Defense Department Overclassifies Memo On Avoiding Overclassification

from the check-that-out dept

It's no secret that the US government is often way too secretive. More specifically, it seeks to "overclassify" documents to keep them secret when there's little reason that they should be. While this may stem from the natural reaction of governments to stay secret, this can have some pretty serious consequences. In fact, there are reasons to suggest that some of our intelligence failings, including the failure to prevent 9/11, came from a lack of communication due to overclassification. Partly to deal with this, President Obama signed the Reducing Over-Classification Act, which required various parts of the federal government to (you guessed it) reduce over-classification. As part of implementing this, federal inspectors general are supposed to "evaluate" the classification policies of the organizations.

The folks over at NextGov note the irony that the Defense Department's memo (pdf) concerning its IG's evaluation of its over-classification issue was itself classified as "For Official Use Only" (FOUO). Now, to be fair, FOUO documents are still considered "unclassified," so you could argue that this isn't really about overclassification. But, it certainly seems to go against the spirit of the effort, which was to encourage greater information sharing and make it easier for the public to remain informed as well.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Devil's Advocate

    In fairness, I've seen behavior like this purely because FOUO is the default classification. I remember the terms FOU and For Public Consumption (FPC), and all FPC documents went past editors and whatnot, whereas FOU could be riddled with typos and racist jokes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    This article would have been hilarious if TD could support black bars without the use of an image.

    But there is a bright side: at least those internal memos didn't cost taxpayers $27,000 per sheet.

    Of course, there's no way to invalidate this claim. The information has been deemed "classified".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

      Re:

      Well technically Mike could use the strike through feature throughout the text :-) I think it's the closest thing we've got to seeing a redacted document ;-)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:17pm

    Overclassification

    This really sounds like a contract made by Groucho Marx...

    The party in the first part shall hereby be adjoined to the first party in the second part as the first party in the third part...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    FOUO is 'For Official Use Only', not 'For Office Use Only'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:42pm

    Classified as lame. And RE-writing it plumbs new depths.

    And now a personal note for Modest Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
    To properly honor Mike, I propose "Masnick Defect" as term for out-of-bounds self-aggrandizement such as years of trying to turn a single quip into fame.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

      Re: Classified as lame. And RE-writing it plumbs new depths.

      Ohh. Are we coining new phrases now? Lemme try.

      I propose "Online Blue Balls Syndrome" as a term for "outlandish jealousy over another's success online to the point where the fixation dominates their life so thoroughly they never get laid".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AC12, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:49pm

    Overclassification is inevitable.

    Overclassification is inevitable.

    If you mark something at a lower classification than you should, you (potentially) committed a security violation and bring a big S--- storm down upon yourself. It's a huge pain that kills days of productivity and can cost you your security clearance.

    If you overclassify something, essentially nothing happens. It's potentially a little harder to work with the material (as you may need to use a more secure room/computer), but that's about it.

    So in this world, the default worker reaction is to mark it as the highest potential classification and avoid the massive headache for yourself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:55pm

      Re: Overclassification is inevitable.

      Oh with that said, FOUO really just means it's for internal use only (depending on the agency).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    You do realize that FOUO basically means "This is an official government document". Hell, half the time, it doesn't even mean THAT much.

    In all reality though, overclassification of documents isn't some sort of government conspiracy to hide everything. It's a side effect of the classification system itself. You have MUCH larger problems from underclassifying something than overclassifying. Classification can ALWAYS be downgraded, and many times, people classify something at the highest rate they can just to play it safe. Upgrading a classification isn't really realistic. Once it's on an unclassified system, then upping the classification is an excercise in ignoring reality, not protecting information.

    Honestly, as much as it pains me to admit it, I'm kind of agree with ootb on this one. The article is quite lame. However, I'll chalk that up to people not really knowing the realities of the classification system :p

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      In all reality though, overclassification of documents isn't some sort of government conspiracy to hide everything.


      But that it happens is routinely used by government agencies to hide things purely because they indicate wrongdoing of some sort or they would outrage the public.

