Talk:Special access program
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
editI'm not sure I understand. they just changed what they call the thing? can this article be clearer? was there real confusion at the time between black=secret and black=african american? 9090 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Move?
edit- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Special access program or Special Access Program? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lower-case, I think. Without having any more information about the term's usage, I would have to say that it is just a generic description or classification and not a proper name. It's essentially the same as black program, which would not be written with initial caps. •Life of Riley (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article is very inaccurate. Below is a quote from JAFAN 6 that gives the US Government official definition of a SAP:
1-108. Special Access Program Categories and Types
a. Categories. There are three categories of SAPs: (1) Acquisition; (2) Intelligence; and (3) Operations and Support. b. Types. There are two types of service component SAPs, Acknowledged and Unacknowledged. (1) An Acknowledged SAP is a program which may be openly recognized or known; however, specifics are classified within that SAP. An Acknowledged SAP is acknowledged to exist and whose purpose is identified (e.g., the B-2 or the F- 117 aircraft program) while the details, technologies, materials, techniques, etc., of the program are classified as dictated by their vulnerability to exploitation and the risk of compromise. Program funding is generally unclassified. (2) An Unacknowledged SAP’s existence is protected as special access and the details, technologies, materials, techniques, etc., of the program are classified as dictated by their vulnerability to exploitation and the risk of compromise. Program funding is often unacknowledged, classified, or not directly linked to the program.
NOTE: An unacknowledged SAP for which the Secretary of Defense has waived applicable reporting requirements under Title 10 U.S.C. 119(e) is identified as a "Waived-SAP" and, therefore, has more restrictive Congressional reporting.
Guy who works in the SAP world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.117.107 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW my source for the quote is: JOINT AIR FORCE - ARMY – NAVY Manual Special Access Program Security Manual 20 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.117.107 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Big Edits
editI'm making some rather large changes to the article. Among other things, I'm removing the current introduction. It's an interesting anecdote and I hope to work it back into the article, but for now I think a more descriptive and less historical introduction would be better.
Special Access Programs (SAP) and special access budgets (SAB) are the Pentagon's terminology when used to refer to black programs and black budgets, respectively.[1] The terms were devised and put into circulation in the late 1980s during Ronald Reagan's presidency when Californian Democratic Representative Ronald V. Dellums wearied of voting against "black programs"/"black budgets" and constantly explaining that these programs referred to covert projects and accounting rather than programs for African-Americans. He succeeded in persuading his colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee's Research and Development Subcommittee to adopt the SAP and SAB phrases in their stead.[1] The Pentagon and the NSA followed suit.[1]
--VAcharon (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c "A Revision in Jargon", The New York Times, p. 12, 1989-02-28