Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Some classified information not so secret


WASHINGTON (AP) — Wanna hear a secret? The U.S. and Canada are probably going to remain friends. And the conservative and liberal party leaders in England? They don't like each other.

But keep that under wraps. The U.S. doesn't want that sort of sensitive information getting out for a decade or so.

While the recent leak of government documents onto the website WikiLeaks has revealed government secrets on such topics as Iran, North Korea and Yemen, the disclosure also unmasked another closely guarded fact: Much of what the government says is classified isn't much of a secret at all.

Sometimes, classified documents contained little more than summaries of press reports. Political banter was treated as confidential government intelligence. Information that's available to anyone with an Internet connection was ordered held under wraps for years.

Days after President Barack Obama's inauguration, the White House received a classified message from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa. It was a primer for the president's upcoming trip to Canada and it included this sensitive bit of information, marked confidential:

"No matter which political party forms the Canadian government during your Administration, Canada will remain one of our staunchest and most like-minded of allies, our largest trading and energy partner, and our most reliable neighbor and friend."

The document could not be made public until 2019, for national security reasons.

Such non-secrets have a cost. The more stuff the government classifies, the more money it takes to keep it all concealed. The government spent at least $9 billion keeping classified information under wraps last year, and that doesn't include the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and others that keep their spending on classified information classified.

Most Americans can do little but take it on faith that those secrets are actually worth keeping. And advocates for open government say that when too much is classified, it makes it harder for the government to cry foul when legitimate secrets are leaked.

"The problem is, we've got a system that keeps way too much that is secret, and as a result we can't protect the real secrets nearly as well," said Thomas Blanton, the director of the National Security Archives, a private research institute at George Washington University. "And the stuff we really need to know is buried under a mass of trivia."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley would not discuss specific cables such as the one discussing Canada's friendship. But generally, he said, "I haven't seen any strong evidence there's an abuse of the classification system in the cables I've seen."

The U.S. can classify documents if they "could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security."

In March 2009, U.S. officials in England attended the spring political conference of the Liberal Democrats. The event was widely covered in the British media, but the U.S. Embassy's summary, a combination of speech excerpts and hallway chatter, was labeled classified.

Among the revelations: Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg and Conservative David Cameron "don't get along." Besides being politically obvious, this tidbit was available at any newsstand in England.

The British press has reported that Clegg dubbed Cameron "the con man of British politics." Cameron dismissed Clegg as a "joke" and privately called him "Calamity Clegg."

Information sometimes is classified to protect a source, even when that source has said all the same things publicly. In September 2009, British Treasury chief Alistair Darling warned the U.S. Embassy in London of political backlash if banks handed out huge bonuses. On the economy, Darling "remained cautious, but expected a return to growth by the end of the year," a diplomatic message said.

Weeks earlier, Darling told the Guardian newspaper the same thing. He was cautiously optimistic about the economy, he said, and expected growth "round the turn of the year." And as one of the government's leading critics of bank bonuses, Darling's opposition to them was hardly a state secret.

By comparison, this would be like the British Embassy in Washington sending a classified note to London this week saying Republican Rep. John Boehner wanted tax cuts or Obama wanted to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.

Sometimes, U.S. diplomats conducted no interviews and the classified messages appeared to be simply rehashed media reports. In October 2009, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow sent Washington a message titled "Is Stalin's Ghost a Threat to Academic Freedom?" It described government efforts to recast Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's place in history.

The details in the cable had been widely covered in the media, including an Agence France-Presse story that ran just days earlier under the headline "Russian historians fear crackdown on sensitive research." Even the term "Stalin's ghost" was used in news stories leading up to the diplomatic cable, which was marked classified until 2019.

In a few instances, diplomats classified information lifted directly from the news. After the failed assassination of Saudi Arabia's assistant interior minister, the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh sent a message to Washington that included these classified sentences:

"According to today's edition of Okaz, the suspect managed to make his way from Yemen into Saudi Arabia some weeks ago, and finally rented a furnished apartment in Jeddah," the cable said. "We anticipate that such reports will inevitably spur some introspection into how well the security services are patrolling the Asir region."

A summary of a political speech in the U.K.? Classified. The consensus from leading sociologists that Russia missed an opportunity to invest in the middle class? Classified. A diplomatic report saying Brazil is a strong democracy and a U.S. ally on foreign policy? Classified.

Sometimes, a document is classified even if it has no classified information in it. In January, the State Department asked the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, for information on a reported plot to assassinate Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc.

Every paragraph was marked unclassified.

The document was classified.

