Talk:Classified information/Archives/2013

Sources to Create a Better Wikipedia Article on Classified information in the United States

I recommend using the article "Ex Security Guard releases Confidential Information to Chinese Government" I find this article to be very relevant because it talks about how the classified information can be taken from a source event though the person who took it did not possess the required access. This security guard lost all of his savings in the stock market and in a desperate frantic to make money he sold classified information to the Chinese government to make money. He was apprehended before he could make the exchange. This source can help improve this article by showing how accessible confidential information can be.

I feel the article "Cyber Warfare stealing Confidential Information" would be a very useful article if some of the points in this source would be used in the arsenal of this article. People and countries are trying to hack in to secret databases and obtain information and if leaked could compromise national security. Nothing in this article contains the information to the article i have posted and should be included because this is very important to the discussion.

I believe the article "U.S. Leaks Is Casting Chill Over" is crucial to this article. The article I am recommending contains very useful and concise information on who has access to such information and the number of people who also have access. The article is trying to limit the number of people who have access to confidential information in order to prevent the spread of such information.

References

Schwartz, J. (2012, August 12). Ex Security Guard releases Confidential Information to Chinese Government. Los Angeles Times.

Paula, D. (2012, August 28). Cyber Warfare stealing Confidential Information. New Strait Times

Brody, J. E. (2012, August 1). U.S. Leaks Is Casting Chill Over. The New York Times.

Festiveloki (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Corporate classifications

Rather than jump in and edit again, I'll talk about the change I'm tempted to make: edit the term "uncleared" from the phrase about the Macintosh project, since Apple did not require background checks before letting people participate in the project. I was going to change it to say you had to be on the project to have access to the information, and that didn't involve "clearance" so much as an attribute of the group you worked with.

On the other hand, there was perhaps a tiny group of people outside the project who were granted access to information about it - this is "need to know" rather than "clearance" since access depended on a job's requirements (or Jobs' requirements, pardon the pun) and not on background checks. user:Cryptosmith Sept 19, '05

It's not unusual for the person in charge (perhaps Mr. Jobs) to hand pick the people who will have access, sometimes after a personal interview and a review of their personnel folder. So in that sense the person is pre-cleared. It's not like any engineer on the project who needs support from someone outside is allowed on their own say to let others in on the secret. But I agree with your original point that corporate systems are generally a pale shadow of government classification systems. --agr 04:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

tcsec

This page seems really incomplete without any reference to computing and the TCSEC (Trusted Computing System Evaluation Criteria) --- the old "Orange Book" and "Rainbow Series" standards.

However, I'm wont to add those myself (User:JimD The canonical site for TCSEC is: http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/process/faq-sect4.html (currently down? --- use Google cache?

request for info

How likely is it for a U.S. citizen to be rejected? What are the top reasons for rejection?

A: Likelihood or "probability" of being able to obtain a clearance is directly inversely proportional to behaviors that are discovered by the investigation that lead the organization investigating your clearance to believe you may be compromised or intimidated into breaching your clearance. For example, if you have affairs and cheat on your spouse, that would negatively influence the investigators... howevever, what would be worse would be to LIE about it and then get caught lying.

Security investigators understand that no one is perfect. The decision to grant a clearance below the Top-Secret level is essentially routine - a check of your credit history to ensure you are not delinquent/bankrupt and a check of employment and a few references. Top-Secret and/or access to highly specialized or sensitive information requires extensive investigations. They will talk with essentially everyone you know to attempt to get a picture of you. This information is used to get a sense of the loyalty you will demonstrate in keeping sensitive national security information secret.

