[jmward01]

I don't know the particulars of this person, the case, etc to comment on them so I won't. However, I will say that 'classified' has often become a way to hide actions that governments and individuals don't want the public to see instead of hiding things in order to protect the public.

I think countries need laws on the duration of classification that get to the heart of national security vs public interest. I think a core issue is that classified information should come out within the lifetime of people involved with very few exceptions. Additionally, crimes found after declassification should have automatic statute of limitation renewals.

One system that may work could be automatic mandatory release unless renewed at a higher level of classification. Every time material is elevated it should require the highest level of administration to approve renewal. Additionally, when things are declassified they should be publicly advertised in some way so that records requests can find them.

There is a need for classified materials, but there should be a high bar to make them and a low bar to release them in order to avoid the government using them as a shield to hid activities they don't want the public to see.

[xg15]

> I will say that 'classified' has often become a way to hide actions that governments and individuals don't want the public to see instead of hiding things in order to protect the public.

You can probably rationalize anything as "protecting the public" with the magic phrases "national security" (no exposing shady government operations), "ensuring order and stability" (no political protests) and "ensuring innovation and prosperity" (no resisting anything the private sector wants to do).

[jmward01]

Yes, you can, but that doesn't mean there isn't a real need in some, if not many, cases. The big questions are how do we balance the real need to protect national security with the actual harm to public interest and how do we eventually address the actual harm to public interest that occurred when something was classified.

[hedora]

One possibility would be to criminalize over classification.

[flappyeagle]

That would have its own unintended consequences

[blackeyeblitzar]

Don’t forget about the “safety of children”.

[yehabut]

Don’t forget about “rights of man”; those only exist as babbles philosophy not immutable physics

Perhaps you have no special rights as an individual since you are not that meaningful to its success or existence…

…it’s trivial for someone else to do what you won’t and turn the mirror around for you. Your semantics games can be played on you.

“Adults” sure act afraid of kids. Good. They should be afraid of getting old and having the kids revolt on them.

The other billions aren’t trapped in here with you … you’re trapped here with them. Stop trying to look clever arguing semantics. Do your job and pay your taxes or start conflict and be ended. See what they do to college kids? Why care about the walking dead?

[skeeter2020]

or justification with just "9-11" - is that still the ultimate rejoinder?

[yehabut]

Generalized churn of physics continues and yet some of you think specific things the media tells you about had some outsized impact on your life.

Perhaps you’re just paranoid from reading paranoid opinions all the time.

[throwaway290]

This is pretty much how they call these laws in China...

[withinboredom]

At least in the US government, whomever creates the document classifies the document. It basically requires an act of congress or the President to change it once done.

That being said, "I will say that 'classified' has often become a way to hide actions that governments and individuals don't want the public to see" is just as true there.

[Diesel555]

> At least in the US government, whomever creates the document classifies the document

That’s just not true unless you mean they apply already established classifications on derivative content.

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html

Section 1.3 for the list of people that can classify things. The rest is “derivative” of an OCA’s decisions.

[withinboredom]

Well, that happened in 2009, I was in back in 2007… so, if we want to get super-pedantic, only the President can classify and unclassify documents and he/she delegates the fuck out of it.

[martinflack]

> It basically requires an act of congress or the President to change it once done.

Isn't the mere passage of time also a remover of classification? Like isn't there a default time from the creation date?

Or it must be positively declassified by an action?

[withinboredom]

IIRC, after 50 years it can be reviewed for declassification. I don't think there is anything automated about it.

[eynsham]

Have you read Division 3 of the Archives Act 1983? Something along these lines is fairly widespread, although of course the Sir Humphreys of the world have had some success in limiting the damage done to their interests.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02796/latest/text

[grayhatter]

> One system that may work could be automatic mandatory release unless renewed at a higher level of classification. Every time material is elevated it should require the highest level of administration to approve renewal. Additionally, when things are declassified they should be publicly advertised in some way so that records requests can find them.

Never worked with any TS/SCI huh?

I agree with your base idea, but the devil is in the details here. We do need better policy around classified material, given it's supposed to serve the population. But automatic outcome based on some unconnected rules or judgement, uh... doesn't have a great track record for success. We likely do need more accountability to make sure secrets from society serve that society. But I don't think an edict about expiration dates is that.

[jmward01]

I understand that the idea is far from perfect, but I am willing to risk some harm to national security in order to avoid actual harm to the interests of citizens. We need to start understanding that hiding things from citizens equals actual harm and, in general, actual harm outweighs theoretical harm in my book. I will also add that the fact that so many people in this forum understand the basics of US classification shows how many people actually have had a clearance in their lives. How much are we actually protecting national security when so many people know the secrets already?

[emchammer]

Every generation has to discover Hannah Arendt anew. It's not fair to say coulda-shoulda unless you're God himself. I wonder, the higher up in classification you go, how much of it is how much of it is abstraction as a result of the classification that does harm. How much of it is the gorillas who keep the other gorillas from touching the bananas so that they don't get squirted with water, because "that's the way it's always been done". Meanwhile, October 7th.

There was an article today in Foreign Policy, "U.S. Intelligence Is Facing a Crisis of Legitimacy".

If the material is stamped secret but everybody knows what's going on, then whoever sits on those documents looks like Ellis, the coke-sniffing negotiator in Die Hard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irTozIjeqFM

[space_oddity]

> Every generation has to discover Hannah Arendt anew.

Agree! Arendt's analysis of totalitarianism, power provides a framework for understanding contemporary political phenomena even now.

[eynsham]

>an edict about expiration dates

is exactly what Division 3 of the Archives Act 1983 (Australia) and section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 (UK) provide for, so this is hardly as unworkable an idea as you make it out to be.

[monkeyfun]

[10-20 years after the proposed laws and regulations pass]

[female newscaster]: Today, the president signed the superbill package preventing government shutdown, while funding all national military, education, and healthcare spending, in a move widely lauded.

Some fringe critics at the political extremes have, however, noted that the bill also approved all national security re-classifications. They claim it defeats the purpose of the reclassification bill by simply having all security requests clumped together.

What do you think Mr. Pundit?

[Male Pundit proceeds to talk about terrorism and protecting our children, and how select members of a congressional committee already individually reviewed the millions of requests via subordinate staffers, and found all of them to be vital for national security]