6.html"]here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080509-6.html)

marct
07-08-2008, 06:53 PM
Since my time to edit the original post has elapsed, here (http://www.intelink.gov/blogs/das/2008/05/20/sbu-is-dead-long-live-cui) is a revised version of the original link.

Taken care of....

Cavguy
07-08-2008, 09:56 PM
Abu Suleyman, you are spot on!:) Far more insidious than classification is the new twist on the old theme of "administrative protection" usually FOUO. We all understood pretty well tha FOUO was not a classification but was used to protect privacy or the government from running afoul of plagiarism charges and copyright violations. But now some idiot has come up with Sensitive But Unclassified - whatever the hell that means! By the EO that establishes US classification (see Wm's link for the ref) information is classified if its unauthorized diclosure will harm (classification guidance provides the terms for degree of harm that establish whether information is Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) the security of the US. If the information doesn't fall into that category, it is unclassified - period! SBS is just what the las 2 letters say - BS, designed to protect the guilty!!!!!:eek: So much for my rant of the day.


Cheers

JohnT

John,

Some sympathy for your rant, but the reason for the FOUO/SBU classification run amok is the need to talk over NIPR about things that people don't want broadcast to the world - you make things confidenial or secret they MUST move to SIPR, which decreases the number of people who can/have access to see it by 99%. So I am perpetually confused, if I compose an unclassified document on NIPR discussing something I don't want to get out to the public, how do I classify it if not FOUO or similar? Obviously, it won't do great harm to national security if it did (it is unclass), but it isn't what I want to broadcast either.

selil
07-08-2008, 10:12 PM
Not sure if it relevant or not, but I was asked "nicely" to produce a document, and then review a consolidated document. Not what I would call "research" just me being a nice guy helping a fellow traveler out. This was all clean, totally, unclassified. I then edited, submitted, and walked away from the project. The generation of the document was totally open source and my experience.

I attempted to download the document at a later date from the government website where it had been posted but it had been classified FOUO, and the re-classified and since the classification is FOUO I have no idea at what level. I did not know a classification could be classified or I may simply not understand the mechanisms in play.

Now this was me being a nice guy, not "research", but I wonder if am I carrying around a top secret uber national security risk in my archives folder? Are Natasha and Boris looking for me right now? More important could I get somebody in trouble by having the original copy? This could mean free beer for life or something.

John T. Fishel
07-08-2008, 11:23 PM
Cav Guy, I'm not entirely sure what NIPR net is. I understand the SIPRnet is secure. But let me talk about something really unclas and unofficial - this site and my email (ou.edu). Generally, if I don't want something spread widely, I use my email account. It is relatively secure - not completely - but relatively so. If I want to discuss it more widely, I would do so here - knowing that I risk some bad guys having access but recognizing that not everybody monitors this site. If I want to carry on a discussion here more privately I go PM. There is also and always snail mail and the telephone. Bottom line, I think, is the uncommon qualities of common sense and good judgment.;)

Sam, FOUO is NOT a classification but a protective marking. So, your doc has not been classified at all. Here are a couple of suggestions depending on how much you want to screw with the system:
1. Ask the guy you were helping out to email you a copy - after all it's yours.
2. Take your original (or recreate it if you must), put your name on it, and post it to your blog along with the story.
3. Contact the agency that made it FOUO and threaten to sue them for violation of copyright - which exists even if you never registered it, as I'm sure you know.

Let us know how it all comes out.:D

Cheers

JohnT

Abu Suleyman
07-09-2008, 01:53 PM
BLUF: The free flow of information is good, and we in this forum should educate ourselves, and those around us to ensure that information continues to flow.

I think that it is obvious that I have touched a nerve here, and the problem is far greater than I originally feared. The question, then, is where do we go from here.

As I see it, the problem is actually ignorance. (Isn't ignorance so often a part of the problem.) Of course there are three levels of ignorance:
1) On the part of the government and government officials there is ignorance on the actual policy and the role that classifications and caveats play.
2) On the part of academics there is ignorance about security clearances and procedures (and how to work with them, instead of against them).
3) On the part of everyone on the role that non-governmental people could play in 'fixing problems'. Basically, I don't know that there is any plan at all, outside of fits and starts like HTS.