In terms of the "top reasons" - I'd suggest that in looking at cases of denial, this seems to be the order:

a) Way too much debt. 99% of spies sell secrets for money. If you are in debt up to your eyeballs, and cannot manage the load, it is unlikely you can obtain a high-level clearance.

b) You're into kinky stuff and you lie about it. Okay - so you like to have sex with hookers in clubs - fine... but then you lied about it on your application. What this says to investigators is that "when push comes to shove - I'm going to cover my own ass - forget the government."

c) They cannot verify key information. I knew about a case of a guy who couldn't get a clearance because he essentially lived in a mud-hut in Africa for about five years. It was virtually impossible to confirm this - thus, no clearance. The reasoning I presume is that they couldn't know if he was telling the truth or a sleeper spy... thus, don't take the chance.

d) the "kinky" stuff you're into is waaaaaaay too kinky! Okay if you confess in your lifestyle polygraph that you like to have sex with cows and pigs while wearing your batman costume - the investigators may decide they'd rather not have you running around with the nuclear codes... Now if you're married and you and your wife like to play in leather - that's fine. I'd say after the Hansen case - where that guy was so over the top in terms of weirdo sexual stuff - that anyone who is getting a lifestyle poly is going to have to answer sex questions.

Active or inactive... what is the difference? When and how does one convert to the other?

A: Active means it is currently in effect. If you have a need for a clearance and your background check is successful - you get an active clearance. Inactive means you had a clearance but may no longer be in a position that required it - thus, your clearance was suspended. For example - you have a TS but no longer need it in your job - you might be TS inactive and just have a secret. Also, clearances must be reinvestigated to remain active - secret every 10, TS every 5. If you leave a job that required you to have a clearance - and it goes inactive - you have 5 years to "reactivate it" without having to go through the reclearance process. TS clearances I believe expire 2 years from date of inactivity.

In a job description, what do "SAR clearance will be required" and "Ability to obtain secret/SAR clearance required" mean?

A: SAR? Never heard of that. Lots of people use different words to describe essentially the same things - if I had to guess, its probably a TS/SCI or SAPS type clearance - special access program... so you get the clearance procto... everything you ever thought was private will be known to the government.

SAR means "special access required", i.e. a special access program clearance

Does "confidential/SCI" or "secret/SCI" exist? Maybe in theory but not in practice? If it does not exist (either way), then shouldn't "top secret/SCI" be listed above "top secret"?

A: First of all - SCI is not a caveat. SCI stands for sensitive compartmentalized information and it describes the type of information that is being classified. SCI is essentially intelligence or highly specialized program information. You are also confusing sensitivity (confidential, secret, TS) with caveats (NOFORN, LES, etc.) Does information at the confidential and secret levels of sensitivity that is SCI information exist? Yes.

TS/SCI clearances are not "Above" TS. TS clearances allow you access to collateral TS information. TS/SCI usually refers to intelligence or other sensitive special programs. SCI background investigations determine if you can have access to that information.

If you have clearance, to what degree can you discuss that fact? It can go on a resume, right?

A: The fact you have a clearance is not classified in an of itself. You can usually state (and you find yourself routinely stating) your highest clearance level and date of adjudication. For example, if you have a TS you can say - TS/SSBI Adjudicated 01/01/2001.

What you cannot and should not dois discuss WHY you have a clearance and what you work on. Your projects and their status are usually highly sensitive - discussing it is generally not a good idea in about 99.9% of cases. In general, most employers are just interested in that the ink on your clearance is dry - they will verify that with the security service who did the background check.

Where can topics requiring clearance be discussed? If a pair of engineers wanted to discuss work while swimming far out in the ocean, would that be fine? How about at a sleazy hotel?

A: Having a security clearance is having a license to handle sensitive information. You cannot discuss classified information in unclassified channels or areas. Classified information must be handled or discussed in classified settings. The most common situation is to be in what is known as a "SCIF" - secure compartmentalized information facility or a security compartment. In addition, you can't talk classified-shop over unclassified media - cellphones, etc. Classified phones, faxes, video, etc. is required to handle classified information. So unless the ocean is scif'ed or the sleazy hotel has a "tank" to have classified discussions - I'd say you're breaching your security agreement.

65.34.186.143 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not give declassified documents in examples, such as NSArchiv : the secrecy level is written (Secret), the Special Access Program (OPTIMIZE TALENT), the "Special Access Required", and caveats (Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals). Here all is in full text.

