Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin..

In article ,
brain615 RemoveThis @aol.com (Brian Bartlett) wrote:

 > Hey everybody. This is my first post on this group, though I have
 > followed it for quite some time now. I am making this post because I
 > have a question which I am hoping someone on here will be able to help
 > me with; perhaps it will even merit a post from Mr. Clancy himself
 >
 > Take a look at this document:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/sf86.pdf</font" target="_blank">http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/sf86.pdf</font</a>>
 >
 > This is what you fill out when you are applying for a US Security
 > Clearance. Pretty vanilla for the most part. However, take a look at
 > page 8 (actually the tenth page, since the first 2 pages are not
 > numbered). Question 26 asks if you have ever applied for a security
 > clearance before. If you have, and recieved one, it asks you what type
 > you recieved, and it lists the follwing types:
 >
 > 0-Not Required
 > 1-Confidential
 > 2-Secret
 > 3-Top Secret
 > 4-Sensitive Compartmented Information
 > 5-Q
 > 6-L
 > 7-Other
 >
 > Now, anyone who is familiar with this topic or has read some of Mr.
 > Clancy's books will be familiar with the fact that by law, the only
 > security clearances allowed under law are Confidential, Secret, and
 > Top Secret. You will also know that Sensitive Compartmented
 > Information category exists because some things require more security.
 > Here is the question: WHAT THE HELL are "Q" and "L" (and while we're
 > at it, "Other")????? Can anyone provide a documentable answer to this?
 > Mr Clancy, are you familiar with these classifications? Who knows,
 > perhaps this could be a new tidbit of information workable into a
 > future novel!
 >

Q and L are really of historical significance. They were originally used
by the Atomic Energy Commission, which merged into the Department of
Energy. For all practical purposes, L=SECRET and Q=TOP SECRET, perhaps
with some additional access authorizations.

SCI is not the only compartment for "above top secret", or at least
parallel security systems (e.g., "HANDLE THROUGH COMINT CHANNELS" which
may include things at the SECRET level, but to which a regular SECRET
won't grant access). Other categories include the DoD Special Access
Programs (SCI is specific to the intelligence community), SIOP/ESI, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

"Brian Bartlett" wrote in message

 > Here is the question: WHAT THE HELL are "Q" and "L" (and while we're
 > at it, "Other")????? Can anyone provide a documentable answer to this?

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 1016.3

Sec. 1016.3 Definitions.

(a) Access authorization or security clearance. An administrative
determination by the DOE that an individual who is either a DOE employee,
applicant for employment, consultant, assignee, other Federal department or
agency employee (and other persons who may be designated by the Secretary of
Energy), or a DOE contractor or subcontractor employee and an access
permittee is eligible for access to Restricted Data. Access authorizations
or security clearances granted by DOE are designated as ``Q,'' ``Q(X),''
``L,'' ``L(X),'' ``Top Secret,'' or ``Secret.'' For the purpose of this
chapter only ``Q,'' ``Q(X),'' ``L,'' and ``L(X)'' access authorizations or
clearances will be defined.
(1) ``Q'' access authorizations or clearances are based upon full
field investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Office of Personnel Management, or another Government agency which conducts
personnel security investigations. They permit an individual to have access,
on a ``need to know'' basis, to Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential
Restricted Data, Formerly Restricted Data, National Security Information, or
special nuclear material in Category I or II quantities as required in the
performance of duties.
(2) ``Q(X)'' access authorizations or clearances are based upon the same
full field investigations as described in Sec. 1016.3(a)(1), above. When
``Q'' access authorizations or clearances are granted to access permittees
they are identified as ``Q(X)'' access authorizations or clearances and
authorize access only to the type of Secret Restricted Data as specified in
the permit and consistent with appendix A, 10 CFR part 725, ``Categories of
Restricted Data Available.''
(3) ``L'' access authorizations or clearances are based upon National
Agency Checks and Inquiries (NACI) for Federal employees, or National Agency
Checks (NAC) for non-Federal employees, conducted by the Office of Personnel
Management. They permit an individual to have access, on a ``need to know''
basis, to Confidential Restricted Data, Secret and Confidential Formerly
Restricted Data, or Secret and Confidential National Security Information,
required in the performance of duties, provided such information is not
designated ``CRYPTO'' (classified cryptographic information), other
classified communications security (``COMSEC'') information, or intelligence
information.
(4) ``L(X)'' access authorizations or clearances are based upon the same
National Agency Checks as described in paragraph (a)(3), of this
section. When ``L'' access authorizations or clearances are granted to
access permittees, they are identified as ``L(X)'' access authorizations
or clearances and authorize access only to the type of Confidential
Retricted Data as specified in the permit and consistent with appendix
A, 10 CFR part 725, ``Categories of Restricted Data Available.''