Far from being helpless in this forum, there are many educated and connected people here. I think that if we do our homework, we could come up with enough information. I am looking into trying to find out what is already available, but if anyone knows of classes that you can take on classification procedures, that would be great.

I look to the recent past, when Fermi and Oppenheimer helped end WWII by building the nuclear bomb, and luminaries such as George Kennan shaped foreign policy. (In fairness, Kennan was a Statie at the time.) Now we have an 'Us vs. Them' mentality, where 'Us' is the government (to include some contractors) and 'Them' is the people.

I am not a Utopian who believes that state secrets should be out in the open. Nevertheless, there is already an abundance of information available which is not classified. I am also showing my political science colors when I say that I believe, even at the cost of sharing it with those who wish us in the West ill, we should make sure that information is more available rather than less. We cannot turn off the Internet, nor hide under a rock. It is far better that we talk about where we want to go and how to get there with as many people as possible to get as good an idea as possible.

Open the curtains and let the light shine in!

John T. Fishel
07-09-2008, 02:17 PM
spot on - at least from my perspective. But then, we political scientists should stick together.;)

One additional comment regarding Kennan: His Long Telegram was the intellectual rationale for the containment policy and the strategy contained in NSC 68. Kennan published it under the nom de plume of "X" in Foreign Affairs while still in government. Clearly supports your premise of openness (as well as national self confidence).

Cheers

JohnT

Cavguy
07-09-2008, 02:32 PM
Cav Guy, I'm not entirely sure what NIPR net is. I understand the SIPRnet is secure. But let me talk about something really unclas and unofficial - this site and my email (ou.edu). Generally, if I don't want something spread widely, I use my email account. It is relatively secure - not completely - but relatively so. If I want to discuss it more widely, I would do so here - knowing that I risk some bad guys having access but recognizing that not everybody monitors this site. If I want to carry on a discussion here more privately I go PM. There is also and always snail mail and the telephone. Bottom line, I think, is the uncommon qualities of common sense and good judgment.;)


The problem is the control over the forward button on other people's computers.

NIPR is the unclassified military commercial internet backbone. It is the internet connection everyone has in DoD for computer use. It is not really restricted in any way than it is maintained through DoD gateways/routers rather than an ISP's.

One thing I know the SWJEDs and others deal with is documents not labeled with a handling restriction. I see a lot of good AAR's from the field, with great tips for the troops. In them are tactics, techniques, and procedures that are not classified, but sensitive. I wouldn't want AQIZ to know about how company commanders are placing the .50 cal in their defensive perimeters in Afghanistan. However, that is not to the level of SECRET information, IMO. (actual base/location of data would be, but TTP is not generally) If it gets classifed secret, or confidential, I just reduced the number of people with access (not clearance, there is a difference) to see it by 99%. So these day's get gets labled UNCLASS/FOUO REL (release) NATO, etc. The understood instruction is "only distribute to those with official need, but unclassified". The second issue is unclassified assessments of operations/performance. Without a handling restriction, every email you send may wind up on the Washington Post, taken out of context, which reduces the community's willingness to share information.

In the pre-internet age this was done through branch mags and a multitude of pamphlets. The enemy had limited access to them just due to physical separation and the costs to reprodouce, and then only after some time. Today these documents spread instantly.

I don't know what the answer is, I just know that whether intended or not UNCLASS/FOUO has come to be the label that people attach to documents that are unclassified that we would prefer to stay within DoD, or at least allied, circles. Moving everything to SIPR isn't the answer, because of limited stations/access, and inablity to share SIPR with coalition partners.

If it's not the right answer, we need to develop something to replace its use. We all know FOUO may leak out, but at least most responsible people (like the SWJED editors) won't forward FOUO stuff outside the military. Just bad OPSEC, and bad business.