I think that a list of caveats may be helpful.

• WNINTEL (Warning Note : INTELligence source/methode involved) : contain information that might compromise the source
• PROPIN (PROPrietary INformation involved ) : contain "private" information that might compromise the source
• NOFOR (NOt releasable to FOReign nationals) : non-U.S. people can't have access to that document, whatsover their nationality and their clearance in the U.S..
• NOCONTRACT (NOt releasable to CONTRACTors/consultants) : private contractors with U.S. gov. can't have access to that document, whatsover their clearance in the U.S.
• ORCON (ORiginator CONtrolled) : the "emitter" of the document controls the doc's distribution
• LIMDIS (LIMited DIStribution)
• NODIS (NO DIStribution)
• Eyes only : distribution is stricly limited to the addressee specified on the document

Other type of classified information :

• • CNWDI (Critical Nuclear Weapons Design Information) : DoD's data about nuclear weapons
  • L : DoE's data about nuclear projects
  • M et N : US Navy Special operations
  • SI (Special Intelligence) : ELINT
  • TK (Talent Keyhole) : Satellite intelligence
  • BYEMAN : Technical intelligence programs such as (IDEALIST - U-2, OXCART - A-12, KENNAN - KH-11, etc.)

Rob1bureau 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Classification versus Clearance

Someday when I have time I want to edit this article so that it makes a clearer distinction between classifications and clearances.

This is one of the problems you run into when talking "poly" as being a sort of security marking. It's a property of a clearance investigation and does not indicate a classification (sensitivity) level.

The difference is subtle but makes a lot of things easier to understand. Cryptosmith

COSMIC

User 84.54.166.36 has twice added to the intro of this article: "COSMIC TOP SECRET is the top NATO secret. COSMIC TOP SECRET is a set of topics related to predictions for the future and related to the corresponding contacts leading to such predictions. (See also below)."

I don't want to get into a revert war, but this does not belong in the intro section (there are many code words discussed in the article, COSMIC is no more important than the others) and I am not sure what "topics related to predictions for the future and related to the corresponding contacts leading to such predictions" is supposed to mean (intelligence and intelligence sources perhaps?) or why that should be considered particularly significant. I also question whether COSMIC TOP SECRET is limited to such information. Some reference would be helpful. --agr 10:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I work for NATO and have a COSMIC TOP SECRET ATOMAL clearance. Although I've never needed to see such material, as far as I am aware the COSMIC word has no particular significance - it basically means NATO TOP SECRET. It certainly isn't restricted to certain types of information - if it were, NATO would presumably have other TS material without the COSMIC designation, which it doesn't. -- ph. 18 Sep '05.

I had access to COSMIC material at one time. I can confirm it simply means "NATO" and is only applied to Top Secret information. Whether that is NATO crypto or NATO publications at the TS level.

Anyone know what the origin of the COSMIC designation comes from and/or why that term was chosen? Is it an acronym? 71.65.115.103 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixing spellings

Is it OK to fix misspelled non-English words in the "foreign equivalents" section, if they appear misspelled in the original US military document? I think it's more important for them to reflect the terms various governments actually use, than to reflect the way Merkins spell them, but I'm not fully certain. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Several people have done so already. The authors of the U.S. Government document did not have non-English characters at their disposal, while we have Unicode. The original entry for Greece had this creative attempt to approximate Greek in Roman characters (with the corrected Wikipedia entry below):

AKPNE AIIOPPHTON - AIIOPPHTON - EMIIIETEYTIKO -  IIEPIPIEMENHE XIIHEEDE
Άκρως Απόρρητον - Απόρρητον - Εμπιστευτικόν - Περιορισμένης Χρήσης

But plain errors apparently have been fixed and there are additions as well. So perhaps this is another example of Wikipedia, through the power of cooperative editing, becoming more authoritative than traditional sources. --agr 11:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Egypt, and I can say that the word 'Jirri Lilghaxeh' makes no sense. You probably want 'Sirri Lilghaya'. I have no idea what a 'Mehoud' is, probably a misspelling of 'Mahdood', and 'Jidden' (It's actually pronounced with an 'a' not e) means 'very' which doesn't sound right just by itself. ~M.M~

