Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Keeping (More) Secrets

Some news on the Pentagon and its penchant for secrecy.

* First up: The Washington Post story referenced earlier today, which addresses the National Security Archive's work on the retroactive classification of U.S. strategic missile totals.

rummy.jpg

Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department, said the Pentagon excised the missile numbers. Under a 1998 law, Wilkes's agency focuses on scrubbing declassified documents for sensitive U.S. nuclear weapons information that, in the wrong hands, could be used to harm Americans, he said.

"It's not our call to do missile data," Wilkes said. "There's no question that current classified nuclear weapons data was out there that we had to take back," he added. "And in today's environment, where there is a great deal of concern about rogue nations or terrorist groups getting access to nuclear weapons, this makes a lot of sense."

I should stress here that the numbers in total have in some cases been part of the public record for decades.

* Next: A new Defense Department "information security/website alert," issued Aug. 6, as noted by Eric Umansky and others. It restates what can't be posted on .mil sites:

ALTHOUGH NOT A FINITE LIST, SUCH INFORMATION INCLUDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TECHNICAL INFORMATION, OPERATIONAL PLANS, TROOP ROTATION SCHEDULES, POSITION AND MOVEMENT OF U.S. NAVAL CRAFT, DESCRIPTIONS OF OVERSEAS MILITARY BASES, VULNERABILITY OF WEAPON SYSTEMS OR DISCUSSION OF AREAS FREQUENTED BY U.S. PERSONNEL OVERSEAS. SPECIAL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO IDENTIFICATION OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD FACILITATE CIRCUMVENTION OF DOD, COMPONENT OR COMMAND POLICIES, RULES, REGULATIONS OR OTHER SIGNIFICANT GUIDANCE (E.G., ORDERS, MANUALS, INSTRUCTIONS, SECURITY CLASSIFICATION GUIDES).

A lot of that makes infinite sense, but there's enough generic language there to give anyone, anywhere in the military, the leeway to restrict just about anything. And they do just that.

The new web alert also has this to say on military blogs:

PERSONAL BLOGS (I.E., THOSE NOT HAVING DOD SPONSORSHIP AND PURPOSE) MAY NOT BE CREATED/MAINTAINED DURING NORMAL DUTY HOURS AND MAY NOT CONTAIN INFORMATION ON MILITARY ACTIVITIES THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SUCH INFORMATION INCLUDES COMMENTS ON DAILY MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS, UNIT MORALE, RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, STATUS OF EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO ADVERSARIES.

* Finally, this story, on how one of the great champions of a sane government secrecy policy has been compelled, under something of a legal threat from the Department of Homeland Security, to pull a "for official use only" document from the web.

UPDATED 8/22/06:
Reader "DC Loser" asks a good question:

Does this mean that all those reference documents and textbooks sitting in my basement with the ICBM numbers (1,054 under SALT I) are now classified? Am I going to lose my clearance because of this? What am I going to tell them on my next poly?

-- Dan Dupont

Comments

Does this mean that all those reference documents and textbooks sitting in my basement with the ICBM numbers (1,054 under SALT I) are now classified? Am I going to lose my clearance because of this? What am I going to tell them on my next poly?

Posted by: DC Loser at August 22, 2006 06:45 AM


As someone who works science and technology issues on the inside of the DOD, I have two things to say to Rummy and his disclosure policies:

1) Everything listed in paragraph 2 of that website alert easily falls under established categories of classified information, so they shouldn't be publically available anyway.

2) I will stop offering my take on S&T and acquisition policy on blogs the day that Rumsfeld wears a suit made of GAO, CBO, and CRS reports critical of Pentagon policy.

DOD information control rules are pendantic at best, robbing Americans of their tax dollars at worst. Classification power is not a blank check.

Posted by: Robot Economist at August 21, 2006 06:58 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.