Talk:Information sensitivity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Cleaning up[edit]

  • OK, I've started the first phase of the cleanup. It was a bit of a pain, since it is so hard to edit things embedded in those table definitions. The long term solution might be to take the non-classified descriptions out of the table and paste them into normal paragraphs. A section on "classified information" can link to the real classified information wiki entry and maybe provide a synopsis. Then we can simply delete the table, which, though eye-catching, has problems. Specifically, it is hard to edit (a huge problem for a wiki entry) and it contains unsourced (and probably incorrect) information, like the "clearance levels" which to my knowledge aren't part of the US DOD's clearance process. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Older comments[edit]

this is intentionally kept as abstract as possible while keeping distinct levels of sensitivity based on their "intentions" or "purpose". please explain why you flagged it with "globalize" (although improvement and translation (as in classified information is a good thing)) Iancarter 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically for Improvement & Translation, Also for the colour coding. Feedyourfeet 10:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Editors should take care in using pronouns, especially the pronoun "you", when discussing editorial issues, since multiple people are editing and making comments. A "You" may point to the wrong editor. It's better to depersonalize when talking about issues.
A fundamental problem with the article is that it tries to take the hierarchical structure used for some classified information, the corresponding notion of "levels", and the associated notion of somewhat formal sensitivity descriptions, and apply all this to non-classified information. This is simply wrong. While the article is correct in identifying certain types of sensitive non-classified information, none of these are "levels", nor are they formalized in the same way as a classification level like "Secret". As a first step to correct this situation, the article should follow Wikipedia style guidelines regarding the use of "ALL CAPS" (i.e. don't use them except for acronyms) and provide more descriptive and general definitions of the non-classified sensitivity categories. The article should eliminate the parallel formatting that makes the non-classified categories appear as if they're conceptually similar to classification levels (which they are not). Also, the article should follow Wikipedia guidelines by providing references. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup request[edit]

First of all, I put in a request for sources because the cited sources almost exclusively apply to classified information. The important contribution of this entry is that it talks about unclassified information sensitivity. Unfortunately, there is perhaps one reference ("seal of the confessional") that's not about classified information.

Second, the list of classification levels should be eliminated, and that section redirected to the classified information article. There has been a long-term, ongoing, serious effort there to capture world wide information about classification levels there. I don't want to do that update myself because I don't want to fiddle with the tables and I'm happy to let the article's creator do it if possible.

Third, the article suggests that there are standard, widely-accepted "labels" for the different kinds of sensitive but unclassified information. As someone with a bit of experience in information security, I know this is not true. I think the article has done a good, basic job of categorizing types of sensitive but unclassified information. Those "labels" should be converted into "section titles" that retain the summaries of types of sensitive information. It's important not to say more about the categories that is generally accepted.

Fourth, the article suggests that the series of unclassified sensitivity labels represent a series of ordered levels. The article should be edited to eliminate this suggestion. It doesn't make sense to present these sensitivity labels as if they represent levels. Moving the reference to classification levels will help reduce this implication, which is heavily suggested by using the same visual structure for the unclassified category list and classified level list.

Fifth, as a style thing, I suggest avoiding all caps in the unclassified category names. It suggests that these are formally defined, standardized, and widely-accepted labels for well-defined concepts. This is unfortunately not the case. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sensitive compartmented information[edit]

This article suggests that one must have a Top Secret security clearance to access Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), and that SCI is a higher level of classification than Top Secret, but the article on classified information in the United States says that the security clearance process for accessing SCI is totally separate from the "collateral" security clearance process, and so one might be cleared to access SCI without having any Top Secret clearance at all, or vice-versa. (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Level numbers[edit]

The article Classified information in the United States shows a classification numbering system that has 3 as top secret and 4 as SCI whereas this one as 5 as top secret and 6 as SCI. The numbering schemes appear to be totally different and yet I don't see any explanation as to what each numbering scheme is used for. Is there a mistake in one or the other article or are these indeed different systems. If it is the latter an explanation is appropriate.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) You are correct om noting this difference. The article Classified information in the United States is more correct. First, this article designates all unclassified information as level 1. This makes little sense since it is a rating of classifications. To say all unclassified documents are level 1 classified just seems erroneous. I would say then that everything is knocked down by one level, making it a scale of level 1 to 4. Next, the other article is correct in its definitions of sci as not a level. The levels were created by an executive order. SCI is not in this order. Only the three levels were created. SCI simply means nobody outside of that compartment, or sector, can view the information, regardless of anything. If you are inside the compartment, the documents can still be ranked a confidential, S or TS and you still have to have the correct level to view it. Simply, SCI just limits viewing to only within that group, levels still dictate what you can see, even if you're part of that group. (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no numbering system for classification levels in the US system. This whole article is pure crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Info[edit]

Please view Classified information in the United States. It is a much more accurate article for this info as far as US classifications go. The SCI info is just wrong, theres nothing right about it. It is not "ULTRA secret". This was the SCI codeword associated with the breaking of German intelligence during WW2. It has not been used since the end of the war 64 years ago. Look at the other article for the correct info and if you are going to include info on US levels on this page, please just copy whats there since it is accurate on everything that this article is wrong on, which if frankly quite a lot. (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

SCI stands for "sensitive cleared information". It is often used in conjunction with another clearance level, ie: TS/SCI (top secret clearance with access to sensitive cleared information). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In the US, SCI is Sensitive Compartmentalized Information. It is not a classification level but a badge associated with information deemed to warrant special protection (perhaps it contains a sources' name). Information at any classification level can be marked SCI.

This is correct, SCI is just an additional control system that is inteded to limit information within a specific channel also known as a compartment to only those that need to know due to the sensitive nature of the material. One would be "read into" or indoctrinated into one compartment, upon obtaining at least a minimum favorable interem security clearance investigation and demonstrating need to know, along with signing a NDA and then would be debriefed and reminded of thier obligation to maintain the integrity of learned information upon being removed from the compartment. In otherwords the ULTRA Secret section, lol, is completely bogus and needs to be removed. Refrence: Oh BTW classification levels are always properly expressed in ALL CAPS to the guy above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service[edit]

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)