Talk:List of U.S. security clearance terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Plagiarism anyone?[edit]

A lot of the text is straight up lifted from http://www.clearancejobs.com/security_clearance_faq.pdf Might want to fix that.

134.88.63.238 (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem silly to have a huge list of all the possible combinations of SCI compartments, background checks and polys? There should just be a list of the compartments and then an explanation that access is granted to those compartments as it becomes necessary. Nobody has ever received a "Top Secret-SCI / TK / G / Lifestyle Poly" clearance. This list creates confusion and misrepresents the way SCI works. Anyone else feel this way?

This list apparently came form the source cited and I pulled it out of the Classified information article, in part because I thought it was a mess. If you are up for restructuring it, that would be great.--agr 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This list came from what abovetopsecret.com, which got it from clearedconnections.com? This list almost certainly was created by jobseekers entering their clearance info into a website, which then added every new item into a drop down. There is so much overlap on this list for example TS-SCI, and Top Secret-SCI are the same. TS-CISP is obviously TS w/ Counterinteligence scope polygraph, which is elsewhere on the list. I'm going to start editing.--Jotorious
This list is way too long. I first saw this on abovetopsecret.com a few years ago. I think this should be broken up into two lists. Personell clearances, and information classifications. for instance COMSEC is a briefing given to a person who will then be able to access information with the COMSEC caveat and only if that person already has a SECRET clearance (not interim, you can't get a COMSEC or CRYPTO or most briefings without a final SECRET clearance.) --thatmarkguy
This entire article is a joke. Its a list of words, with no meaning. You are never going to get a real confirmation on any abbrevation that you throw after TS because they are going to be classified at the compartment level themselves - just the words. So you end up with what this article is - a list that has absolutely no meaning - because a) none is even attempted to be given.. and b) there is no such thing as verifable information on active compartements. You can throw up Top Secret SCI/LT/LJ/SA and nobody is going to know if its real or not... and for that matter - even if it is real - its meaningless because there would be no meaning to the fact that its real. (think NFL :))

This article is consistent with current security markings for items of protected information. Agree it won't (and probably shouldn't) list individual compartment designations and meanings, but the vast majority of protected information stays outside those restricted categories. --DeknMike

I used those sources originally for website I was working on but came to much of the same conclusions. To me the issue is there is a difference between SCI access itself, the types of SCIs (TK, etc), the polys passed for additional access to those and the SBBI. My understanding is that the SBBI is now the minimum BI required for a TS clearance thus TS-SBBI is redundant.

So the only actual TS clearances would be

TS TS/SCI TS/SCI with CI Poly TS/SCI with Full-Scope Poly

and then additional specific SCI such as SI, TK, HCS can be added independently. However including those as specific types of clearances (TS/SI, TS/SCI/S) would simply lead to an infinite (well a lot of) permutations that might or might not be repeatable.--msnyc15

New tags[edit]

I just added tags for list cleanup and the self-contradiction. For the former, see the comments in the above thread. For the latter, note that the lists include an entry for ECI, yet the final paragraph states "There is no such thing as ECI." I don't actually know enough to say which is right, so perhaps the "Expert" or "ExpertVerify" tags should be added as well. Perhaps the "cleanup-restructure" tag also goes here (see the comment thread above this one). Honestly, this is one messed-up article, but it's interesting content. —CrazyDreamer 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Classified information in the United States page[edit]

I chopped most of the redundant information out of this page. I personally think this article should be merged with the Classified information in the United States page, or deleted. Jotorious 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

CNWDI, NOFORM, WNINTEL, etc. are document handling caveats and have nothing to do with personal security clearances. Likewise, COMSEC is an SCI compartment and not a handling caveat. ORCON is also a document handling instruction.

The correct acronym is NOFORN (not NOFORM) - this is used to restrict access by Foreign Nationals.

The Byeman compartment within SCI has been phased out[edit]

Proposed changes[edit]

I plan on making the following changes:

  • Less discussion, more lists.
  • Better sourcing. Cull all the "AboveTopSecret.com" stuff and refer to official or scholarly publications.
  • Better focus. Should concentrate on security clearance terms, not classification in general.

--VAcharon (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignorants?[edit]

I cleaned up some paragraph breaks and minor punctuation, but I also changed this sentence: "It is not truly "above" Top Secret, although that phrase is often used by ignorants in the news and entertainment media" by replacing "ignorants" with "those." The use of "ignorants" is unnecessary. Clockster (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Used by the media[edit]

It is stated that "Information "above Top Secret" is either Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) or special access program (SAP) which are phrases used by media." Is this right?

I believe that "above Top Secret" ia a (single) phrase used by the media. The other two SCI and SAP are used by the intelligence community and the department of defense.

Am I right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.22.83 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)