Steve Blair
07-09-2008, 02:55 PM
One of the things I see from a researcher's standpoint is that a good deal of stuff that used to be "for public release" is now being swept into AKO/AF Portal/other restricted access. Standard doctrine publications are part of this, and now Armor has gone behind the Internet "iron curtain." Not especially helpful for those of us that have an interest in such things, and I think it also extends beyond that.

I tend to run closer to John and Abu's position (at least as I understand it). On one hand the military complains that people don't understand them, and then they start restricting access to what used to be open source information that might help people understand them. Sure, there's stuff you don't want the bad guys to know. I get that, and it makes sense. But I'm starting to feel that the broom is sweeping too wide now.

Cavguy
07-09-2008, 03:42 PM
One of the things I see from a researcher's standpoint is that a good deal of stuff that used to be "for public release" is now being swept into AKO/AF Portal/other restricted access. Standard doctrine publications are part of this, and now Armor has gone behind the Internet "iron curtain." Not especially helpful for those of us that have an interest in such things, and I think it also extends beyond that.

I tend to run closer to John and Abu's position (at least as I understand it). On one hand the military complains that people don't understand them, and then they start restricting access to what used to be open source information that might help people understand them. Sure, there's stuff you don't want the bad guys to know. I get that, and it makes sense. But I'm starting to feel that the broom is sweeping too wide now.

Agree with the over-cautiousness. When the CSA issued the blog/internet OPSEC clampdown message in 2005 it had an immense chill. Everyone over-reacted. The army setting up special units to troll blogs and websites for OPSEC violations didn't help either. LTG Caldwell is leading the charge out from the dark ages, but as always, the Army has trouble not overcorrecting.

Entropy
07-09-2008, 03:51 PM
As an intel guy I guess I'm of two minds on this issue and I've seen similar debates take place within the intelligence world. One of my jobs used to involve trying to get intelligence downgraded and/or released for the same reasons Cavguy lists for pushing info down to the unclass level - access. Information is of no value if the people who need it don't have access. In the intelligence world, a careful weighing takes place and information is often "sanitized" to remove source or whatever it is that keeps the info at the higher level. There are procedures and policies to accomplish this as well as personnel who are trained to do it.

One thing that concerns me with the unclassified caveats is that it's not clear (to me at least) who adjudicates whether something is sensitive or not. Without some standard and without knowledgeable people weighing the costs and benefits of placing information in the classified, unclass or FOUO categories, there is likely to be inconsistency in how the caveats are applied. Another problem, which will hopefully be corrected through standardization, is that too often a document is simply labeled FOUO without any idea of what parts are actually sensitive. Paragraph markings are a good thing. Finally, there doesn't seem to be an expiration for FOUO unlike actual classified information. At what point does a FOUO document become simply unclassified with no restriction? Who knows. That's a problem.

Cavguy
07-09-2008, 04:06 PM
I tend to run closer to John and Abu's position (at least as I understand it). On one hand the military complains that people don't understand them, and then they start restricting access to what used to be open source information that might help people understand them. Sure, there's stuff you don't want the bad guys to know. I get that, and it makes sense. But I'm starting to feel that the broom is sweeping too wide now.

I fielded the same complaint from a major (military friendly) author recently, who got great access from the USMC and less from the Army. When criticized that his upcoming book is "Marine centric", his basic response was "they gave me access, I tried the army, but they wouldn't give me access to FOUO stuff I need to tell the stories".

Current security guidelines make no distinction between sharing with a US civilian (retired military) and a terrorist from Afghanistan. What drives the caution is the fear of losing a security clearance, which can end a career.

Steve Blair
07-09-2008, 04:16 PM
I fielded the same complaint from a major (military friendly) author recently, who got great access from the USMC and less from the Army. When criticized that his upcoming book is "Marine centric", his basic response was "they gave me access, I tried the army, but they wouldn't give me access to FOUO stuff I need to tell the stories".

Current security guidelines make no distinction between sharing with a US civilian (retired military) and a terrorist from Afghanistan. What drives the caution is the fear of losing a security clearance, which can end a career.

