Defense Department Overclassifies Memo On Avoiding Overclassification
from the check-that-out dept
It's no secret that the US government is often way too secretive. More specifically, it seeks to "overclassify" documents to keep them secret when there's little reason that they should be. While this may stem from the natural reaction of governments to stay secret, this can have some pretty serious consequences. In fact, there are reasons to suggest that some of our intelligence failings, including the failure to prevent 9/11, came from a lack of communication due to overclassification. Partly to deal with this, President Obama signed the Reducing Over-Classification Act, which required various parts of the federal government to (you guessed it) reduce over-classification. As part of implementing this, federal inspectors general are supposed to "evaluate" the classification policies of the organizations.The folks over at NextGov note the irony that the Defense Department's memo (pdf) concerning its IG's evaluation of its over-classification issue was itself classified as "For Official Use Only" (FOUO). Now, to be fair, FOUO documents are still considered "unclassified," so you could argue that this isn't really about overclassification. But, it certainly seems to go against the spirit of the effort, which was to encourage greater information sharing and make it easier for the public to remain informed as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defense department, overclassification
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But there is a bright side: at least those internal memos didn't cost taxpayers $27,000 per sheet.
Of course, there's no way to invalidate this claim. The information has been deemed "classified".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overclassification
The party in the first part shall hereby be adjoined to the first party in the second part as the first party in the third part...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oops. I knew that... but total brainfart. Fixed. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Classified as lame. And RE-writing it plumbs new depths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
To properly honor Mike, I propose "Masnick Defect" as term for out-of-bounds self-aggrandizement such as years of trying to turn a single quip into fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Classified as lame. And RE-writing it plumbs new depths.
I propose "Online Blue Balls Syndrome" as a term for "outlandish jealousy over another's success online to the point where the fixation dominates their life so thoroughly they never get laid".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overclassification is inevitable.
If you mark something at a lower classification than you should, you (potentially) committed a security violation and bring a big S--- storm down upon yourself. It's a huge pain that kills days of productivity and can cost you your security clearance.
If you overclassify something, essentially nothing happens. It's potentially a little harder to work with the material (as you may need to use a more secure room/computer), but that's about it.
So in this world, the default worker reaction is to mark it as the highest potential classification and avoid the massive headache for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overclassification is inevitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In all reality though, overclassification of documents isn't some sort of government conspiracy to hide everything. It's a side effect of the classification system itself. You have MUCH larger problems from underclassifying something than overclassifying. Classification can ALWAYS be downgraded, and many times, people classify something at the highest rate they can just to play it safe. Upgrading a classification isn't really realistic. Once it's on an unclassified system, then upping the classification is an excercise in ignoring reality, not protecting information.
Honestly, as much as it pains me to admit it, I'm kind of agree with ootb on this one. The article is quite lame. However, I'll chalk that up to people not really knowing the realities of the classification system :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But that it happens is routinely used by government agencies to hide things purely because they indicate wrongdoing of some sort or they would outrage the public.
That's the problem. Secret documents should be the exception, not the norm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyways, internal department memo's are always FOUO. At least, I've never seen one without that classification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm. Are you aware that it's SOP that documents obtained through the FOIA have most all personal information redacted anyways? That makes your justification kind of moot (and circular).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2012 Ig Nobel prize (Literature)
LITERATURE PRIZE: The US Government General Accountability Office, for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports.
(See URL http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/ )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DoD policy on paper in general
Naturally, the way we were supposed to suggest a form be removed was by filling out a new "paperwork reduction suggestion" form.
I wasn't fast enough to do the obvious, but I was fast enough to win a bet on it. The form vanished within two weeks (light speed for DoD admin). I would love to see the form suggesting its own removal, but I'm certain it was FOUO.
This story would have been better if the memo had actually been classified--and most documents about classification are classified--but I agree it still fits the fossilized culture of secrecy.
Some things change over time, some things don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Historically, it is possible that FOUO meant other things at other times, hence the confusion.
In current practice, FOUO indicates that information within the document may be subject to FOIA Exemptions 2-9. As far as FOIA review for releasability goes, this is a meaningless appellation. All documents that are requested under FOIA are reviewed for any exempt information. So FOUO means nothing with regard to information sharing or openness to the public.
It is purely an instruction for internal handling. It tells the reader that "this document has some sensitive stuff in it, but nothing that might be a threat to national security." In other words, "handle with care."
FOUO is not a classification in the same category as Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Those markings indicate that the information contained therein is a matter of national security. That's what people are talking about when the term "overclassification" is thrown about.
So, no, this isn't a case of overclassification. It's not even really a case of being overly sensitive. In Mike's defense, half the government thinks FOUO is a meaningful classification, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you will find a similar push in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOUO and Public Release
Seriously, you have to send everything through a public relations review before you can send anything out for general public consumption. I've had to do so several times for technical presentations created while working at JPL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]