World view

While it is true that a large proportion of this article deals with U.S. practice, there is quite a bit on other countries, including a log table of equivalent classification markings in different countries and a East German classified cover page. More would certainly be welcome. I suspect there is much more publicly available information from the U.S. Most countries are fairly tight mouthed about their handling of official secrets. Note that the only interwiki link at the moment is to the German Wikipedia, and that article is quite short. Specific suggestions of where to find information from other countries would be more helpful. --agr 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

For someone interested in (writing about) European Union classifications - the relevant legislation is (CELEX numbers) 32001D0264, 32004D0194, 32005D0078, 32005D0094, 32005D0571. It is all publicly and freely available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/ - select your language, choose Simple Search (or the equivalent in your language), CELEX number.

Higher classifications

I removed 'Higher classification levels may include Secret Restricted Data French [1] or Eyes Only.' "Secret Restricted Data" is a U.S. marking for nuclear information and is discused in the U.S. article. I am not aware "Eyes only" has any legal significance; in any case my understanding is that it's not a classification, just a handling instruction. --agr 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this (I'm the author). Eyes only, I know it by two sources: James Bond title (never watched the movie) and ⅩⅠII. Reply to David Latapie 19:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on punctuation

There seems to be an edit war in process over the right way to cite some place names. Perhaps the participants could discuss their concerns here and try to reach a consensus. --agr 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me try. The table originally comes from the U.S. Gov's NISPOM manual and I would guess that the Hong Kong entry dates from when it was a British colony. It would help if someone knew if Hong Kong uses markings different from what the People's Republic of China uses. Perhaps Hong Kong should go altogether to be replace by the PRC. As for the spelling of country names, I would propose we spell country names exactly the way Wikipedia spells them in the primary article about the country,(e.g Egypt) and then make them links. Finally, for situations where there are two different versions of the marking, I would suggest we use a "
" tag to put them on separate lines. This would eliminate unnecessary horizontal spacing in the table.--agr 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong is still governing on its own except for matters related to diplomatic relations and national defence. It has its own court of final resort, and common law remains in force. The information, no matter if it was taken from an old source, still applies. It's not necessary, and is incorrect to be replaced by that of the PRC.

The dispute with the article was around how Hong Kong should be presented, so as to acknowledge the fact that the PRC holds its sovereignty, while at the same time not to confuse readers to have a wrong impression that it's like other ordinary subnational entities. — Instantnood 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a footnote to the table be more effective? Perhaps something like: "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. See main article for details.--agr 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe having its listing follows by People's Republic of China in brackets is already adequate. The same can be done to those that are not sovereign state, for example, "Greenland (Denmark)", "Isle of Man (UK)" or "Puerto Rico (US)". — Instantnood 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, but your examples do not, as far as I know, have a system for marking classified documents separate from their sovereign. If, in fact, that is true of Hong Kong it might deserve a more explicit note. On the other hand, the fact that Hong Kong is no longer self-governing in regard to diplomatic relations and national defence calls this into question, since these are the usual subjects for classified documents.--agr 20:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the transfer of sovereignty the UK handles the diplomatic affairs and national defence of Hong Kong. There are subjects outside of these areas for classified documents. — Instantnood 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Top Secret Ultra?