I understand that, but a fair amount of the stuff that got swept up used to be classified for public release, distribution unlimited. Unless they recently upped the status on common FMs, that's how they were listed. Now...gone behind AKO.

FOUO is an interesting classification, as Entropy pointed out. When exactly does it roll down? Does it ever?

I understand the security clearance concern. That makes sense. But I don't think anyone's seriously considering the second and third level impact this shotgun approach could have in the long term for the Army (or they are it's not making much headway). IMO, anyhow.

Darksaga
07-09-2008, 11:17 PM
The reality is the roll some social scientist are filling down range are such that they are included in operations. So they are going out to the DAC meetings. They are speaking with the populous. They are doing link analysis. Those operations are inherently classified.

Ken White
07-10-2008, 12:31 AM
I guess being the operative word.

Abu Suleyman
07-10-2008, 04:02 PM
As an intel guy I guess I'm of two minds on this issue and I've seen similar debates take place within the intelligence world. One of my jobs used to involve trying to get intelligence downgraded and/or released for the same reasons Cavguy lists for pushing info down to the unclass level - access.

Overclassification, and unnecessary classification are a seperate although related problem, and probably still on topic. However, what I am most concerned about is actually the taking of things that were never classified, and perhaps not even produced by the government and then classifying them.

Here's a counterfactual example: I have heard, but cannot confirm, that Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" and he and Larry Bond's work in "Red Storm Rising" were so close to the real thing that intelligence agents for both countries initially believed that they had a security leak, but that in reality it was primarily conjecture and derived from information readily available in the public library at the time. (For the purpose of this example assume that the previous premise is true.) What if the government had classified "The Hunt for Red October"? That is what many people are concerned about; that if they work with the government or even study issues related to the government and security issues they may have they work classified even though the information it is based on remains in the public domain.

I agree that U.S. TTP's or current operations shouldn't be revealed. I don't think there is any value in hiding doctrinal manuals behind the AKO Electron Curtain, but it doesn't give me nearly as much heart burn. But plenty of people seem to believe that while two wrongs don't make a right, enough UNCLASS data compiled together can make a SECRET document, and that just strikes me as crazy.

wm
07-10-2008, 04:42 PM
Overclassification, and unnecessary classification are a seperate although related problem, and probably still on topic. However, what I am most concerned about is actually the taking of things that were never classified, and perhaps not even produced by the government and then classifying them.

Here's a counterfactual example: I have heard, but cannot confirm, that Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" and he and Larry Bond's work in "Red Storm Rising" were so close to the real thing that intelligence agents for both countries initially believed that they had a security leak, but that in reality it was primarily conjecture and derived from information readily available in the public library at the time. (For the purpose of this example assume that the previous premise is true.) What if the government had classified "The Hunt for Red October"? That is what many people are concerned about; that if they work with the government or even study issues related to the government and security issues they may have they work classified even though the information it is based on remains in the public domain.

I agree that U.S. TTP's or current operations shouldn't be revealed. I don't think there is any value in hiding doctrinal manuals behind the AKO Electron Curtain, but it doesn't give me nearly as much heart burn. But plenty of people seem to believe that while two wrongs don't make a right, enough UNCLASS data compiled together can make a SECRET document, and that just strikes me as crazy.

The waiter's response was, "Stop screaming and waving it about by its tail. Everyone else will want one."


A serious consideration is neither to confirm nor deny. Someone like a Tom Clancy may produce a document that contains stuff that, had it been published by an arm of the DoD would have been classified at some level fron Confidential up to TS Burn Before Reading. That does not matter. What does matter is the reaction of those "in the know" to such a book.

In cases like this it is better just to note to oneself that the horse left the barn but not worry about shutting the door. Shutting the door is a dead give away that something bad just occurred.

