Defense Department Overclassifies Memo On Avoiding Overclassification

from the check-that-out dept

Tue, Dec 4th 2012 11:58am — Mike Masnick

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

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:14pm

Devil's Advocate
In fairness, I've seen behavior like this purely because FOUO is the default classification. I remember the terms FOU and For Public Consumption (FPC), and all FPC documents went past editors and whatnot, whereas FOU could be riddled with typos and racist jokes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:15pm

This article would have been hilarious if TD could support black bars without the use of an image.

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 thread ]
Wally (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:17pm

Overclassification
This really sounds like a contract made by Groucho Marx...

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:20pm

FOUO is 'For Official Use Only', not 'For Office Use Only'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:21pm

Re:
Well technically Mike could use the strike through feature throughout the text :-) I think it's the closest thing we've got to seeing a redacted document ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:27pm

Re:
FOUO is 'For Official Use Only', not 'For Office Use Only'

Oops. I knew that... but total brainfart. Fixed. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:42pm

Classified as lame. And RE-writing it plumbs new depths.
And now a personal note for Modest Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick:
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 thread ]
AC12, 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:49pm

Overclassification is inevitable.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:55pm

Re: Overclassification is inevitable.
Oh with that said, FOUO really just means it's for internal use only (depending on the agency).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 12:57pm

You do realize that FOUO basically means "This is an official government document". Hell, half the time, it doesn't even mean THAT much.

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 thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:00pm

Re: Classified as lame. And RE-writing it plumbs new depths.
Ohh. Are we coining new phrases now? Lemme try.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:09pm

AC #10 here. AC12 (post 8) went into a bit more detail than I did, and is right. Underclassifying information is really really REALLY bad for your job status. Overclassifying isn't. Hence, people overclassify to cover their ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digitari, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re:
Part of my tour in the Marines I was an NWPL (Naval warfare publications library) clerk. The only unclassified section was on nuclear weapons, all the material had been stolen and revealed to the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:15pm

Re:
In all reality though, overclassification of documents isn't some sort of government conspiracy to hide everything.

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 thread ]
VMax, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:22pm

Re:
FOUO does not just mean "This is an official government document". FOUO documents cannot be left out on the desk when the user is away. It cannot be shared with the public. If you think this is the case and you work for a Government agency or contractor, I would suggest taking you yearly security review.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:26pm

Call me crazy, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the classification of that memo. It's clearly fouo because that one paragraph at the bottom of page one is fouo. You know, the one with the name and email address whited out? I'll bet that because the paragraph (and by extension the document) was fouo, when this document got foi'd, it was really easy for whomever whited that out to find exactly what they had to white out. Seems like this is a perfectly organized piece of bureaucratic literature. I'll bet with the number of combined man hours that went into producing it, it cost the american tax payer at least $5000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:31pm

Vmax, yes, there IS more to FOUO than just "official government document", but not much more. That was supposed to be an obvious exaggeration, but apparently that fell flat.

Anyways, internal department memo's are always FOUO. At least, I've never seen one without that classification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:37pm

yep, after literally two seconds of wikipedia research, i have verified that the document absolutely deserved to be FOUO'd. If you go to the wikipedia page for FOUO, it says that unclassified information may be exempt from FOIA 'under exemptions two through nine of the Freedom of Information Act'. And if you look those up on the FOIA page, exemption 6 says, 'personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'. So because there was a name and an email address, the memo got FOUO to protect the person from a bunch of jokers on the internet once this thing got FOIA'd. Doesn't that seem fair?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:39pm

Re:
if you think that there is 'not much more' to FOUO, see my comments above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:51pm

Re:
So because there was a name and an email address, the memo got FOUO to protect the person from a bunch of jokers on the internet once this thing got FOIA'd.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2012 @ 1:56pm

Re: Re:
No, I don't know any SOPs from any government anything. Was that SOP FOIA'd? If so, I hope the PII was scrubbed out (snicker). But seriously, I imagine that all the FOIAd stuff you're seeing where the PII was scrubbed probably *should* have been FOUO, and simply wasn't, due to crappy lazy government employees failing to do their jobs. Maybe I'm wrong though...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RonKaminsky (profile), 4 Dec 2012 @ 2:07pm

2012 Ig Nobel prize (Literature)
A bit reminiscent of the 2012 Ig Nobel prize in 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 thread ]
Aztecian (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 6:25am

DoD policy on paper in general
I can't help it. This reminds me very much of a new policy that came out while I was on active duty (about an eon and a half ago)to reduce the number of forms in use.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 8:43am

There is a lot of misinformation about the meanting of FOUO, both within and outside the governement.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Dec 2012 @ 5:49pm

Im taking a little bit of a leap here, but the US and Aus use similar classification systems and in Aus Unclassified has been removed and replaced with FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY... which really means the same thing anyway.

I think you will find a similar push in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mister anderson (profile), 6 Dec 2012 @ 9:17pm

FOUO and Public Release
Here's something that you may not realize: everything created by the government (or government contractors, in some cases) is FOUO, unless there is a reason to classify the material. What does this mean? Not much really, just that it has to go through the proper channels (e.g. scrubbing for personal data, ITAR, etc.) before it is released to the public.

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 thread ]