Talk:Information sensitivity

message: * OK, I've started the first phase of the cleanup. It was a bit of a pain, since it is so hard to edit things embedded in those table definitions. The long term solution might be to take the non-classified descriptions out of the table and paste them into normal paragraphs. A section on "classified information" can link to the real classified information wiki entry and maybe provide a synopsis. Then we can simply delete the table, which, though eye-catching, has problems. Specifically, it is hard to edit (a huge problem for a wiki entry) and it contains unsourced (and probably incorrect) information, like the "clearance levels" which to my knowledge aren't part of the US DOD's clearance process. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: First of all, I put in a request for sources because the cited sources almost exclusively apply to classified information. The important contribution of this entry is that it talks about unclassified information sensitivity. Unfortunately, there is perhaps one reference ("seal of the confessional") that's not about classified information. 
Second, the list of classification levels should be eliminated, and that section redirected to the classified information article. There has been a long-term, ongoing, serious effort there to capture world wide information about classification levels there. I don't want to do that update myself because I don't want to fiddle with the tables and I'm happy to let the article's creator do it if possible.
Third, the article suggests that there are standard, widely-accepted "labels" for the different kinds of sensitive but unclassified information. As someone with a bit of experience in information security, I know this is not true. I think the article has done a good, basic job of categorizing types of sensitive but unclassified information. Those "labels" should be converted into "section titles" that retain the summaries of types of sensitive information. It's important not to say more about the categories that is generally accepted. 
Fourth, the article suggests that the series of unclassified sensitivity labels represent a series of ordered levels. The article should be edited to eliminate this suggestion. It doesn't make sense to present these sensitivity labels as if they represent levels. Moving the reference to classification levels will help reduce this implication, which is heavily suggested by using the same visual structure for the unclassified category list and classified level list.
Fifth, as a style thing, I suggest avoiding all caps in the unclassified category names. It suggests that these are formally defined, standardized, and widely-accepted labels for well-defined concepts. This is unfortunately not the case. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup request

message: This article suggests that one must have a Top Secret security clearance to access Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), and that SCI is a higher level of classification than Top Secret, but the article on classified information in the United States says that the security clearance process for accessing SCI is totally separate from the "collateral" security clearance process, and so one might be cleared to access SCI without having any Top Secret clearance at all, or vice-versa.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensitive compartmented information 

message: The article Classified information in the United States shows a classification numbering system that has 3 as top secret and 4 as SCI whereas this one as 5 as top secret and 6 as SCI. The numbering schemes appear to be totally different and yet I don't see any explanation as to what each numbering scheme is used for. Is there a mistake in one or the other article or are these indeed different systems. If it is the latter an explanation is appropriate.
--Mcorazao (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level numbers 

message: Please view Classified information in the United States.  It is a much more accurate article for this info as  far as US classifications go.  The SCI info is just wrong, theres nothing right about it.  It is not "ULTRA secret".  This was the SCI codeword associated with the breaking of German intelligence during WW2.  It has not been used since the end of the war 64 years ago.  Look at the other article for the correct info and if you are going to include info on US levels on this page, please just copy whats there since it is accurate on everything that this article is wrong on, which if frankly quite a lot.  173.61.35.171 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Info 

message: There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
:Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC concerning the Lavabit email service 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Information sensitivity. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617091822/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/112907-government-cyberattacks.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/112907-government-cyberattacks.html
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) 21:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified