2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNat'l Intel report: the whole system of classification is a big subjective mess.
This is why the Department of Intelligence can disagree with the Department of State. They have separate classification guides and each department has its own rules.
The head of Intelligence called on the FBI to investigate Hillary -- but the State Department had its own rules and procedures and wasn't subject to the rules of the Department of Intelligence. The heads of both agencies reported directly to President Obama -- not to each other.
A 2008 article by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists discussed an Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) review of US classification policy that was intended to try and develop a government wide system. Aftergood concluded that There appears to be no common understanding of classification levels among the classification guides reviewed by the (ODNI) team, nor any consistent guidance as to what constitutes damage, serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage to national security... There is wide variance in application of classification levels.
What this means in practice is there can be confusion on the part of those working on national security issues as to what should be classified in an email and what should not. This is not an excuse to abuse the classification system, but it is an explanation of how some in government may have a legitimate interpretation of what is classified, differing from others handling the same information, particularly if that information is unmarked with a classification level.
While there are two general conclusions that frame the result of the investigation, there are two issues that the investigation raises that must be dealt with to improve security and lessen confusion. The first is to update and make more efficient the government-wide classification system, working with experts like the ODNI and others to ensure that the system will be secure, clear and uniformly implemented. This will help prevent confusion in the future over such issues as to what can be shared on an unclassified system and what must be protected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-danvers/the-email-investigation-a_b_10904786.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)tune that most of us wanted to hear in the first place? LOL!
The media and the wingnuts wanted to wring every sling and arrow they could out of this story, before they finally tell us the truth!
Anyoe who works in government--and CONGRESS, too (not that they work, you see) KNOWS this.
DOD is different from State, too, in their procedures and even the look of their documents. This paragraph brings the point home:
The other issue that needs to be reviewed in a non-partisan way is the US Government classification system. It is flawed and confusing. A 2012 report issued by the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB), which was established by Congress, called for an overhaul of the U.S. Government Classification system. Then PIDB head, distinguished national security expert Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, clearly made the case for an overhaul of the U.S. Government classification system, Our report makes the case that a redesign of the classification system is needed. The current system is 70 years old and is wholly incapable of dealing with the enormous volume of information generated today. Our national security professionals must operate very differently today to keep our nation safe. New policies that promote information sharing, limit classification, and allow for technology use to sift through petabytes of information is essential.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We need to set the whole thing on fire and start over.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The Navy alone has 15 classification guides. One is nearly 600 pages long. The idea that everyone should have those memorized is ludicrous.