Talk:List of U.S. security clearance terms

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	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.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plagiarism anyone?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

These are not clearances. They are only the bases for granting access. There is only one Top Secret clearance: Top Secret. SCI is an access. Investigatory requirements for granting access to SCI vary between regulating agencies. Oldbubblehead (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New tags

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)[reply]

Merge with Classified information in the United States page

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)[reply]

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

Proposed changes

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)[reply]

Ignorants?

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)[reply]

Used by the media

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)[reply]

There is no information above Top Secret. SCI and SAP should be considered as a parallel or equivalent systems. SCI or SAP progroms exist at the Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential levels just as with other information. SCI and SAP are not media terms; they are indeed used by the intelligence community and the DOD. Oldbubblehead (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Chairmen" of the Department of Homeland Security?

The DHS has no "chairmen;" it has a [single] Secretary. The article was corrected accordingly. Dave Weiss (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of U.S. security clearance terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work

I just chanced upon this page and I am sorry to say that much of the information contained here is either wrong, out of date, or misleading. I would suggest as a start that those who have been revising the article consult the various armed services security manuals. These are unclassified and readily available on the web in PDF format if you look around. My bona fides? Former military security manager.Oldbubblehead (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Cover Sheets The use of cover sheets varies depends on the regulating agency. In situations where there is an extremely high volume of SCI material, raw intelligence producers for example, cover sheets are usually dispensed with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbubblehead (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion

Seems that there is a security clearance above Yankee White, possibly because its existence would also put national security at risk. A certain US President once officially visited a secret base and was told that the contents of a specific building were "not for the eyes of man" and backed down. He is rumored to have never fully recovered from this revelation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.37 (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

==Yankee White is not a security clearance. It is a nickname for the Single Scope Background Investigation used to clear DOD personnel for presidential duties. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there is no clearance higher than Top Secret. The code word designators for many SAP's are themselves classified which may be what you are thinking of. The President is Commander-in-Chief. The idea that he could not visit any military facility or building he wanted to is ridiculous. I certainly wouldn't want to end my career by telling the President "No."Oldbubblehead (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too much information that is already present in non-list Articles. Convert to Glossary

The entire page is a jumble of information that seems to have arisen from the lack of this information not being present in other articles such as the Security Clearance article. However List articles on Wikipedia serve many functions, but here this seems to be trying to serve multiple functions that create disparate editing issues.

Make the article simply about the terms. Define them or give them minor explanations. If the explanation warrants more than a paragraph for each separate term entry, then maybe its time for an article. Saml214 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are three levels of DoD security clearances:[3]

Perhaps because the entry doesn't distinguish Personnel clearances from information classifications very well, the statement "There are three levels of DoD security clearances:" is immediately followed by 5 sections, not three. I think the count phrasing should be corrected for clarity, perhaps to show 4 & 5 as supplemental info classifications, not as awarded clearance levels. 65.79.152.44 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]