Talk:Sensitive compartmented information

Untitled
Can someone explain why the compartment codewords are classified?

My understanding is that compartment codewords come under the same principles as the need to know rule of security classification. If you don't have a specific need to know information contained in a compartment then you don't have a specific need to know a compartment codeword even though the codeword may have nothing to do with the information contained under the codeword. Further to that it can also assist in matters where information is thought to have been leaked. ie. if only 6 people know the compartment codeword and it pops up on google/internet or in conversation outside of those six people then a highly specific compartment system can assist in determining who leaked the information and and help to contain it. Once the compartment is declassified or down graded it is able to be viewed but my understanding is that this is not possible while the specific codeword compartment is in operation/under use unless you are part of the 'need to know group of people.' ie. if information is leaked that is at a certain generic Top Secret, Secret or Confidential category such as methods or tactics or just general information at those levels it may be more difficult to determine the source of the leak and subsequently contain it especially if the clearance is fairly broad ranging as some people have a need to know a lot of things at certain classifications to perform their work. Other than that a leak may just result from the information at those levels having become outdated and the general public has knowledge of the information as commonsense or normal. For example if aliens visited earth and made their presence known and the information relating to this alien race was stored at Top Secret then this would automatically become null and void as it would be pointless to continue to keep the information at this level of protection! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.38 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

DoD SCI
On 7 Sep 2016, at the Commander in Chief forum, a Lt. John Lester claimed to have an SCI clearance. Isn't a person with such a clearance forbidden from admitting to it publicly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.88.131 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"No. It is normal to ask this of people applying to positions which require confirmation of this.Dhugot (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)"

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sensitive Compartmented Information. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OES0bRNVbsUJ:nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB225/doc23.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20161101044611/http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB225/doc23.pdf on http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB225/doc23.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224182349/http://dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICD_1.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICD_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015121906/http://dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICD_705_SCIFs.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICD_705_SCIFs.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015123310/http://dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICPG_704_1.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICPG_704_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110601040514/http://www.nro.gov/foia/docs/foia-rrg.pdf to http://nro.gov/foia/docs/foia-rrg.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017073447/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ukusa/ukusa_comint_agree.pdf to http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ukusa/ukusa_comint_agree.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Concerns, but no surprise
It is, to say the least, highly inappropriate to discuss much of this.

But, to no surprise, the discussion is riddled with errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:C200:0:0:0:1BF6 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Errors? LOL, it is public https://www.sdsfieonline.org/Documents/Schemas/smis/2.0/ic/ISM/201903/CVEGenerated/CVEnumISMNotice.xsd https://www.sdsfieonline.org/Documents/Schemas/smis/2.0/ic/ISM/201903/CVEGenerated/CVEnumISMSCIControls.xsd 2A00:1370:8184:9B6:21C2:728F:D98C:B002 (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)