(t) Restricted Data. All data concerning design, manufacture, or
utilization of atomic weapons; the production of special nuclear material;
or the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, but
shall not include data declassified or removed from the Restricted Data
category pursuant to section 142 of the Act.
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:06:48 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
wrote:

:In article ,
:brain615@aol.com (Brian Bartlett) wrote:
:
:> Hey everybody. This is my first post on this group, though I have
:> followed it for quite some time now. I am making this post because I
:> have a question which I am hoping someone on here will be able to help
:> me with; perhaps it will even merit a post from Mr. Clancy himself
:>
:Q and L are really of historical significance. They were originally used
:by the Atomic Energy Commission, which merged into the Department of
:Energy. For all practical purposes, L=SECRET and Q=TOP SECRET, perhaps
:with some additional access authorizations.

I haven't heard of a Q clearance in decades. My dad had one in the
'50s. I work with people that handle nuke material and they are TS or
SCI.
:
:SCI is not the only compartment for "above top secret", or at least
:parallel security systems (e.g., "HANDLE THROUGH COMINT CHANNELS" which
:may include things at the SECRET level, but to which a regular SECRET
:won't grant access). Other categories include the DoD Special Access
:Programs (SCI is specific to the intelligence community), SIOP/ESI, etc.

There's a lot of SCI that isn't intel. A bunch of the Army FCS and
State Department security. Of course, there are little hints now and
again of stuff so black that the name of the clearance is above SCI.

Hey, isn't it about time that Sandy Burger gets cuffed and frog
marched to jail?
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

No name on this one wrote:
 >
 > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:06:48 -0500, Howard Berkowitz

 >


 > :
 > :> Hey everybody. This is my first post on this group, though I have
 > :> followed it for quite some time now. I am making this post because I
 > :> have a question which I am hoping someone on here will be able to help
 > :> me with; perhaps it will even merit a post from Mr. Clancy himself
 > :>
 > :Q and L are really of historical significance. They were originally used
 > :by the Atomic Energy Commission, which merged into the Department of
 > :Energy. For all practical purposes, L=SECRET and Q=TOP SECRET, perhaps
 > :with some additional access authorizations.
 >
 > I haven't heard of a Q clearance in decades. My dad had one in the
 > '50s. I work with people that handle nuke material and they are TS or
 > SCI.

Q and L I have seen in use when doing some work at the National Lab in
Los Alamos four years ago. I would assume that other National Labs have
the same clearance levels. Considering the "internationality" of the
science and research community, I found it interesting to hear that "L"
is open to foreigners, while "Q" can only go to American citizens.
Cheers,
  Michael
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

"No name on this one" wrote in message

(snip(
 > Hey, isn't it about time that Sandy Burger gets cuffed and frog
 > marched to jail?

Its well past that time. Berger won't be prosecuted
b/c of the love affair between the MSM and any
Dem official. It matters not that Berger apparently
committed a felony--using his security clearance to
access and alter evidence that might be used in a
court of law. "Obstruction of Justice" is a crime
only charged to 'Pubs, not Dems.


Chris
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

Chris Vail wrote:



 > (snip(
 >
  >>Hey, isn't it about time that Sandy Burger gets cuffed and frog
  >>marched to jail?
 >
 >
 > Its well past that time. Berger won't be prosecuted
 > b/c of the love affair between the MSM and any
 > Dem official. It matters not that Berger apparently
 > committed a felony--using his security clearance to
 > access and alter evidence that might be used in a
 > court of law. "Obstruction of Justice" is a crime
 > only charged to 'Pubs, not Dems.
 >

Sure that's it. Focus on that word apparently. Or maybe it was all much
ado about nothing.
If he stole secure documents and they have proof, he should and will be
punished. The MSM is only powerful in your mind and as a convenient
punching bag and decoy for conservative loons. The people who would like
to see Berger jailed are in charge of all three branches of government.
If he is actually guilty, I'm sure they can find a way to prosecute him.
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

"Drew Remsen" wrote in message

 >
 >
 > Chris Vail wrote:
 >


  > > (snip(
  > >
   > >>Hey, isn't it about time that Sandy Burger gets cuffed and frog
   > >>marched to jail?
  > >
  > >
  > > Its well past that time. Berger won't be prosecuted
  > > b/c of the love affair between the MSM and any
  > > Dem official. It matters not that Berger apparently
  > > committed a felony--using his security clearance to
  > > access and alter evidence that might be used in a
  > > court of law. "Obstruction of Justice" is a crime
  > > only charged to 'Pubs, not Dems.
  > >
 >
 > Sure that's it. Focus on that word apparently. Or maybe it was all much
 > ado about nothing.
 > If he stole secure documents and they have proof, he should and will be
 > punished. The MSM is only powerful in your mind and as a convenient
 > punching bag and decoy for conservative loons. The people who would like
 > to see Berger jailed are in charge of all three branches of government.