Some classified information not so secret - KOINLocal6.com (http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/national/story/Some-classified-information-not-so-secret/VbUbZpmf6kWntQImpCLXhg.cspx)

Job security involved here?

The government spent at least $9 billion keeping classified information under wraps last year.

Where do I ask for my refund? I say let's sue Assange for 9 Billion dollars (pinky to the lip for full effect).

So how much more money do you think they'll ask for to prevent Wikileaks in the future?

This whole Wikileaks thing might turn out to be for the benefit of the nation. At some point, an enemy nation might get serious about destroying our computer systems. Now it's a bunch of geeks attacking. Maybe someone will get serious about looking for ways to prevent this in the future.

Some classified information not so secret


WASHINGTON (AP) — Wanna hear a secret? The U.S. and Canada are probably going to remain friends. And the conservative and liberal party leaders in England? They don't like each other.

But keep that under wraps. The U.S. doesn't want that sort of sensitive information getting out for a decade or so.

While the recent leak of government documents onto the website WikiLeaks has revealed government secrets on such topics as Iran, North Korea and Yemen, the disclosure also unmasked another closely guarded fact: Much of what the government says is classified isn't much of a secret at all.

Sometimes, classified documents contained little more than summaries of press reports. Political banter was treated as confidential government intelligence. Information that's available to anyone with an Internet connection was ordered held under wraps for years.

Days after President Barack Obama's inauguration, the White House received a classified message from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa. It was a primer for the president's upcoming trip to Canada and it included this sensitive bit of information, marked confidential:

"No matter which political party forms the Canadian government during your Administration, Canada will remain one of our staunchest and most like-minded of allies, our largest trading and energy partner, and our most reliable neighbor and friend."

The document could not be made public until 2019, for national security reasons.

Such non-secrets have a cost. The more stuff the government classifies, the more money it takes to keep it all concealed. The government spent at least $9 billion keeping classified information under wraps last year, and that doesn't include the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and others that keep their spending on classified information classified.

Most Americans can do little but take it on faith that those secrets are actually worth keeping. And advocates for open government say that when too much is classified, it makes it harder for the government to cry foul when legitimate secrets are leaked.

"The problem is, we've got a system that keeps way too much that is secret, and as a result we can't protect the real secrets nearly as well," said Thomas Blanton, the director of the National Security Archives, a private research institute at George Washington University. "And the stuff we really need to know is buried under a mass of trivia."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley would not discuss specific cables such as the one discussing Canada's friendship. But generally, he said, "I haven't seen any strong evidence there's an abuse of the classification system in the cables I've seen."

The U.S. can classify documents if they "could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security."

In March 2009, U.S. officials in England attended the spring political conference of the Liberal Democrats. The event was widely covered in the British media, but the U.S. Embassy's summary, a combination of speech excerpts and hallway chatter, was labeled classified.

Among the revelations: Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg and Conservative David Cameron "don't get along." Besides being politically obvious, this tidbit was available at any newsstand in England.

The British press has reported that Clegg dubbed Cameron "the con man of British politics." Cameron dismissed Clegg as a "joke" and privately called him "Calamity Clegg."

Information sometimes is classified to protect a source, even when that source has said all the same things publicly. In September 2009, British Treasury chief Alistair Darling warned the U.S. Embassy in London of political backlash if banks handed out huge bonuses. On the economy, Darling "remained cautious, but expected a return to growth by the end of the year," a diplomatic message said.

Weeks earlier, Darling told the Guardian newspaper the same thing. He was cautiously optimistic about the economy, he said, and expected growth "round the turn of the year." And as one of the government's leading critics of bank bonuses, Darling's opposition to them was hardly a state secret.

By comparison, this would be like the British Embassy in Washington sending a classified note to London this week saying Republican Rep. John Boehner wanted tax cuts or Obama wanted to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.

Sometimes, U.S. diplomats conducted no interviews and the classified messages appeared to be simply rehashed media reports. In October 2009, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow sent Washington a message titled "Is Stalin's Ghost a Threat to Academic Freedom?" It described government efforts to recast Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's place in history.

The details in the cable had been widely covered in the media, including an Agence France-Presse story that ran just days earlier under the headline "Russian historians fear crackdown on sensitive research." Even the term "Stalin's ghost" was used in news stories leading up to the diplomatic cable, which was marked classified until 2019.

In a few instances, diplomats classified information lifted directly from the news. After the failed assassination of Saudi Arabia's assistant interior minister, the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh sent a message to Washington that included these classified sentences:

"According to today's edition of Okaz, the saeuspect managed to make his way from Yemen into Saudi Arabia some weeks ago, and finally rented a furnished apartment in Jeddah," the cable said. "We anticipate that such reports will inevitably spur some introspection into how well the security services are patrolling the Asir region."

