LLNL and Sandia are obviously an important part of this story. I saw your blog, which seems to serve as a lively forum for former and current DoE employees, and therefore wanted to reach out.
I'm an independent journalist and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. My work has appeared in the Atlantic, Politico Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs, among other outlets. My 2016 piece for the Atavist, "Codename: Chilbom," was a finalist for a Livingston Award. Here's a link to my website: www.zachdorfman.com.
Please feel free to get in touch at zachsdorfman AT gmail DOT com
Thanks again
Best,
Zach
18 comments:
This guy makes a living with this stuff?
First rule of Fight Club.
If you have something of value to say, it is greatly appreciated. Comments like the two above are just noise.
Comments like the three above are just noise.
Did you read some of the stuff from Zach? Please do that if you want to talk about noise.
All information on this topic is classified and cannot be disclosed publically or to you without a review and release from an ADC.
Zach. You know that. Do you really was to create traitors and lawbreakers?
10:20 has a point, although not entirely accurate.
There are certain aspects of this topic that must remain classified. Even after leaving work, those of us who held a Q-clearance or higher are under obligation to not disclose certain things that we learned as part of our time at the lab(s). If there is ANY doubt, the information has to be checked first to make sure that classified information is not being given away - what we call review and release.
Once those ground rules are understood, perhaps some material useful for his article can be provided. I hope Zach understands this and is not too disappointed by the limitations, but we do have our obligations. In some cases there are bonafide lives at stake.
Even after leaving work, those of us who held a Q-clearance or higher are under obligation to not disclose certain things that we learned as part of our time at the lab(s).
September 13, 2017 at 12:29 AM
Just to be picky, a Q clearance grants need-to-know access to TSRD, as well as TSNSI. There is no classification level "higher." There are though some program-specific authorizations necessary beyond what a Q allows. Some people refer to these generically as "black programs." These may require additional background checks and tests. etc., but none of the information involved is ever above TS as a classification level. There isn't any such thing.
Apparently, September 13, 2017 at 6:40 PM, has not been "read-in" to the next level.
Point to a statute or executive order that establishes a classification level above Top Secret. There isn't one. Access caveats are often attached to information considered more sensitive, such as code word designation, intel compartments, etc., but none is classified at a level above TS. In fact, much of it is at the Secret level, to allow participation of agencies whose handling rules are more strict than others'. BTW, I've been read into and out of many black programs over my career. I also understand the US information classification system, including its origins and legal basis.
Just to be picky and correct, September 13, 2017 at 6:40 PM is wrong.
A Q-clearance indicates access approval to information up to and including TS//RD and TS//NSI once Need-to-Know is established. It say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Need-to-Know in and of itself.
It it theoretically possible to have a Q-clearance and complete an entire career without ever accessing classified information.
September 14, 2017 at 1:23 PM missed the fact that September 13, 2017 at 6:40 PM said "a Q clearance grants need-to-know access to TSRD, as well as TSNSI." Nothing "wrong" about that. I.e., if a Q clearance exists, and NTK is established, access is granted. Pretty simple for most of us to understand.
So, access to classified info and level of clearance amounts to snobbery by class(ification) distinction? I think I lost the thread. WTF. The original request asked for info that may delve into areas that should be protected and may be classified. Follow the friggin' rules, that you swore on your honor to uphold.
So, access to classified info and level of clearance amounts to snobbery by class(ification) distinction?
September 14, 2017 at 6:59 PM
Yeah, right. That attitude makes me glad you never held a clearance.
Clearance holders who think someone is fishing for classified information are obliged to report the person to counter-intelligence.
Anonymous said:
Yeah, right. That attitude makes me glad you never held a clearance.
September 15, 2017 at 7:24 AM
Had a clearance for over 40 years. Follow the friggin' rules, that you swore on your honor to uphold. Get it?
You're the one who said the classification system = "snobbery." That's not an attitude conducive to "following the rules."
September 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, sorry, I didn't realize English is not your native language. For native speakers, "grants need-to-know access" is a very different concept than "grants access when supported with valid need-to-know."
The fact you don't know where the backslashes get used is also indicative.
The thread ends here because the "moderators" deleted responses to September 17, 2017 at 8:45 AM's derogatory post, although interestingly, not the derogatory post itself. Agendas, agendas.
Post a Comment