In the U.S., is there a "Top Secret Ultra"? That is in the text of Donald Howard Menzel, and in the discussion someone asks if there really is such a classification. Bubba73 (talk), 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Code names are often used with highly classified material to further restrict their distribution. The sample page at the top of the article is stamped "Top Secret Umbra", for example. The "Ultra" code name was used by the British in World War II for certain cryptographic intelligence and is perhaps the most famous code name ever. It is certainly possible the U.S. has reused that name since, but I tend to doubt it. --agr 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, so is that different from a clearance? The article Donald Howard Menzel says What is somewhat unusual about Menzel's case, is that he held the rarefied "Top Secret Ultra" clearance. Bubba73 (talk), 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Having the clearance means you are on the list of people who can be given access to information at that level and with that code name. I looked at the Menzel article and they are talking about the late 1940's, shortly after the Ultra work took place, so it is certainly conceivable he had such a clearance. It is important to note that a major purpose of these code names is to compartmentalize information. Having access to one highly sensitive program does not mean you have access to others. Quite the contrary. The fact that he knew something about U.S. and British efforts to break Axis codes does not mean he would more likely to know about putative secret UFO research.--agr 18:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Move/Merge with "Information Sensitivity"?

classified information is is a subset of sensitive information. having this in two separate articles creates redundancy while merging would increase the relevance. (could make it a monster article though). Iancarter 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose such a move. Per Wikipedia policy: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (WP:NAME) I believe the term "classified information" is far more widely known than "information sensitivity." This is attested to by the hundreds of links to this article under "classified information" or just "classified." It might be useful to have a separate article covering the myriad of restrictions on information that are not considered state secrets e.g. FOUO, court seals, financial data (insider trading), trade secrets, professional privileged, privacy related, and so on, but as it stands right now, the Information sensitivity article is more of an outline than an article. --agr 12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also oppose such a move. As agr's comments: "classified information" is a far more common usage. And merging would likely create a "monster article" that would probably become too large and then need to be split. The information sensitivity article contains lots of great content on the non-government stuff (maybe the "Corporate classification" section of this article should be moved there). johnSLADE (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose moving or renaming the article. I agree with johnSLADE's suggestion that so-called "corporate classified information" get moved to the information sensitivity article. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger of sensitive information with classified information. Classified information is a very narrow focused concept based on protecting national security related information. If we were to merge the classified and sensitive we would have to expand the scope (and therefore focus) of classified information to protect "privacy" information to include medical information and personal identifying information that protects an individual's identity but has nothing to do with national security. I've seen, in the past,where the scope of classified information was expanded to the point where it became an abscract concept rather than an actionable program. (User: SeymourSamuels. 10 January 2008)163.252.21.69 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.252.21.69 (talk)

Colors

Where are the colours atop the table from? 86.128.188.73 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The colors are what the U.S. government uses for each classification (TS-Orange, S-Red, C-Blue, U-Green). I'm too lazy to look for it right now, but you can find the U.S. DoD pub just by searching on Google for U.S. classifications or something like that. Mertens21 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a source for those colors. I've seen a similar color code used in US defense circles to reflect the associated classification levels, but I've also seen the color coding vary from one environment to another. There is arguably a custom, and these colors seem to comply with it, but there isn't really a requirement that particular colors be used. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

MOST SECRET

I was under the impression that the UK did not use TOP SECRET, but MOST SECRET instead.

Not true; the article is basically correct. However, PROTECT is rarely used outside the civilian parts of government, and UNCLASSIFIED has been replaced with NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED on all such material. 86.21.25.167 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

163.252.21.69 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

MOST SECRET was used by the British Government until the USA joined the Second World War. Churchill decided that fighting Hitler was more important than teaching the Americans to write proper English. The UK has been using TOP SECRET ever since. Andrew Swallow (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like "Top Secret" and "Bottom Secret", and I mark my filing cabinet drawers thus.—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Information sensitivity

As this article says, "The act of assigning the level of sensitivity to data is called data classification." These two are about the same topic. Since this one is far better developed, as is attested by the lack of administrative messages on the page, the other should be merged here.