A summary of a political speech in the U.K.? Classified. The consensus from leading sociologists that Russia missed an opportunity to invest in the middle class? Classified. A diplomatic report saying Brazil is a strong democracy and a U.S. ally on foreign policy? Classified.

Sometimes, a document is classified even if it has no classified information in it. In January, the State Department asked the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, for information on a reported plot to assassinate Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc.

Every paragraph was marked unclassified.

The document was classified.

Some classified information not so secret - KOINLocal6.com (http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/national/story/Some-classified-information-not-so-secret/VbUbZpmf6kWntQImpCLXhg.cspx)

Job security involved here?

There are millions and millions of secret documents so I'm sure you can easily find the outliers like this, especially from people working for the State Department. It's their job to comment about economic, diplomatic, social, financial , etc facets. What's wrong with agreeing with the press when the diplomat agrees with the press, and disagreeing when they disagree? It's the government's business to know the difference, not the public's.

But like I said, it has less to do with WHAT is said than what it reveals about other things. And I can tell you that the person who wrote that article has no clue what those "other" things are.

Finally, Secret and Confidential are such a low level of classification that if you picture a whole bunch of concentric circles, this level of document is way out in the outter level with regard to being "meaty." It's not meant to be earth shattering. But even though it's the least "meaty" info, it still has to be protected for other reasons. And then of course you can find a few that are clearly written by a lazy analyst. But a few out of millions and millions is something like .000001 %.

Like I've said a few times in other threads, you either overshoot or undershoot when dealing with intel. When you undershoot, or underclassify, you risk more PFC Mannings. When you overshoot, you risk being accused of not having enough interdepartmental eyes to connect the dots. Remember after 9/11 how the intel community was accused of not connecting the dots?

It's about trading off. There is no such thing as perfecting. It's about a pendulum that swings.

duplicate

This whole Wikileaks thing might turn out to be for the benefit of the nation. At some point, an enemy nation might get serious about destroying our computer systems. Now it's a bunch of geeks attacking. Maybe someone will get serious about looking for ways to prevent this in the future.

Ah ha! Now you've said something I totally agree with RDS. Although the damage already done cannot be underestimated, Secret level documents are not the ones that scare me with Assange. It's the more sensitive ones that could do GRAVE damage. And this does need to get people's attention before it gets to that. In the consulting world we have a term called "information assurance" which many consultants believe the government is way behind the 8 Ball on. I've worked with many technical folks who've tried to warn senior people in big agencies about our IA weaknesses, but it takes a crisis to get people's attention. So I agree in one aspect with your post.

Personally, I think we need some type of cyber police force....as in bigger than whatever it is we're doing now.

Personally, I think we need some type of cyber police force....as in bigger than whatever it is we're doing now.
Your always talking about economic damage, that's what I'm thinking of. Screw the classified material when it's possible to shut down our entire banking and communication system.

It's about trading off. There is no such thing as perfecting. It's about a pendulum that swings.

It appears to me that the point of the article is that there is a lot of mindless and needless rubber stamping of material and classifying it. And we spend a lot of money protecting things that are already public knowledge and hardly a security risk. And this was just gleaned from the "leaks" that were released.

This whole Wikileaks thing might turn out to be for the benefit of the nation. At some point, an enemy nation might get serious about destroying our computer systems. Now it's a bunch of geeks attacking. Maybe someone will get serious about looking for ways to prevent this in the future.

I propose that they put TSA in charge of protecting our computer systems. :wink5:

I propose that they put TSA in charge of protecting our computer systems. :wink5:

They've probably already ordered the computer X ray equipment to look for the secret documents.

Your always talking about economic damage, that's what I'm thinking of. Screw the classified material when it's possible to shut down our entire banking and communication system.

And I see it as all interrelated. :) Among the different things I was doing in Iraq, for example, part of it had to do with banking, communications, and the economic system there and the interrelationship with the insurgency....and winning hearts and minds...... it's all connected. When Petreaus talks about conducting counterinsurgency versus counter terrorism, that's what's meant. In foreign affairs, national defense, economic systems, and international finance....it's all one great big spider web.

In fact, even I've been surprised to hear Chairman of Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen announce in the past year....and again today that he considers debt to be a threat to national defense.

It appears to me that the point of the article is that there is a lot of mindless and needless rubber stamping of material and classifying it. And we spend a lot of money protecting things that are already public knowledge and hardly a security risk. And this was just gleaned from the "leaks" that were released.

