Army Presents Standard Classification Methodology
U.S. Army intelligence (G2) has developed a new methodology (pdf) for applying national security classification controls and for training personnel in the proper use of classification restrictions.
Failure to classify correctly has consequences, a tutorial on the new approach points out.
“Over-classification is costly, inefficient and can cause slow downs to development/operation. Under-classification can cause compromise, inadvertent disclosures and confusion.”
But getting it right is easier said than done, because it involves the conscious exercise of informed judgment.
“The descriptors used in addressing damage at the confidential (damage), secret (serious damage) or top secret (exceptionally grave damage) levels are subjective.”
The new Army methodology “provides a standardized method of making an objective decision about a subjective issue,” wrote Lt. Gen. John F. Kimmons, U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, in a cover memorandum.
See “Standardized Methodology for Making Classification Decisions,” Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, October 25, 2006.
Rebuilding public participation starts with something simple — treating the public not as a problem to manage, but as a source of ingenuity government cannot function without.
If the government wants a system of learning and adaptation that improves results in real time, it has to treat translation, utilization, and adaptation as core functions of governance rather than as afterthoughts.
Coordination among federal science agencies is essential to ensure government-wide alignment on R&D investment priorities. However, the federal R&D enterprise suffers from egregious siloization.
Don’t like the Chinese-backed EVs that are undercutting your market? Start with a well-designed statute to strengthen market oversight and competition while also providing American companies with support.