The question of the correct title is separate from merging the information. If the topic belongs at "information sensitivity," then an article move should be requested after merging. —Michael Z. 2007-07-13 22:53 Z

• I reverse my earlier "vote" and VOTE IN FAVOR of merging. I believe the "merger" should consist of deleting the current contents of Information sensitivity and redirecting it here. I believe the material in the other entry is adequately covered by this and other entries. The Information sensitivity remains misleading in some ways despite a few efforts to clean it up. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Per the discussion 2 sections above, maybe we should move Information sensitivity to Sensitive information and use it as a starting point for an article on information that is legally protected but not considered classified. I'd even favor a Sensitive information in the United States article. There is a lot to talk about.--agr (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I disagree with the merger of sensitive information with classified information. Classified information is a very narrow focused concept based on protecting national security related information. If we were to merge the classified and sensitive we would have to expand the scope (and therefore focus) of classified information to protect "privacy" information to include medical information and personal identifying information that protects an individual's identity but has nothing to do with national security. I've seen, in the past,where the scope of classified information was expanded to the point where it became an abscract concept rather than an actionable program. (User: SeymourSamuels. 10 January 2008)163.252.21.69 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree with the merge of both topics. The entire scope of "sensitivity labels or protectively marked material" should be treated as one over arching concept. However, what we do not see is specific enough direction on how this is applied to the civil sector. The military have a variety of reasons for why a number of uniquly defined classifications and sub-classifications are required. The civilian sector do not have the same diverse requirements as the military does. If you employ too many degrees of variation on this theme, it will not work in privatley run corporations. Many companies (inclusive of the highest echelons of the financial services sector) are only now, embracing these ideologies. The arguement for, and the method of application of military standards are clear cut, and will mostly not change for some time. A separate standard (universally accepted as an ISO) needs to be formulated and illustrated in this section, for the benefit of private industry. A contrasting perspective can then be displayed on Wikipedia. This is greatly needed, and will only be adequatley addressed through the merging of both areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.235.194 (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Top Secret

Cosmic Top Secret redirects here. In some sources this is alleged to be the highest secrecy category of NATO, comparable to the equally enigmatic "Secretum Omega" of the Vatican's, again alleged, Intelligence Agency "S.I.V." ("Servizio Informazioni del Vaticano"). If these categories do exist but are supposed to be secret themselves, it would be difficult to procure verifiable information from reliable sources. However, if anybody can produce any admissible information about these classifications, the article would be all the better for it. __meco (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this issue has been the topic of previous sections on this talk page. __meco (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious classifications

One thing I feel that could be added is a viewpoint from religious institutions, such as the various Christian Churches and even non-Christian religious institutions, for instance the Vatican Secret Archives. luokehao. Meco, given what you appear to know about the Vatican, would it be possible for you to add some information about the Vatican to your site, though I would prefer some information and comparison with at least Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and preferably others as well

Sensitive security information

Currently editing Sensitive security information from the wikify project. Learning about this subject has been fun. I find myself thinking this is a lesser form of Top Secret which is then directed to Classified information.

I find no entries in here regarding the Sensitive security information or SSI designation on information. I'm wondering if this should be merged into Classified information or keep the article and refer to it from here.

Comments? --Pmedema (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

SHOUTING

What's with all the SHOUTING in this article? It's an eyesore and unpleasant to read, and it looks like it was written by a deranged person. Just because an online source uses all-capitals is no justification to cut-and-paste it into Wikipedia this way. Article titles in publications are often rendered in screaming, all-capitals, but that's only an attention getter for newspapers and magazines. If the titles are proper nouns or contain proper nouns, they should be rendered in "Title Case", not "ALL CAPITALS".—Quicksilver^{T @} 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the correct formatting of codewords and so on. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 10:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording wrong with the various countries table

The North Korean one all says 익명의 which does not mean anything near confidential nor unknown to the rest of the world(means anonymous and is also wrong grammar. We don't use the adjective form ~의 in standalone words in Korean). If nobody knows what markings are used in NK, how about removing the Korean word? 180.71.95.35 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede needs a global rewrite.

The lede and early sections of this article need to be rewritten somewhat to reflect the fact that classification of information is a global phenomenon, and that the article itself covers the classification schemes of many different countries. bd2412 T 17:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This article is another example of "it's written in English, so it must be about 'Murricah" ignorance. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at the intro. The article started out covering only US practice and has evolved. --agr (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)