<div dir="ltr">The information is what's important, and all the procedures are there to protect the information. If all works correctly, the information doesn't get into the wrong hands. Occasionally, one questions why something is classified, and there are procedures for that, too.<div><br></div><div>An example of info that perhaps shouldn't have been classified: Suppose the NATO-Warsaw Pact war happened. In the plan, there was one line something like, Infantry Company A of 180 men is scheduled to arrive at airport B in Germany on D+17, go to a nearby warehouse to draw their stored equipment, then proceed by surface to their position on the front line, arriving and reporting combat ready by C+21. Should that have been classified? Perhaps; the guys in Company A might think so if they were attacked enroute. It was part of a database of hundreds of thousands of lines describing the deployment of the US Armed Forces to Europe, and that database was classified, period.<div><br></div><div>Most clearances are held by people in and around the military, the CIA, and State, and there are certainly well-documented selection effects going on in those organizations. One cannot be a commissioned officer unless one can obtain a Secret clearance. Many positions, military and civilian, depend on being able to obtain and to hold a clearance. But people can't simply collect clearances on their own initiative. The initiative lies with the government. All of my clearances went poof two years after I retired; if I wanted to go back into the business, I'd have to be re-investigated from scratch, not just a simple five-year bring-up.</div><div><br></div><div>There is certainly a security culture. Security is supposed to be part of everyone's mindset. One is reminded of it daily, hourly even. On a daily basis, clearances only come up if someone new needs to see something. Far more important are the procedures for protection - marking documents; use of safes, alarms, SCIFs (Faraday cages), proper use of the SIPRNet (intranet classified up to Secret) and the High Side, which goes higher. Seldom does a problem arise because somebody shouldn't really have a clearance; it's alway about protection.</div><div><br></div><div>What do you mean by "works well"? No breaches? Certainly the people who run the system think that way. But we are all fallible, and breaches are going to occur, intentionally or unintentionally. When they occur, they might not always be made public, but internally there is increased emphasis, a damage assessment perhaps with necessary consequent changes to things, more training, new procedures, and so on. Careers can be broken. I point out the case of General David Petraeus, very very highly respected, who retired to avoid being cashiered after giving his biographer classified information. (That he was having an affair with her didn't help.) He has however continued to do very well post-retirement.</div><div><br></div><div>You have the Clinton situation exactly right, I think. Those on the inside are horrified. But the FBI is not done yet.</div><div><br></div><div>In what way are cleared people "deeply annoyed"?</div><div><br></div><div>You have a point about soft protection. When I worked on The Joint Staff at the Pentagon, I could have walked out one evening with the entire NATO war plan in my briefcase, copied it overnight, and replaced it the following morning, and no one would have been the wiser. There was no daily inventory, and no one checked briefcases. But I didn't. I understand the KGB was quite a bit more serious in their procedures. Ultimately we rely on one human being trusting another.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>John<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Anders Sandberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I think this touches on something interesting. Initially I was
dismayed to get Clinton into this thread, since I was thinking of it
as a place to discuss security epistemology, but these posts have
actually shown something nontrivial. Let me see if I got this right:<br>
<br>
Security clearances are important to people in many careers: not
just for getting a good job, but in terms of self-identification
and culture. They have to be regarded as important to work well,
and cognitive dissonance (if it was tough to get, it must be a good
thing) and cultural practices boosts the feeling of importance. <br>
<br>
[ Note that so far I have not seen any evidence that they actually
work well! It might be hard to test, but my suspicion is that they
are a rather soft protection and a lot of practices actually are
signalling/security theatre rather than actual security. I even
meta-suspect that the few studies that have been done on the topic
are classified, shunned and ignored because they likely undermine
the narrative that clearances are important. A bit like how the
federal government defends the polygraph narrative tooth and nails,
despite overwhelming evidence that it is broken. Note that I am not
saying we could do without clearances either: that soft protection
can be pretty powerful if it is security-in-depth. ]<br>
<br>
The Clinton email scandal is minor if you are outside the world of
clearances: a politician was sloppy with important stuff again. But
from the inside perspective this is a horrific break of trust: (1)
she was ignoring the important rules, (2) she is getting away with
it. From the inside perspective (1) is glaring since clearances are
important, should be viewed as important, and the breach was not
anything minor like bubblegum in the secure room. (2) is even more
glaring, since it exposes not just an injustice (lesser people, who
you would identify with, would be fired or prosecuted), but that the
whole narrative may be broken: if you think clearance practices
actually work well, then letting unsuitable people through on the
high level undermines security anyway, and if you start to doubt the
actual efficacy and narrative of the system, then you get a kick to
your sense of identity and culture. <br>
<br>
Note that this is all psychology and sociology rather than any real
security or legal assessment. But it is worth recognizing that 4.2
million people hold security clearances in the US. <br>
<a href="https://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/09/26/how-many-people-have-security-clearances/" target="_blank">https://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/09/26/how-many-people-have-security-clearances/</a><br>
That is a lot of people to deeply annoy. There is also an intriguing
sociological question what effects there is on a society when 1.3%
are incorporating a culture of secrecy - I wouldn't be surprised if
there was fascinating selection effects, overrepresentation of
people with high conscientiousness scores, etc. <br><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 2016-05-12 21:24, spike wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
extropy-chat [<a href="mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>William Flynn Wallace<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> ExI chat list
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank"><extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Security clearances<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222">Bill
said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn’t inhale.
