Talk:Sensitive compartmented information

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Espionage Low‑importance

	Sensitive compartmented information is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Can someone explain why the compartment codewords are classified?

My understanding is that compartment codewords come under the same principles as the need to know rule of security classification. If you don't have a specific need to know information contained in a compartment then you don't have a specific need to know a compartment codeword even though the codeword may have nothing to do with the information contained under the codeword. Further to that it can also assist in matters where information is thought to have been leaked. ie. if only 6 people know the compartment codeword and it pops up on google/internet or in conversation outside of those six people then a highly specific compartment system can assist in determining who leaked the information and and help to contain it. Once the compartment is declassified or down graded it is able to be viewed but my understanding is that this is not possible while the specific codeword compartment is in operation/under use unless you are part of the 'need to know group of people.' ie. if information is leaked that is at a certain generic Top Secret, Secret or Confidential category such as methods or tactics or just general information at those levels it may be more difficult to determine the source of the leak and subsequently contain it especially if the clearance is fairly broad ranging as some people have a need to know a lot of things at certain classifications to perform their work. Other than that a leak may just result from the information at those levels having become outdated and the general public has knowledge of the information as commonsense or normal. For example if aliens visited earth and made their presence known and the information relating to this alien race was stored at Top Secret then this would automatically become null and void as it would be pointless to continue to keep the information at this level of protection! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.38 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoD SCI[edit]

On 7 Sep 2016, at the Commander in Chief forum, a Lt. John Lester claimed to have an SCI clearance. Isn't a person with such a clearance forbidden from admitting to it publicly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.88.131 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is normal to ask this of people applying to positions which require confirmation of this.Dhugot (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sensitive Compartmented Information. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns, but no surprise[edit]

It is, to say the least, highly inappropriate to discuss much of this.

But, to no surprise, the discussion is riddled with errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:C200:0:0:0:1BF6 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Errors? LOL, it is public https://www.sdsfieonline.org/Documents/Schemas/smis/2.0/ic/ISM/201903/CVEGenerated/CVEnumISMNotice.xsd https://www.sdsfieonline.org/Documents/Schemas/smis/2.0/ic/ISM/201903/CVEGenerated/CVEnumISMSCIControls.xsd 2A00:1370:8184:9B6:21C2:728F:D98C:B002 (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]