Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Government & Policies
Should government agencies be allowed to keep unclassified information secret?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 35% | 64 votes | Total: 181 votes | |
| No | 65% | 117 votes |
Yes
by Marsha Ford
Created on: December 29, 2008
While it would seem simple and even logical to say unclassified information should not be kept secret, I would argue that there are compelling reasons for doing so. The key aspect in determining if information should be kept secret is not ifis classified, but whether or not it is sensitive.'
Information and materials are classified when their content includes information that could directly pose a threat to national security if released. But some information can pose an indirect threat, despite not meeting the standards for being classified. Examples can include seemingly innocent materials like telephone directories or detailed organizational charts. By themselves they do not reveal national security information, but they can - and have been - used to gain access to individuals holding valuable knowledge regarding classified materials and programs. These, and materials like them, have also been used as part of large-scale information gathering, putting together enough unclassified information to obtain important indications about classified programs.
The examples I provide here are not based on imagined scenarios; they come from my actual experiences. As an intelligence investigator in the U.S. Army, I regularly investigated these types of occurrences. In one case I investigated, a local woman would repeatedly approach and start relationships with young soldiers. While in these relationships, she would collect the names and other unclassified information on other members of the men's units. She would also make note of their deployments and any other details she could obtain. She would then sell or provide this information to her country's intelligence organization. By itself, none of the information she provided was classified, but it was enough to provide information on the deployments and personnel involved in classified operations.
The solution might seem to be to make documents like phone directories classified, but this would present its own set of problems. These types of materials need to be readily available to an organization's members, but classified materials require background investigations (initial and recurring), indoctrination briefings and debriefings, established access-control procedures, and enhanced storage security measures. To require these procedures for all personnel and all sensitive materials would be both unwieldy to maintain and prohibitively expensive.
One solution currently used for information that is unclassified but potentially sensitive is the use of a separate type of classification called "Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)." SBU is used specifically to bridge the gap between classified and unclassified, while also working to provide some level of control over such materials. It may not be a perfect solution, but it does serve an important, needed function.
All this is not to suggest that a simple claim of sensitive should be enough to keep any and all information secret. Boundaries must be clearly established and enforced to prevent any government agency from holding information secret simply for convenience or to avoid transparency. But this must also be balanced with the need to ensure that information is not used - even indirectly - to compromise our security.
Learn more about this author, Marsha Ford.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Garrett Anderson
Created on: January 03, 2009
The creation of Frankenstein was an experiment that worked until it didn't work. The good doctor was simply trying to bring the dead to life. In that respect, the experiment was a success. Unfortunately the wrong brain was used. I think of this as Frankenstein's operating system. The problem was that Frankenstein was not socially skilled nor did he understand that ravaging the countryside was unacceptable behavior. His operating system had a design flaw. The tale of Frankenstein is a beautiful metaphor that describes government wonderfully. Unlike our monster though, government acquired it's faulty operating system along the way.
Think of government as an experiment. Before it's creation, the framers of government most certainly asked, "why do we need government?" An astute observer might very well have answered, "for the safety and protection of it's citizens." Someone else might have added, "for freedom from tyranny and runaway taxation." So it was the framers set about to create a government, which at that time, was a a true democracy. It was understood and agreed upon, signed into law by the best and brightest of their time. The United States was born.
The inherent flaw in this design was two fold. Government would long outlive it's creators and the spirit for which it was designed. The second flaw was that government, like Frankenstein, had a faulty operating system. Values held in high esteem, such as virtue, honesty, and truthfulness became optional, suggestive only. As government grew like Frankenstein, it took on a life of it's own. It covered it's shortcomings, lied to it's citizens, made judgments regarding what was right and wrong, and most importantly- it became opaque. It forgot what it's original mission was. It operated in secret because so much of what it did was not above board nor did it want to subject itself to the scrutiny of it's citizens. So it was, this big old Frankenstein operates with impunity. Punishing it's creators and overstepping it's bounds here and abroad.
So if we can ever regain control of this monster we created, we are going to have to demand that it acts within it's original design and becomes transparent. Doing things above board and in good faith. Disclosing things, even the embarrassing ones so that we can analyze what happened and take corrective action. It's not ok to plot and try to kill people. It's not acceptable behavior to hide pork barrel legislation in bills to gain their passage. It's not ok to mislead and obscure people by keeping unclassfied information secret. Telling the truth is what we demand from people, co-workers, children. We ask for the truth so that we can make the best, rational, and informed decisions possible. Acting responsibly, scrutinizing this unholy monster we created can't be accomplished when we allow that monster to make the rules and decide what we need to hear and what we don't. We need, actually, we are entitled to the truth and we should demand it. Government should be acting responsibly, transparent, and above board. Unclassified information should be available to all of us. We bought and paid for it.
One day, truth, honesty, and transparency will matter again. We will grow tired of this Frankenstein we created, running around and ravaging the very people it was designed it to protect. We will demand better performance. One only needs to watch the movie "Frankenstein" to see how this story ends.
Learn more about this author, Garrett Anderson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page >>
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley