5 ms·

Schneier links to a Wikipedia article about Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and explains that he wanted to speak to the members of Congre

Schneier links to a Wikipedia article about Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and explains that he wanted to speak to the members of Congress in such a facility, but could not do so because he is denied access to such facilities as someone without the appropriate security clearances. And that puzzled me, and prompted me to read the Wikipedia article after reading Schneier's blog post submitted here, because I had been told years ago, when I definitely did not have the appropriate level of clearance for a SCIF (as I have never had and probably never will have) that I did have access to a special hearing room for one of the congressional intelligence oversight committees. I was inside the room at the time, with foreign visitors. (I was there as the interpreter for the foreign visitors.) I saw the hearing room back in the 1980s, as I recall, as part of a people-to-people program funded by the United States government that brought over people from other countries to look at how society works in the United States. The look inside the secure room was part of learning about how intelligence agencies in the United States are overseen by Congress. It was represented to us that when the room in the Capitol was closed up, it was impervious to any then-known form of surveillance. So now what Schneier says has me puzzled about whether or not there is any level of secure room between what he calls a "regular room" and a room that a United States citizen can only enter with a very high level of security clearance. It seems to me that there ought to be some kind of in-between room like that, precisely for meetings like the one Schneier just had. That would be better for effective congressional oversight, I think.

phaus 13y ago
There are standard processes in pretty much every government organization for escorting uncleared personnel into a SCIF. The fact that they chose not to in this case might indicate that they aren't taking this seriously.
- ENGNR 13y ago
  Or they're not taking the NSA's need for secrecy very seriously
- RyJones 13y ago
  Or that one wasn't open. Schedule tetris for Congresspeople and a SCIF might be a hard problem.
- blazespin 13y ago
  Or a) they wanted to record the conversation b) they wanted to keep the meeting off the books.
- cjfont 13y ago
  I can confirm this is true, as I've been escorted into SCIFs before I obtained a clearance.
- skiffydiffy56 13y ago
  Or that the NSA wanted to listen in, and this was just an excuse given so that a secure room would not be used. In fact, the whole thing could have just been an elaborate way to glean what's in the Snowden documents.
ef47d35620c1 13y ago
The whole security clearance thing is rather over-rated. Many people are immediately disqualified during the background investigation because they missed a payment on something once, or changed jobs too often, or were arrested, yet never convicted of a crime. So the fact that someone does not qualify for a security clearance says very little about them as a person.
- phaus 13y ago
  There are people that have filed for bankruptcy that managed to get a TS. It would be highly unusual to be rejected for missing a single payment, provided you are current while the investigation is going on. It would also be extremely unlikely that one gets rejected for changing jobs frequently, unless one of your former employers alleged misconduct of some sort.
  - ef47d35620c1 13y ago
    They explicitly allow for bankruptcy, but not other poor credit issues.
- genericuser 13y ago
  The security process in my experience is very much about how much of what they find you were forthcoming with and announced on the forms. If you missed a payment there is a section of the background paperwork you fill out proving information on it. It is very likely you would be denied if you left that section blank and had a missed payment, or if you changed jobs, or addresses very often and did not list all of them with proper references so they could verify them. But you will be denied basically because you lied not because of the missed payment or address changes.
- eli 13y ago
  Fun fact: you can actually read the transcript of rulings on clearance decisions for DoD contractors: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2013.html http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2013.html It's true that many people are denied because of their finances, but it's not as cut and dry as you might think. You also have to wonder what some of these people were thinking. That the DoD wouldn't notice you're on probation and a drug user?
gizmo686 13y ago
I only have a passing knowledge of how data security is handled by the government, but I suspect that the fact that they are discussing classified material which Schneier should not have access to may make using an SCIF more bureaucratically challenging.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  Looking at the comment section, Schneier writes: "My guess is that because I am untrusted, I might plant a bug in the SCIF. So it's less that I'm not allowed in, and more that if I was allowed in they would have to re-SCIF the place."
  - e12e 13y ago
    One would think that re-scif-ing procedures already was in place, though? It would be hopelessly naive to not re-check such rooms?
timsally 13y ago
> So now what Schneier says has me puzzled about whether or not there is any level of secure room between what he calls a "regular room" and a room that a United States citizen can only enter with a very high level of security clearance. There are. Schneier has it wrong unfortunately (or at least, was misinformed). You can enter a room approved for classified information without a clearance, you just must be escorted by someone who does have one. I've been in such a room myself without a clearance. I imagine what you were told about a special hearing room for one of the congressional intelligence oversight committees was true then and is still true now. There is an unfortunate amount of misinformation flying around and it really detracts from what might otherwise be a productive discussion. I hope Schneier takes a but more time to double check his assertions in his next post.
- jvdh 13y ago
  Schneier, a non-governmental security researcher, was asked by the representatives to hold a meeting with them. He suggested to hold it in a secure meeting room. They tell him that he's not allowed in there. And you're blaming Schneier for his assertions?