So too are there people in all 3 branches of
government who would do almost anything
at the behest of the Clintons and/or the Dems.


 > If he is actually guilty, I'm sure they can find a way to prosecute him.

Clinton was guilty of perjury, but wasn't prosecuted.
Why should his NSA be any different?



Chris
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

In article , No name on
this one wrote:

 > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:06:48 -0500, Howard Berkowitz

 >


 > :
 > :> Hey everybody. This is my first post on this group, though I have
 > :> followed it for quite some time now. I am making this post because I
 > :> have a question which I am hoping someone on here will be able to help
 > :> me with; perhaps it will even merit a post from Mr. Clancy himself
 > :>
 > :Q and L are really of historical significance. They were originally used
 > :by the Atomic Energy Commission, which merged into the Department of
 > :Energy. For all practical purposes, L=SECRET and Q=TOP SECRET, perhaps
 > :with some additional access authorizations.
 >
 > I haven't heard of a Q clearance in decades. My dad had one in the
 > '50s. I work with people that handle nuke material and they are TS or
 > SCI.

SCI wouldn't be used for nuclear material unless there's a specific
intelligence component. The broadest access control for nuclear material
is RESTRICTED DATA (there is also a category called FORMERLY RESTRICTED
DATA--trust me, you don't want the details because they are insane).
Under RD, you have overlapping CNWDI (Critical Nuclear Weapons Design
Data) and a series of nearly 20 SIGMA series compartments, some of which
are CNWDI and some of which are not.

There can be SECRET RD. SIOP/ESI may or may not also be RD; it might
not if it doesn't reveal yields and the like.
 > :
 > :SCI is not the only compartment for "above top secret", or at least
 > :parallel security systems (e.g., "HANDLE THROUGH COMINT CHANNELS" which
 > :may include things at the SECRET level, but to which a regular SECRET
 > :won't grant access). Other categories include the DoD Special Access
 > :Programs (SCI is specific to the intelligence community), SIOP/ESI, etc.
 >
 > There's a lot of SCI that isn't intel. A bunch of the Army FCS and
 > State Department security. Of course, there are little hints now and
 > again of stuff so black that the name of the clearance is above SCI.

No, SCI is specifically intel, defined in a Director of Central
Intelligence Directive. There are, however, other types of compartmented
access. In DoD, the broad categories are acknowledged (it exists but I
can't tell you about it), unacknowledged (what?) and waived (only a
small number of ranking senators and congressmen ever know about it,
outside the people working in the compartment). If you dig up the DoD
Directive about Special Access Programs, you'll see them described
separately from SCI, although I could conceive of a compartment covered
by both.
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

 >
 > No, SCI is specifically intel, defined in a Director of Central
 > Intelligence Directive. .....

  Agreed, if a broad enough definition of intel is included.

If you dig up the DoD Directive about Special Access Programs, you'll
see them described
 > separately from SCI, although I could conceive of a compartment covered
 > by both.

  Yup. Definitely conceived.

JH
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

In article , J Harris
wrote:

 > Howard Berkowitz wrote:
 >
  > >
  > > No, SCI is specifically intel, defined in a Director of Central
  > > Intelligence Directive. .....
 >
  > Agreed, if a broad enough definition of intel is included.

Lots of opportunities for overlap. For example, I remember a quite
reasonable classification guidance document for missile defense systems
(mostly sensors). It covered both our own weapons (for calibration and
the like) and foreign systems. A general capability for tactical
employment of the radar might be S or TS, but if it gave yield or penaid
information for one of our own birds, it would be TS/RD. Information for
telling an enemy decoy from a warhead, based on imagery intelligence,
might be TS/TK.
 >
 > If you dig up the DoD Directive about Special Access Programs, you'll
 > see them described
  > > separately from SCI, although I could conceive of a compartment covered
  > > by both.
 >
  > Yup. Definitely conceived.

