General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

44. Terminology nitpick

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:47 PM

Jun 2013

A classification is something applied to a thing. A document can receive a classification of Top Secret.

A person receives a security clearance. That allows that person to see things that have a classification. Someone with a Top Secret clearance can view a document with a Top Secret classification.

The instructions for what things are classified are in classification guides. The guides are published by the major entities that deal with classified information. For example, there's a DoD guide, from which Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps guides are created.

Each derivative classifier (such as the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence) sets up a program to investigate people for the purpose of granting security clearances. To again use the DoD example, DISA does security clearance investigations.

The Wikipedia entry on "Classified Information in the United States" and related articles are surprisingly detailed and thorough.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm waiting a bit before forming a solid opinion on this NSA mess. [View all] MineralMan Jun 2013 OP

Same here, thanks for articulating this so well. emulatorloo Jun 2013 #1

I guess I'm too old to believe that instant judgments make sense. MineralMan Jun 2013 #2

"I can't do anything about it, anyhow" kentauros Jun 2013 #6

Well, that's always a consideration. All of these programs MineralMan Jun 2013 #9

Yes, we should still express our opinions to them. kentauros Jun 2013 #12

Absolutely. We should express informed opinions, MineralMan Jun 2013 #15

I agree with the waiting part. kentauros Jun 2013 #17

Whatever Cruz says will be listing heavily to starboard. MineralMan Jun 2013 #20

I'd say for him the boat's been capsized to starboard! kentauros Jun 2013 #23

Certainly I would not expect any positive change from ... ananda Jun 2013 #39

Well, that makes sense. MineralMan Jun 2013 #40

We've been burned too many times by speculative "Instant Analysis" in the media emulatorloo Jun 2013 #7

It's not just DU, of course. It's the Internet. MineralMan Jun 2013 #10

Agreed. But of course the factual info won't get media airtime, only the bullshit speculations. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #3

True. Factual information, however, can be weeded MineralMan Jun 2013 #4

Always wise liberal N proud Jun 2013 #5

It's always tempting to jump into such things with MineralMan Jun 2013 #8

I agree whole heartedly. janlyn Jun 2013 #11

I doubt we'll ever know what's really going on. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2013 #13

That is most certainly true. No matter how much MineralMan Jun 2013 #16

It could be a carefully controlled plan at this time and it is quite possible that the NSA doesn't.. spin Jun 2013 #14

Actually, Nixon did exactly that, given the technology MineralMan Jun 2013 #18

I'm with you. Better to wait and allow this to unfold before jumping on either bandwagon. n/t Avalux Jun 2013 #19

agreed RainDog Jun 2013 #21

Yup. Everyone should stop and consider before posting. MineralMan Jun 2013 #22

But what fun is that? nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #24

I'm waiting until 2016 Autumn Jun 2013 #25

hear hear creon Jun 2013 #26

Meanwhile Greenwald can take this to the bank flamingdem Jun 2013 #27

The 24/7 news cycle... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #28

I have concerns mick063 Jun 2013 #29

Another Classic Example... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #30

There are also thoughtful threads on DU, not just emotional ones. MineralMan Jun 2013 #32

A very measured OP. I think before the end of the week we will have a much msanthrope Jun 2013 #31

Good points! I agree! DrewFlorida Jun 2013 #33

Oh, you and your whole "not jumping to conclusions" thingy... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #34

I know. I should be waving my arms around. MineralMan Jun 2013 #35

One of my favorite lines from M*A*S*H Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #36

This bit of doggerel comes to mind: MineralMan Jun 2013 #37

Exactly what I've been thinking. Thank you for Raven Jun 2013 #38

Me too. moondust Jun 2013 #41

You seem a good person to ask... DURHAM D Jun 2013 #42

Terminology nitpick jeff47 Jun 2013 #44

So the Director of National Intelligence is likely DURHAM D Jun 2013 #47

See my explanation below, as a reply to your original question. MineralMan Jun 2013 #48

Not directly, but he set up the system under which such people can receive clearances. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #49

Typically, the organization in question makes the final decision. MineralMan Jun 2013 #45

Do you think the FBI is actually involved in granting clearance DURHAM D Jun 2013 #50

The FBI recommends for or against the clearance. MineralMan Jun 2013 #51

Well said; nicely played. longship Jun 2013 #43

The only thing new is this guy was able to find an interesting PowerPoint presention. DCBob Jun 2013 #46

I hope you will consider my piece in developing a clearer picture. It takes into account facts... stevenleser Jun 2013 #52

Thanks. I'll have a look at it. MineralMan Jun 2013 #53

Me, too. I have to admit I haven't really kept up on this newest "scandal". kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #54

Well, so far there hasn't been that much to keep track of. MineralMan Jun 2013 #55

Same here. His interview was weird, but also compelling so I too will apples and oranges Jun 2013 #56

So far, I don't think they reveal anything that violates MineralMan Jun 2013 #57

Thanks for this post Mineral Man. Everyone NEEDS to read this post and do a lot of thinking. Auntie Bush Jun 2013 #58

This is not one of the things that I tend to get instantly outraged over Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2013 #59