spike</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>…<span style="color:#222222"> The country is moving towards
legalizing pot (while it is increasing the penalties
for opioids). It is legal in Colorado and I hope the
domino effect holds for these laws which have cost
billions to enforce to little avail except to put
minor offenders in jail for lengthy terms</span>…<span style="color:#222222">bill w</span></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">BillW,
this is another case of the incident itself is
irrelevant, but lying about it is critical. In a
security clearance investigation, they come out and tell
you they won’t disqualify you for having an affair, for
smoking weed, for minor stuff, but they need to know
what they need to know about it in order to do their
jobs, because their asses are on the line too. They
make clear: if you did something, tell it. Who was with
you? When did you do it? Where did you do it? How
many times did you do it? etc. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Then
what happens is the security people take your list, go
try to find those people. They ask them what happened.
If the stories match, they don’t disqualify the
candidate.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Case
in point: we had guy in the icebox, which is where you
work before a clearance investigation is complete.
Those usually take about a year, less if you have had a
really squeaky clean life, lived in one place the whole
time and they can find everybody on your list, and
everybody’s story matches. Longer if they find
discrepancies. We had this guy in the icebox for less
than a year but almost; so he had already made a career
sacrifice to even be there, and we had been paying him
mostly on overhead this whole time and trying to keep
him busy on stuff that we knew didn’t matter.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">On
his application was the question: have you ever been
arrested. Now that is an easy one. It doesn’t include
being pulled over for speeding, it means have you had
directed at you the words “…right to remain silent…” and
he wrote no. The investigators learned of a fight that
had occurred after a football game at San Jose State and
the campus cops arrested these two, but being an
internal affair hadn’t given them Miranda rights (these
kinds of incidents are settled by student council
usually.) The two brawlers hadn’t done any serious
damage to each other, no broken noses, no blood on the
ground, just your usual shit that happens kind of
incident, so… They took them over to the guard station,
both guys were sorry it happened, won’t happen again,
and please please don’t let this go on our academic
record etc. The campus chief decided it was a no-harm
no-foul, the two were about the same size, so it wasn’t
one guy bullying the other, and our guy was second in
his class, so… they let them go an hour later, but gave
him a written reprimand.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
security officers talked to people, learned of the
incident, found the letter in his file, decided this
constituted an arrest, and technically it was (because
they had both guys in those plastic zip-tie cuffs) even
though they kept it as an on-campus matter with no local
constables involved. The investigators looked at the
way the arrest question was posed and that “no” answer.
After he sat in the icebox for almost a year, they said
no tickets for you. He left the company a week later.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This
whole thing takes on a new meaning in our times. We
know the security clearance investigations must make
special accommodations for at least two elected
positions, president and VP. But the Secretary of State
is an appointed position (as is the CEO of a defense
company is appointed by the board of directors.) The
security team does not answer to the company, to the
directors, to the outgoing CEO, to anyone other than
their boss in Washington, so they do what they do,
regardless of rank.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">What
we are seeing now is a Secretary of State claiming or
trying to claim a right that the position does not
have. She wants to tell the government what information
she will give them and what she will not. I dropped my
jaw when she said of a private server under subpoena
that it would stay private. This astonishment was
compounded when we learned that she was erasing evidence
on that server. Secretaries of State, current or
former, do not have the authority to tell the FBI what
evidence they may have. If you or I am under subpoena,
we are not allowed to tell the FBI this potential
evidence is private property or that their investigation
is improper or that the whole thing is a conspiracy.
Mrs. Clinton and I do not have the legal authority to do
that. Yet she did it, and didn’t get frog-marched to
San Quentin in chains. You or I would.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Clearly
there is a double standard. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">OK
then, I propose we admit it and define it, just as we do
in law. Let us continue to claim that all animals on
the farm are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others. Let us define which laws the more-equal animals
no longer need to follow, but that the Jeffery Sterlings
of the world still do. Who are these more-equal
people? Does it include just those three, president, VP
and SecState? What about the SecState’s staff? Which
ones are immune from law? Which laws? All of them? Or
just those which shouldn’t have been asked? Those
having to do with lifestyle? Such as… hmmm… sex, drugs
and say… murder? And while we are asking, what
precisely is the limit to the notion of a presidential
pardon? Where does the constitution say a sitting
president may not self-pardon? If we admit that this is
theoretically possible and that Nixon could have just
pardoned himself and held his office, I see no
limitations on grabbing arbitrary power and
self-pardoning all the way up.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
can’t trust either major party nominee to not see this
logical fallacy in the whole notion of executive
pardon. I don’t trust either of them to not abuse it.
We have one of those candidates who is already almost
doing that, and she isn’t even entitled to legal
immunity. Yet. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Without
strict definition, the presidential pardon is a ticket
to totalitarianism far worse than Germany’s bitter
experience.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">spike<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br><span class="">
<pre cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University</pre>
</span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>