Talk:Controlled Unclassified Information

Presidential memorandum
What is a Presidential memorandum?. --Nopetro (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on writing that article right now. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

CUI is Official (DoD)
I'm more or less SME here. I'll be keeping an eye on the various affected articles. Per my comment on SBU: As of 24 February 2012, within the U.S. DoD the designation SBU is now officially obsolete. CUI is the only appropriate designation for official U.S. DoD Unclassified information which may be withheld from release to the general public. This is enshrined in DoDM 5200.01 (four volumes) which was published on 24 February 2012 by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)). All four volumes of DoDM 5200.01 are, per document marking, approved for public release. They can all be found at the DTIC public issuances website]. Volume 4 is the primary source for CUI markings. Volume 1 provides the background information. Volume 2 contains a bit of CUI guidance. The rest are primarily for Classified informaiton. Anyone regularly handling DoD information in general is required to have mastery of this manual and annual training is prescribed therein. NB: SBU is officially invalid for DoD information, but SBU is still used by the Department of State. DoD components will acknowledge, respect, and maintain markings used by other official U.S. Government organizations. casual disregard (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: this information ONLY applies to U.S. DoD information! DoD has no purview over information generated and controlled 100% by other U.S. Government organizations. And once more, DoD components will acknowledge, respect, and maintain markings used by other official U.S. Government organizations. U.S. DoD will also acknowledge, respect, and maintain markings used by Foreign Governments. It's all in DoDM 5200.01! Read it, know it, embrace it, love it! casual disregard (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

111th Congress
The reference to the 111th Congress is obsolete. We are currently under the 112th and the 113th has been elected. I just don't know what happens to bills from previous congresses. I assume they die and so "pending" would be incorrect. Anyone? Silicon retina (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Controlled Unclassified Information Office logo
Hi there, I work at the National Archives and was wondering who I should talk to about having the caption and licensing information for the Controlled Unclassified Information office logo updated. The CUI recently noticed that a commercial organization was reusing their logo and there are concerns about implied endorsement. There's no problem with the image staying up, and it is in the public domain as a product of fed. gov't business, but we'd like to add a note that any groups interested in using the logo should contact the CUI staff before reposting. If this is something I can go ahead and do on my own without violating any NPOV guidelines, just let me know. Thanks! --Kristenawa (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not an expert (only playing one in the WikiWorld), but having some experience in this area over on WikiSource, the easiest way to avoid any questions of 'undue weight', 'balance', 'NPOV' and similar pitfalls is to clearly make your policy & recommendations easily available for Wikipedia citation purposes to anyone & everyone (hint: this means you) who seeks to support any addition to any Wikipedia article under the existing practices and policies of Wikipedia. In short (& without actually checking), this means somewhere on the official CUI (or NARA?) dot-Gov website, you should already have a Terms of Use, Copyright, Privacy Policy, or About Us... web-page where this tid-bit (i.e. - both the fact Title 17 excludes the logo, etc. from copyright protections AND this means it is in the Public Domain BUT any such 3rd party re-use of the logo, etc. does not indicate an authorization of .... by the CUI .... yada yada yada) should be added to prior to adding something along those same lines here on Wikipedia. Once this info becomes available online at the dot-Gov official website for anyone and everyone who may (or may not) seek out such information, it's perfectly OK to come back here as a WP member-in-good-standing to add & properly support (i.e. link back to in citation form) the nuance(s) you'd like to convey to the public at large that visit the WP article in question. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ... and as any after thought to the above - the one other thing you can do to further insure the impartial dissemination of such information is to become 'a fly in the U.S. Copyright Office's soup'. By that I mean - while it somewhat understood by even the most useless wannabe lawyer that Title 17 of U.S. Code, Title 37 of Code of Federal Regulations and the all the case law to date dictate the basics of Copyright law &/or protections in the academic or abstract world (such as Wikipedia), in reality it is the Copyright Office that actually puts those laws and regulations into tangible real-world practice. Not all being high-priced lawyers, just a bunch of regular Federal employees like yourself, trying not to get fired while serving the public all at the same time, the folks at the Copyright Office have compiled an inter-office guide over time to help them make lawfully consistent decisions on what can or cannot be copyrighted and why & why not which, in most cases, falls into a "gray" area of the current law. This inter-office book-of-guidelines has become known to copyright buffs as the 'Compendium' and, more recently, the 'Compendium II'.  If you really want to get the point across that 3rd party re-use of government generated, public domain material does not equate to "authorization" by any department or agency, get the Copyright Office folks to somehow include a section or two about it in the yet-to-be-released Compendium III. That way, you have a source independent of your website confirming the information in question as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)