A good example is defensive communications security surveillance, which
easily can involve both non-intelligence COMSEC/CRYPTO as well as COMINT
capabilities.
 >
If it helps any, around 1970, I worked in a Navy facility that handled
all sorts of compartmented information, probably more SIOP/ESI by volume
but some of everything. The security people tended to be more annoying
than most.

So, for Christmas that year, I ordered several rubber stamps with nicely
boxed sans-serif lettering, looking like many access control markings.
These, however, read "Destroy before reading." I gave the extras to
friends in several intelligence shops, and we took to stamping them
randomly of especially irrelevant classified documents, useually
CONFIDENTIAL or so.

The hysterical phone calls from security officers trying to comply were
a truly wonderful thing. One friend in Army Intelligence started telling
callers about the DCID authorizing the marking, and clucking sadly about
their need to know when they couldn't locate the directive.
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

"Brian Bartlett" wrote in message

 > Hey everybody. This is my first post on this group, though I have
 > followed it for quite some time now. I am making this post because I
 > have a question which I am hoping someone on here will be able to help
 > me with; perhaps it will even merit a post from Mr. Clancy himself
 >
 > Take a look at this document:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/sf86.pdf</font" target="_blank">http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/sf86.pdf</font</a>>
 >
 > This is what you fill out when you are applying for a US Security
 > Clearance. Pretty vanilla for the most part. However, take a look at
 > page 8 (actually the tenth page, since the first 2 pages are not
 > numbered). Question 26 asks if you have ever applied for a security
 > clearance before. If you have, and recieved one, it asks you what type
 > you recieved, and it lists the follwing types:
 >
 > 0-Not Required
 > 1-Confidential
 > 2-Secret
 > 3-Top Secret
 > 4-Sensitive Compartmented Information
 > 5-Q
 > 6-L
 > 7-Other
 >
 > Now, anyone who is familiar with this topic or has read some of Mr.
 > Clancy's books will be familiar with the fact that by law, the only
 > security clearances allowed under law are Confidential, Secret, and
 > Top Secret. You will also know that Sensitive Compartmented
 > Information category exists because some things require more security.
 > Here is the question: WHAT THE HELL are "Q" and "L" (and while we're
 > at it, "Other")????? Can anyone provide a documentable answer to this?
 > Mr Clancy, are you familiar with these classifications? Who knows,
 > perhaps this could be a new tidbit of information workable into a
 > future novel!
 >
 > Thanks to all in advance for your help!
 >
 > ~Brian Bartlett

When I was in the Army Security Agency 40 some years ago, I had a Top Secret
clearances
with Crypoto and SI access. Most of the documents were classified as Secret
'codeword'.
There were also added restrictions such as NOFOR (no foreigners) or NOFOR
except UK, ect.
The data we recieved fromthe Brits was classified as: On Her Majesty Service
Secret.

Cabot Egan
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

"Cabot Egan" wrote:

<snip>
 >When I was in the Army Security Agency 40 some years ago, I had a Top Secret
 >clearances
 >with Crypoto and SI access. Most of the documents were classified as Secret
 >'codeword'.
 >There were also added restrictions such as NOFOR (no foreigners) or NOFOR
 >except UK, ect.
 >The data we recieved fromthe Brits was classified as: On Her Majesty Service
 >Secret.
 >
 >Cabot Egan
 >
 >
Another ASA person. I was in from 63 to 67. Some of those
security guys did not have a sense of humor.

--
Jim Rusling
Partially Retired
Mustang, OK
<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.rusling.org" target="_blank">http://www.rusling.org</a>
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin.. 

In message , Cabot Egan
writes
 >When I was in the Army Security Agency 40 some years ago, I had a Top Secret
 >clearances
 >with Crypoto and SI access. Most of the documents were classified as Secret
 >'codeword'.
 >There were also added restrictions such as NOFOR (no foreigners) or NOFOR
 >except UK, ect.
 >The data we recieved fromthe Brits was classified as: On Her Majesty Service
 >Secret.

Currently it's less portentious: simply "UK <ckassification>" for
national-caveat stuff.

It can develop a life of its own: for instance, the "Four-Eyes Warfare
Forum" - so-called because the data presented tends to be AUS/CAN/UK/US
SECRET (and memories of 'EYES ONLY' lingers)



As a humorous rule of thumb, the Canadians will share freely, the
Australians will be forthcoming if asked, and the US will take whatever
you give them and then stamp US-only caveats on it and deny its
existence even when you show them the original

And before anyone starts throwing toys out of prams, the arrangements
are obviously satisfactory enough or they wouldn't survive.



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
 >> Stay informed about: Types of Security Clearances; Something new and interestin..