phaus 13y ago

There are standard processes in pretty much every government organization for escorting uncleared personnel into a SCIF. The fact that they chose not to in this case might indicate that they aren't taking this seriously.

ENGNR 13y ago
Or they're not taking the NSA's need for secrecy very seriously
RyJones 13y ago
Or that one wasn't open. Schedule tetris for Congresspeople and a SCIF might be a hard problem.
blazespin 13y ago
Or a) they wanted to record the conversation b) they wanted to keep the meeting off the books.
cjfont 13y ago
I can confirm this is true, as I've been escorted into SCIFs before I obtained a clearance.
skiffydiffy56 13y ago
Or that the NSA wanted to listen in, and this was just an excuse given so that a secure room would not be used. In fact, the whole thing could have just been an elaborate way to glean what's in the Snowden documents.

ef47d35620c1 13y ago

The whole security clearance thing is rather over-rated. Many people are immediately disqualified during the background investigation because they missed a payment on something once, or changed jobs too often, or were arrested, yet never convicted of a crime. So the fact that someone does not qualify for a security clearance says very little about them as a person.

phaus 13y ago
There are people that have filed for bankruptcy that managed to get a TS. It would be highly unusual to be rejected for missing a single payment, provided you are current while the investigation is going on. It would also be extremely unlikely that one gets rejected for changing jobs frequently, unless one of your former employers alleged misconduct of some sort.
- ef47d35620c1 13y ago
  They explicitly allow for bankruptcy, but not other poor credit issues.
genericuser 13y ago
The security process in my experience is very much about how much of what they find you were forthcoming with and announced on the forms. If you missed a payment there is a section of the background paperwork you fill out proving information on it. It is very likely you would be denied if you left that section blank and had a missed payment, or if you changed jobs, or addresses very often and did not list all of them with proper references so they could verify them. But you will be denied basically because you lied not because of the missed payment or address changes.
eli 13y ago
Fun fact: you can actually read the transcript of rulings on clearance decisions for DoD contractors: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2013.html http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2013.html It's true that many people are denied because of their finances, but it's not as cut and dry as you might think. You also have to wonder what some of these people were thinking. That the DoD wouldn't notice you're on probation and a drug user?

gizmo686 13y ago

I only have a passing knowledge of how data security is handled by the government, but I suspect that the fact that they are discussing classified material which Schneier should not have access to may make using an SCIF more bureaucratically challenging.

gizmo686 13y ago
Looking at the comment section, Schneier writes: "My guess is that because I am untrusted, I might plant a bug in the SCIF. So it's less that I'm not allowed in, and more that if I was allowed in they would have to re-SCIF the place."
- e12e 13y ago
  One would think that re-scif-ing procedures already was in place, though? It would be hopelessly naive to not re-check such rooms?

timsally 13y ago

> So now what Schneier says has me puzzled about whether or not there is any level of secure room between what he calls a "regular room" and a room that a United States citizen can only enter with a very high level of security clearance. There are. Schneier has it wrong unfortunately (or at least, was misinformed). You can enter a room approved for classified information without a clearance, you just must be escorted by someone who does have one. I've been in such a room myself without a clearance. I imagine what you were told about a special hearing room for one of the congressional intelligence oversight committees was true then and is still true now. There is an unfortunate amount of misinformation flying around and it really detracts from what might otherwise be a productive discussion. I hope Schneier takes a but more time to double check his assertions in his next post.

jvdh 13y ago
Schneier, a non-governmental security researcher, was asked by the representatives to hold a meeting with them. He suggested to hold it in a secure meeting room. They tell him that he's not allowed in there. And you're blaming Schneier for his assertions?