Talk:Sensitive Security Information

Speculation

I removed this speculative text from the article: "The relative success of Mr. Fine's office in limiting classification of Inspector General reports points to an untapped opportunity for curtailing overclassification more broadly. That is, agency inspectors general could be assigned to conduct regular audits of classification activity and to "push for explanations" of dubious secrets. The inspectors general are already on site throughout most of the executive branch and they have the security clearances they need to function (though in some cases they may lack adequate funding for this and other purposes). They could provide an enormous force multiplier for the small staff of the Information Security Oversight Office which is nominally responsible for classification oversight government-wide. If the classification system is worth fixing, the Inspectors General could have an important role to play." PRRfan (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite relevant

I removed this from the article pending justification of its relevance...PRRfan (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Executive branch agencies often classify information inconsistently or unnecessarily, but when challenged, will sometimes modify their practices, according to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. His office's investigative reports are reviewed by agency officials prior to release.

"We have seen a lot of times where [agency officials] said, well, that is too sensitive, that is classified, and then we will look and in another forum they have publicly released it," Mr. Fine said at a June 4, 2008, U.S. House of Representatives Committee On Foreign Affairs hearing. "I have been in situations where the FBI told me you can't say that, that is classified. I said okay. And then a week later, an FBI employee will come to [to Congress] and say the same thing. And I say to myself why can't we say it if they can?"

"A lot of times FBI will give a report to one person and they will say this is classified, and then the FBI will give it to another person and different amounts are classified," Mr. Fine said. "It is not a precise science."

At the hearing, Rep. William D. Delahunt concurred, saying, "I have to say, this is not just restricted to the Department of Justice...it is throughout the executive branch...I have seen what you just articulated happen time and time again...It is my own belief that the classification process has become a tool, if you will, for the avoidance of embarrassment."

Fine said that, at least at the Justice Department, the Inspector General does not simply yield to the whims of the classifiers, but insists on a sensible rationale for secrecy. "We push for explanations to make sure that it [classification] is not being used as a way to avoid embarrassment," Fine said. "And I think generally, in our case, we have been pretty successful.

Overclassification has been a problem for over thirty years and is likely to remain controversial. It is important to note, however, that SSI is not a form of classification under Executive Order 12958 as amended, and is not classified national security information. It is governed by a relatively strict regulation with carefully defined terms, restrictions on disclosure of SSI, explicit procedures for marking records and disclosing SSI when approved.

References