In 1992, the Department of Energy performed what may have been the most thoughtful and self-critical assessment of classification policy that any government agency has ever carried out. It is now available online.
“This study represents the first fundamental review of classification policy for nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon-related information since the Atomic Energy Act became law [in 1946],” wrote George L. McFadden, then-director of the DOE Office of Security Affairs, in a transmittal letter (pdf). It laid the foundation for the subsequent revision of specific classification practices in the 1995 Fundamental Classification Policy Review and other reforms.
The study asked basic questions — What is the purpose of classification (specifically, of nuclear weapons information)? What is wrong with the status quo? How can it be improved? — and then it considered various answers to these questions. Many of the questions, and a few of the answers, are still valid today. And the study as a whole remains impressive as a model for taking a “fresh look” at classification activity, especially at a time when the National Security Advisor is gathering recommendations for “a more fundamental transformation of the security classification system.”
The 1992 DOE study predated the world wide web, and as far as I know it has not previously been published online. A copy is now posted on the Federation of American Scientists web site. See “Classification Policy Study,” U.S. Department of Energy, July 4, 1992.
When properly structured — with specific numeric targets, secured financial obligations, independent monitoring, and meaningful enforcement — CBAs transform data center deals into durable community partnerships.
Protecting the public from the tech industry’s predatory business models and the next wave of AI harms is an enormous challenge, but we have the evidence that trying to build a healthier digital culture is absolutely worth the effort.
Opaque and insufficiently tested tools are increasingly shaping student outcomes without consistent transparency, civil rights review, or technical safeguards. States and the U.S. Department of Education can address these risks using procurement and oversight tools already within their authority.
Commercial artificial intelligence tools have recently emerged that are able to produce police reports. If the resulting reports are inaccurate, incomplete or biased, or if the process leaks confidential information, this could undermine the criminal justice system and harm citizens.