I've been dealing with classified information at various different levels since 1981 and I absolutely disagree with the author that Secret documents are "a lot of mindless and needless rubber stamping." In fact it makes those of us used to seeing the breadth of it laugh when some reporter writes such stuff. And again, the best stuff is classified in all those levels above Secret. If you want a good assessment of this world, google everything General Michael Hayden, former Director of both NSA and CIA has to say about anything to do with intelligence. In all my years of watching the leadership, to me, this guy was the smartest one we've ever had. His analysis, in my opinion, is almost always spot on about anything.

I propose that they put TSA in charge of protecting our computer systems. :wink5:


They've probably already ordered the computer X ray equipment to look for the secret documents.

And I propose we put you, RDS, and Mikey in charge. You guys would weed out the deadwood people, processes, and equipment in a heartbeat :) I'm kinda kidding on one hand but on another I'm not....I think cops make really good managers/prioritizors because you're so well trained at sifting thru the BS and getting right to the heart of things....which comes from having to know so much about so many things in your line of work.

I've been dealing with classified information at various different levels since 1981 and I absolutely disagree with the author that Secret documents are "a lot of mindless and needless rubber stamping." In fact it makes those of us used to seeing the breadth of it laugh when some reporter writes such stuff. And again, the best stuff is classified in all those levels above Secret. If you want a good assessment of this world, google everything General Michael Hayden, former Director of both NSA and CIA has to say about anything to do with intelligence. In all my years of watching the leadership, to me, this guy was the smartest one we've ever had. His analysis, in my opinion, is almost always spot on about anything.

Classifying the summary of a political speech made in the UK is important to our national security?

I certainly haven't had your experience in classified documents, but I'm not a babe in the woods either, I had some in the 60's when assigned to S-2. Perhaps the government has gone through some huge metamorphosis since then and no longer engages in CYA and doing everything the easiest way possible, (e. g classifying material without even reading it). But I sure saw some of that going on then. That's why that article rang a bell with me. The intel community can get away with a lot of stupidity because of the nature of the beast. And Wikileaks doesn't appear to just be exposing important security matters, but also some of that inane behavior. It's a b!tch when you lose that impunity you've always had.

I can imagine a policy in place where every diplomatic cable is automatically classified no matter what the content. Of course, I don't know that's what's happening, but based on the way they do everything else, it make perfect sense.

And I don't care how much they're defended, common sense isn't rampant in government. They do things the easy way and that's not synonymous with cost effective way. Medicare is class example. If a private insurance company operated with the same cost safeguards in place, they would be bankrupt in a couple of months. Anyone who has worked even close to administration hears at least a couple of times a year, "We need to spend this money or we'll lose it".

On some level who cares if they classify a speech made in British Parliament as secret or even confidential except for the costs of doing silly stuff like that. And I realize a lot people think tax money is free money. The only time government worries about money is when they run out. The feds just borrow more then and other government levels raise taxes, no big deal.

I firmly believe that folks doing the peoples' work should have the best equipment available to do their job. That includes police, fire, water departments, etc. But so much money is wasted in goofy contracts (remember the $10,000 toilet seat from the late 60"s?), administrative costs or just doing something the easiest way possible such as classifying every document coming across your desk instead of using common sense.

There's a lot available for the government to learn from this Wikileaks episode. Let's see if they do.

With this latest group of leaks related to diplomatic cables being released that give the world the views of those inside the USG (specifically the State Dept) on the rest of the world, I think Saturday Night Live said it best a week or 2 ago where this fiasco is basically akin to the USG accidently hitting the "Reply to All" button.

What's also scary is, according to CBS news, they've only released 1/2 of 1% of the diplomatic cables they have. How the hell did they get so many????

Classifying the summary of a political speech made in the UK is important to our national security?

I certainly haven't had your experience in classified documents, but I'm not a babe in the woods either, I had some in the 60's when assigned to S-2. Perhaps the government has gone through some huge metamorphosis since then and no longer engages in CYA and doing everything the easiest way possible, (e. g classifying material without even reading it). But I sure saw some of that going on then. That's why that article rang a bell with me. The intel community can get away with a lot of stupidity because of the nature of the beast. And Wikileaks doesn't appear to just be exposing important security matters, but also some of that inane behavior. It's a b!tch when you lose that impunity you've always had.

I can imagine a policy in place where every diplomatic cable is automatically classified no matter what the content. Of course, I don't know that's what's happening, but based on the way they do everything else, it make perfect sense.

And I don't care how much they're defended, common sense isn't rampant in government. They do things the easy way and that's not synonymous with cost effective way. Medicare is class example. If a private insurance company operated with the same cost safeguards in place, they would be bankrupt in a couple of months. Anyone who has worked even close to administration hears at least a couple of times a year, "We need to spend this money or we'll lose it".

On some level who cares if they classify a speech made in British Parliament as secret or even confidential except for the costs of doing silly stuff like that. And I realize a lot people think tax money is free money. The only time government worries about money is when they run out. The feds just borrow more then and other government levels raise taxes, no big deal.

I firmly believe that folks doing the peoples' work should have the best equipment available to do their job. That includes police, fire, water departments, etc. But so much money is wasted in goofy contracts (remember the $10,000 toilet seat from the late 60"s?), administrative costs or just doing something the easiest way possible such as classifying every document coming across your desk instead of using common sense.

There's a lot available for the government to learn from this Wikileaks episode. Let's see if they do.

Yep, government never does things with optimal efficiency, which is why I've talked at length on this forum about being a Republican, about wanting smaller government, dissing socialistic thinking, about disliking this Administration, and about allowing people to keep their money instead of taxing them more and giving it to government. But as I also said in another thread, security is the one absolute job of government and all the rest is debatable. So if knowing govt is never the most efficient, yet I believe govt is the only one that can handle national security, it would follow that even I would have to put up with a certain amount of inefficiency in the national security arena, wouldn't it? Sure I'd love to demand that an aircraft carrier satisfy all my demands and be able to carry awesome power AND be able to turn around on a dime, but I just ain't going to get it. I'd like to cut 100% inefficiency out of security operations but you can't cut all the fat out without cutting muscle. You have to be realistic and push for something in the 90 percentile range. In some cases 99%, some cases 95%, etc.. You can keep pushing for cutting inefficiency, which as an economist is one of my forte's, but you can't reach 100% when the government is involved, and not in the corporate world either for that matter, cause I'm used to doing it there too.

And then there's the aspect that what may seem completely unclassified to you and Kimble on the surface, doesn't always track in reality.

As for WikiLeaks, there's not one thing anyone will learn from WikiLeaks on the intel side. As I've said adnoseum, the debate goes back and forth in govt all the time about what it is you're trading off when you settle on one particular policy. There is ALWAYS a tradeoff. The only thing WikeLeaks is going to cause is 1) the extensive damage it's causing to include DoD admitting that a scary amount of their sources are drying up, which means more troops get killed in an operation instead of less, and that bad guys are starting to figure out who's ratting them out, putting them at risk, 2) everything is going to become more secretive, more closed off - doing the OPPOSITE of what the techno-anarchists claimed their goal was, and 3) dry up loads of potential informants in the future who will now think twice about trusting the US with their secrets.

And the people who are doing something wrong that leads to CYA are always the ones who are more paranoid than the rest anyway, and usually think to themselves, "better not put this in writing." You see it in the corporate world as well. No, everything about WikiLeaks is disgusting. Today I hear their supporters are shutting down police sites in the Netherlands. Let's see how police feel once it starts affecting their operations.

What's also scary is, according to CBS news, they've only released 1/2 of 1% of the diplomatic cables they have. How the hell did they get so many????

I think it's all part of the WOT strategy to give troops as much raw intelligence as possible. You see what they consider "classified" so imagine the same bureaucrats making decisions about what the field troops don't need to know.

By the same reasoning, they don't restrict access to front line units. Where I think they failed is that these documents are apparently unencrypted and untracked. Technology exists that would have given this person all the access and also alowed him to take copies for remote access but at the same time prevented him from sharing those documents. Everyone has seen those RSA keys that fit on a keyring. Those documents should have authenticated every view and logged every access. Typically this level of encryption isn't authorized for all classified info but it beats "in the clear". And adding authentication makes it possible to revoke access. With the amount of computing power available today, there is no need to ever store SIPRNET level information in the clear. Keep the thumb drives for front line folks, just make sure the person accessing the data has his key generator and password. They don't need network access for that, just the key generator and their password. Assange should have inherited just a bunch of encrypted docs that he had no method of decrypting.

http://www.rsa.com/company/news/kit/logos/photos/images/SID700_120w.jpg
http://www.rsa.com/company/news/kit/logos/photos/images/SID800.gif

One other thing that might be relevant is that it's not just the information.

"Operation Deark Heart" book is an example. I think one of the redactions was about the NSA intercepting phone calls. Everyone knows the NSA intercepts phone calls. But as a method of intelligence it is apparently classified under a very broad umbrella to the point where they don't even acknowledge it. It seems silly but they just draw the line so it pushes the debate back to before it becomes an issue.