John T. Fishel
07-10-2008, 04:44 PM
In your scenario, the saving grace is that once something is out you really can't get it back. So, in this internet era, even if all cpies of Hun were pulled it would still be available on the internet. I expect there would be multiple You Tube videos of Clancy reading it.:cool:

Cheers

JohnT

Entropy
07-10-2008, 04:59 PM
But plenty of people seem to believe that while two wrongs don't make a right, enough UNCLASS data compiled together can make a SECRET document, and that just strikes me as crazy.

From the root classification authority (http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html), here is what may be classified:


Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or

(h) weapons of mass destruction.

On aggregate unclassified information becoming classified, the EO says this:


Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information. As used in this order, "compilation" means an aggregation of pre-existing unclassified items of information.

On the other hand, it also says this:


Basic scientific research information not clearly related to the national security shall not be classified.

This has traditionally applied mainly to the technical sciences (ex. laser or aerodynamic research), but perhaps one solution is to make it clear the social sciences are included in that provision.

I have some more to say on the subject, but am heading out for lunch - MTF.

Rex Brynen
07-10-2008, 05:16 PM
But plenty of people seem to believe that while two wrongs don't make a right, enough UNCLASS data compiled together can make a SECRET document, and that just strikes me as crazy.

It depends very much on who is doing it, for whom. Obviously, a private citizen pulling together an analysis from unclassified material and OSINT doesn't justify the subsequent classification of that material. If they are a former government employee it doesn't either, unless perhaps their open source analysis reveals awareness of something very sensitive (through its framing or assumptions) that they were exposed to in classified form before.

If open source collection and analysis is done in official capacity, or under contract, it is a very different thing--even if the material is open source, the fact that the government is interested in having it compiled, the conclusions that were drawn, the apparent purposes to which it might be put, and the political/foreign policy implications of disclosure might all be enormously sensitive.

I've often had contract work based on OSINT classified, and for good reason.

selil
07-10-2008, 10:23 PM
Strange question: I had a clearance in 1984 for activities in the Marines. Just simple Secret I believe. Could that be used to "muzzle" my research circa 2008? On totally unrelated materials? I doubt it but I don't have a security officer to ask.

marct
07-10-2008, 10:28 PM
Strange question: I had a clearance in 1984 for activities in the Marines. Just simple Secret I believe. Could that be used to "muzzle" my research circa 2008? On totally unrelated materials? I doubt it but I don't have a security officer to ask.

No idea about the States, Sam.... Sorry. My own clearance is older than that and could still be used for some things today, but that's Canada :wry:.

John T. Fishel
07-11-2008, 02:35 AM
Nobody is keeping track of you for clearance purposes. You report to no one.
So, write what you want and publish it. No problem. As I said before, as a Reservist with all sorts of TS accesses, I never had to seek clearance for anything I wrote when not on active duty.

We really shouldn't make to much of the hypothetical possibilities since the reality is that once the horse is out of the barn...

(Reminds me of the stallion living about a mile away who came to visit my mare - after escaping - while she was in heat about a month ago...:cool:)

Cheers

JohnT

Tom Odom
07-11-2008, 12:22 PM
Strange question: I had a clearance in 1984 for activities in the Marines. Just simple Secret I believe. Could that be used to "muzzle" my research circa 2008? On totally unrelated materials? I doubt it but I don't have a security officer to ask.

Sam

Not to worry. As a DIA and DHS employee I did the standard non-disclosure agreement before training and going to Africa in 94. I had a TS-SCI and maintained that to include renewing it as I retired in 96.

In 2000, when I decided to write my memoirs. I started asking what I had to do as a retired officer in clearing what I was writing, I was civil service by then and only carrying a secret clearance. The Army basically said write as a retired officer and use common sense. DIA said leave us alone. Actually the same office that handles FOIA handles this sort of thing. I asked for my reports from 1994-1996 at the same time I raised clearing my manuscript. I gave up on clearing when the action officer told me "to send it if you want to." I have yet to get a single report released, most of which were merely confidential.

The exception to this is the CIA; folks who work for them and then publish get a publishing lawyer. Otherwise things move at glacial speed.