      That's the problem. Secret documents should be the exception, not the norm.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      VMax, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

      Re:

      FOUO does not just mean "This is an official government document". FOUO documents cannot be left out on the desk when the user is away. It cannot be shared with the public. If you think this is the case and you work for a Government agency or contractor, I would suggest taking you yearly security review.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:09pm

    AC #10 here. AC12 (post 8) went into a bit more detail than I did, and is right. Underclassifying information is really really REALLY bad for your job status. Overclassifying isn't. Hence, people overclassify to cover their ass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Digitari, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re:

    Part of my tour in the Marines I was an NWPL (Naval warfare publications library) clerk. The only unclassified section was on nuclear weapons, all the material had been stolen and revealed to the public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    Call me crazy, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the classification of that memo. It's clearly fouo because that one paragraph at the bottom of page one is fouo. You know, the one with the name and email address whited out? I'll bet that because the paragraph (and by extension the document) was fouo, when this document got foi'd, it was really easy for whomever whited that out to find exactly what they had to white out. Seems like this is a perfectly organized piece of bureaucratic literature. I'll bet with the number of combined man hours that went into producing it, it cost the american tax payer at least $5000.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

    Vmax, yes, there IS more to FOUO than just "official government document", but not much more. That was supposed to be an obvious exaggeration, but apparently that fell flat.

    Anyways, internal department memo's are always FOUO. At least, I've never seen one without that classification.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:37pm

    yep, after literally two seconds of wikipedia research, i have verified that the document absolutely deserved to be FOUO'd. If you go to the wikipedia page for FOUO, it says that unclassified information may be exempt from FOIA 'under exemptions two through nine of the Freedom of Information Act'. And if you look those up on the FOIA page, exemption 6 says, 'personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'. So because there was a name and an email address, the memo got FOUO to protect the person from a bunch of jokers on the internet once this thing got FOIA'd. Doesn't that seem fair?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

      Re:

      So because there was a name and an email address, the memo got FOUO to protect the person from a bunch of jokers on the internet once this thing got FOIA'd.

      Umm. Are you aware that it's SOP that documents obtained through the FOIA have most all personal information redacted anyways? That makes your justification kind of moot (and circular).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

        Re: Re:

        No, I don't know any SOPs from any government anything. Was that SOP FOIA'd? If so, I hope the PII was scrubbed out (snicker). But seriously, I imagine that all the FOIAd stuff you're seeing where the PII was scrubbed probably *should* have been FOUO, and simply wasn't, due to crappy lazy government employees failing to do their jobs. Maybe I'm wrong though...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    RonKaminsky (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 2:07pm

    2012 Ig Nobel prize (Literature)

    A bit reminiscent of the 2012 Ig Nobel prize in Literature:

    LITERATURE PRIZE: The US Government General Accountability Office, for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports.

    (See URL http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/ )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Aztecian (profile), Dec 5th, 2012 @ 6:25am

    DoD policy on paper in general

    I can't help it. This reminds me very much of a new policy that came out while I was on active duty (about an eon and a half ago)to reduce the number of forms in use.

    Naturally, the way we were supposed to suggest a form be removed was by filling out a new "paperwork reduction suggestion" form.

    I wasn't fast enough to do the obvious, but I was fast enough to win a bet on it. The form vanished within two weeks (light speed for DoD admin). I would love to see the form suggesting its own removal, but I'm certain it was FOUO.

    This story would have been better if the memo had actually been classified--and most documents about classification are classified--but I agree it still fits the fossilized culture of secrecy.
    Some things change over time, some things don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 5th, 2012 @ 8:43am

    There is a lot of misinformation about the meanting of FOUO, both within and outside the governement.

    Historically, it is possible that FOUO meant other things at other times, hence the confusion.

    In current practice, FOUO indicates that information within the document may be subject to FOIA Exemptions 2-9. As far as FOIA review for releasability goes, this is a meaningless appellation. All documents that are requested under FOIA are reviewed for any exempt information. So FOUO means nothing with regard to information sharing or openness to the public.

    It is purely an instruction for internal handling. It tells the reader that "this document has some sensitive stuff in it, but nothing that might be a threat to national security." In other words, "handle with care."

    FOUO is not a classification in the same category as Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Those markings indicate that the information contained therein is a matter of national security. That's what people are talking about when the term "overclassification" is thrown about.

    So, no, this isn't a case of overclassification. It's not even really a case of being overly sensitive. In Mike's defense, half the government thinks FOUO is a meaningful classification, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2012 @ 5:49pm

    Im taking a little bit of a leap here, but the US and Aus use similar classification systems and in Aus Unclassified has been removed and replaced with FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY... which really means the same thing anyway.

    I think you will find a similar push in the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mister anderson (profile), Dec 6th, 2012 @ 9:17pm

    FOUO and Public Release

    Here's something that you may not realize: everything created by the government (or government contractors, in some cases) is FOUO, unless there is a reason to classify the material. What does this mean? Not much really, just that it has to go through the proper channels (e.g. scrubbing for personal data, ITAR, etc.) before it is released to the public.

    Seriously, you have to send everything through a public relations review before you can send anything out for general public consumption. I've had to do so several times for technical presentations created while working at JPL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This