Waiter, there's a mouse in my soup!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
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.
Sam, I wouldn't worry about it.
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
I am hearing two different responses to this thread
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.