I think you can relax on your '84 secret clearance.

best

Tom

Steve Blair
07-11-2008, 12:59 PM
Strange question: I had a clearance in 1984 for activities in the Marines. Just simple Secret I believe. Could that be used to "muzzle" my research circa 2008? On totally unrelated materials? I doubt it but I don't have a security officer to ask.

Concur with the others. Also, from my understanding based on what I see with cadet clearances and those of our cadre, they lapse after a set period of time. And once they lapse, they're more or less gone.

selil
07-11-2008, 01:21 PM
Pretty much what I figured. An email the other day came across my desk that talked about having work classified at secret or above. So, I decided to go to my mentor group and ask about clearances in academia. Pretty much the same as I'd been led to believe. I could do a lot of work, a promotion committee would never see it, and that would be sad. Not as career ending since I have tenure, but not good for the next step. The other piece is that they have done dissertations (I'm a student and faculty) that were classified or had that kind of information. They produced redacted versions for publication. That though was a anecdote the veracity can't be checked unless we knew which one it was.

Abu Suleyman
07-11-2008, 01:40 PM
Half of the people seem to be saying "Go ahead and publish, you will be fine, a clearance is not a hinderance." That is what I originally believed upon entering in to this discussion.

The other half, seem to be saying "The research you do may need to be classified depending on what you uncover, even if you use totally unclassified materials as your source." I can understand that if I get on wikipedia and figure out how to make a nuclear bomb, I should not publish it. (I would argue that it would be unethical to do so, anyway.) However, other than things that would directly endanger peoples lives, if the information is out there, it is better to let the light shine on it, and talk about how to deal with it than to try and hide it and hope it goes away.

My assertion is that the confusion that exists here is the actual problem. Because people are unsure as to what is legal and proper, they become reluctant to deal with potentially sensitive topics. Non-spooky types don't want to talk about it, and spooky types don't want to talk to the non-spooks. This is most unfortunate, because the most important topics to direct our full efforts against are the sensitive ones.

The solution, I feel is to clarify and publicize the requirements to remove the misunderstanding, miscalculation, and confusion about this topic. However, I am unsure as to where begin, although I liked where Entropy started to go with his comments.

Rex Brynen
07-11-2008, 02:04 PM
The other half, seem to be saying "The research you do may need to be classified depending on what you uncover, even if you use totally unclassified materials as your source."

I think comments to this effect were only directed to those cases where the research was done for government (as an employee or contractor), not in cases where the social scientist previously or currently holds clearances, but is undertaking regular academic research.

I can only reiterate what John has said--I've never had a problem with it, nor have I known anyone else to.

Entropy
07-11-2008, 02:17 PM
Ok, back after my 18 hour lunch!

Seriously, though, EO lays out pretty clearly what can and cannot be classified. Without actually knowing what you're researching, it's hard for me to make a judgment on the potential that certain work might be classified, though I think the vast majority of social science work is probably safe. It will also depend on who you work for. If it's the government, then the chances of classification are higher simply because the government is what it is.

If someone does want to try to classify your work, there are procedures to fight that and ultimately they must identify what information is classified or makes the work classified and why. If it turns out their reasons are sound or your protest is unsuccessful, often you can amend the content without changing the character of what's being said to solve the problem, or the information can be placed in a classified annex (My wife, for example, did her master's thesis on an area of nuclear forensics and part of it was classified and put into an annex).

I think Rex has it right. The key is that the work has to be related to one of the areas the EO lists in my previous comment for it to be classified.

John T. Fishel
07-11-2008, 06:34 PM
1. If you work for the government (employee or contractor), your work could - possibly, not probalbly if sources unclas - be classified.
2. If you are an academic without government affiliation, you can make sure that the horse is out of the barn long before anyone could ever catch it.

Cheers

JohnT

Tom Odom
07-11-2008, 06:37 PM
1. If you work for the government (employee or contractor), your work could - possibly, not probalbly if sources unclas - be classified.
2. If you are an academic without government affiliation, you can make sure that the horse is out of the barn long before anyone could ever catch it.

Cheers

JohnT

But if the Men in Black show up, don't look at the camera...:wry: