2 ms·

I was cleared for 40 years. Now I'm retired. This has always been the policy. Unless the documents have been declassified, then access controls remain in eff

I was cleared for 40 years. Now I'm retired. This has always been the policy. Unless the documents have been declassified, then access controls remain in effect, and maybe you've got a clearance, but maybe not access or need-to-know, so it would be unauthorized access, which is a security violation.

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> This has always been the policy. To the best of your understanding, what is the unambiguous, demonstrable way this policy benefits the nation? What are the gains that outweigh the cost of decades of doltish enforcement? I am asking because of all the potential benefactors I can come up with, none of them are the American public. I'm hoping your experience can provide some unforeseen nuance.
- PJDK 1y ago
  I don't know for sure (not in that world) but wouldn't this make sense from a compartmentalisation perspective? You have a person that knows X and a person that knows Y, but knowing both X and Y is vastly more valuable. To keep things secure you ban the X group from knowing about Y things regardless of how they found out. It's going to produce absurdities sometimes, but the basic principle makes sense.
  - kmeisthax 1y ago
    [dead]
  - anonymousiam 1y ago
    You've hit on part of what I think the reason may be. The C in SCI is "compartmentalized" (or "compartmented" depending upon what era you're from). Keeping information separated reduces the damage from compromise, but also prevents cleared people from seeing the big picture, which might confront the viewer with some ideological conflicts, and make them more likely to leak. Both Boyce and Snowden leaked because of their ideological opposition to what they saw. The truth is that "we" (the "good" guys) are doing the same rotten things that the "bad" guys are doing, and being part of that world can make you feel soiled. If "we" chose the high road and didn't stoop the level of the "bad" guys, it would put "us" at a competitive disadvantage. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/history-today-articles/03%202018/12MAR2018%20Reading%20Gentlemens%20Mail.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/decla... To survive, you need to rationalize what you see against your own values, and have a mix of patriotism and respect for the rules. There's an ever-present danger of becoming corrupt within this culture. I've never been an "ends justify the means" sort of person, but most CIA/NSA people I've met are.
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  It's a good question. Authoritarian governments will generally never admit errors or mistakes. The policy may not benefit the American public, but it does benefit the American Government in many ways. Obviously this is in conflict with "by the people, for the people, of the people."
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    > The policy may not benefit the American public, but it does benefit the American Government in many ways. Coincidentally, this is the same way I describe National Security - except I include major campaign donors in the receiving column.

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago

> This has always been the policy. To the best of your understanding, what is the unambiguous, demonstrable way this policy benefits the nation? What are the gains that outweigh the cost of decades of doltish enforcement? I am asking because of all the potential benefactors I can come up with, none of them are the American public. I'm hoping your experience can provide some unforeseen nuance.

PJDK 1y ago
I don't know for sure (not in that world) but wouldn't this make sense from a compartmentalisation perspective? You have a person that knows X and a person that knows Y, but knowing both X and Y is vastly more valuable. To keep things secure you ban the X group from knowing about Y things regardless of how they found out. It's going to produce absurdities sometimes, but the basic principle makes sense.
- kmeisthax 1y ago
  [dead]
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  You've hit on part of what I think the reason may be. The C in SCI is "compartmentalized" (or "compartmented" depending upon what era you're from). Keeping information separated reduces the damage from compromise, but also prevents cleared people from seeing the big picture, which might confront the viewer with some ideological conflicts, and make them more likely to leak. Both Boyce and Snowden leaked because of their ideological opposition to what they saw. The truth is that "we" (the "good" guys) are doing the same rotten things that the "bad" guys are doing, and being part of that world can make you feel soiled. If "we" chose the high road and didn't stoop the level of the "bad" guys, it would put "us" at a competitive disadvantage. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/history-today-articles/03%202018/12MAR2018%20Reading%20Gentlemens%20Mail.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/decla... To survive, you need to rationalize what you see against your own values, and have a mix of patriotism and respect for the rules. There's an ever-present danger of becoming corrupt within this culture. I've never been an "ends justify the means" sort of person, but most CIA/NSA people I've met are.
anonymousiam 1y ago
It's a good question. Authoritarian governments will generally never admit errors or mistakes. The policy may not benefit the American public, but it does benefit the American Government in many ways. Obviously this is in conflict with "by the people, for the people, of the people."
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > The policy may not benefit the American public, but it does benefit the American Government in many ways. Coincidentally, this is the same way I describe National Security - except I include major campaign donors in the receiving column.