Jump to content

Talk:Security clearance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian Clearances

[edit]

It would be nice if this page had information about Australian clearances.

Clearance conversion/compatibility

[edit]

It would be nice if there was some discussion about how clearances can convert between countries. For example Anduril the company owned by Palmer Lucky has offices in the US and Australia and each work on projects with their respective country's government. Apparently there's migration of US workers to Australia and they use compatibility of clearance, for example a US Secret clearance can work on NV1/NV2 clearance in Australia. If anyone knows much about this or how it works, would be nice to explain on this page.

Clearance versus Access

[edit]

SCI is an access, not a clearance level. Top Secret is the clearance level and access to SCI is granted to those who require access to the information. This is explained in Classified information in the United States. I propose changing the article to reflect this key detail.
I agree. (31 March 2009)

There are several important inaccuracies in this article and some rather big omissions. Gingermint (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOE versus DoD and DHS Clearance

[edit]

The US part of this article seems to focus on Department of Defense (DoD) language and process, which do not fit Department of Energy (DOE). I am not sure if DOE is the only exceptional department. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses the DoD language AND process completely. If anyone can find it, I would like to see more specific information on DOE's L and Q clearance, as well as the translations that are possible. Here is what I am seeing: 

- It seems a DOE Q clearance is not automatically considered a TS SCI-Q (nuclear).
- I am not sure if a DOE Q involves a polygraph, but suspect it does not.
- It is suspected a DOE Q can convert to a TS SCI-Q, but that DOE may not accept the converse.
- It also seems logical that TS without an SCI or any type cannot be upgraded to a DOE Q.

Some of this may be a matter of inequivalences, administrative confusion, or simply how well the spirit of cost savings has made it to DOE.

I will look here for any responses as to how this information can be covered more completely.

I noticed where it says:

"The security clearance forms are available at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/formslibrary.do by searching for SF86 and SF85."

FYI, the SF85 is not a security clearance.

Karl Rove

[edit]

User:Brownman40 removed Karl Rove's name from the list of "Individuals who have had security clearances revoked or challenged" (and also deleted "or challenged" from the heading), saying "Some people called Al Gore's security clearance into question. Let's not turn this into a POV war."

I just did a Google News search on "security clearance" and Karl Rove is mentioned in 7 of the top 10 hits. I've been following US politics for quite some time and I don't recall anyone questioning Al Gore's clearance or any claim that he leaked classified information. A Google search on "Al Gore security clearance" turned up no such story either. Ignoring the Karl Rove clearance controversy in the article about security clearance seems POV to me. --agr 10:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

us centric

[edit]

We now have headings specifying the US and UK clearances. The english speaking world has more (.au comes to mind), but I don't think the article is intentionally us-focused. I am therefore removing the tag from the article. kthx. 208.29.145.75 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Bundy? Uri Geller?

[edit]

What's with the weird names for UK clearance levels?

UK clearance names

[edit]

What's weird about them? I should be able to explain if you tell me what you find odd. Jas 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I started cleaning up the references. I noticed some of the websites are not working well which does not help with the credibility. The templates are pretty straightforward and I have tried to make them easy to read within the article. All constructive criticism welcome. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Clearances

[edit]

"Clearances at the RS/ERS/C/S level are valid for 10 years while TS is valid for 5 years. Because security clearances are granted by individual departments instead of one government agency, clearances are revoked at the end of appointment or when an individual transfers out of the department."

Not entirely true. The following is true for TS, and probably the others as well. When an individual leaves the department, the clearance is deactivated, not revoked. If the individual returns within 12 months, they just reactivate the clearance; there's no reapplication or screening process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.54.188 (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transition/Introduction to start article

[edit]

Every time I look at this article I don't notice that the first section only applies to Canada. There needs to be some sort of introduction before going into country specific information. 71.235.188.128 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP)

[edit]

Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) is the system used by the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to do background checks on people who are applying for federal government jobs (or contractors working for the federal government).

I don't see any reference to e-QIP anywhere on Wikipedia.

http://www.opm.gov/e-QIP/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.38.83 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence on it--agr (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relevance of taxation subsection

[edit]

Under the United States section, after the "appearance of foreign allegiance" section, there is a "taxation" section that describes taxes in multiple countries that people with multiple citizenships may encounter. This seems to be a tangent off of discussion of cases where appearance of foreign allegiance may lead to a denial of a clearance. Is this section relevant? Is it there because a person's tax records may be examined as part of a determination of citizenship, possibly? Mas2265 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added info from the dual citizenship article, but included too much. I've trimmed it.--agr (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

The CRS report cited only addresses Presidential access to intelligence and military information. It does not address information classified by statute or treaty. This article needs input from someone familiar with the Atomic Energy Act.--VAcharon (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Top Secret section it's asking for a citation needed on the fact that there are far less individuals with Top Secret than Secret clearance. This report published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (hosted at FAS) clearly details numbers for Fiscal Year 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/clearance.pdf Unfortunately, I'm not sure the most appropriate way to add a citation, this is my first attempt at contributing. 24.213.19.218 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've put it in. Ryan8374 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation for: Also, in order to receive clearance, all initial TS candidates must pass an oral examination. This is conducted by a TS-cleared employee who has passed at least two SSBIs. It also isn't true unless there is a specific niche job that requires it in which case that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.211.168 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Given WP:UNDUE and WP:SILENCE, perform split on both sections: Canada and United States.

The "Canada" and the "United States" sections are already large enough to stand on their own as separate articles. As things stand now, they give WP:UNDUE weight to these countries in an article that should have a more global orientation. The British have already had the good sense to decamp to a separate article, leaving just a brief summary paragraph and a pointer in this article. Also overlooked in this article is any coverage of security clearances as they apply to private organizations.

I think this article should focus on common aspects of the topic, plus overall comparisons between different nations and organizations. Once the detailed coverage of a specific organization reaches a sufficient size, it should be split off as a separate article, leaving behind a brief summary and a pointer. Reify-tech (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reify-tech, I have added this template to the Canada and United States sections:
{{Split section|discuss={{TALKPAGENAME}}#Split? |date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}
Ss0jse (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At least the United States section, which seems to be more than twice as long as the Canada. Ss0jse (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Security clearance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Security clearance. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the USA have so many secrets?

[edit]

This article describes security clearances but fails to detail why they are needed in the first place. If a contributor feels that the answer to that question is obvious please include some kind of reference list or citations which more thoroughly describe the need for security clearances. The article needs to address in some form why clearances are needed in a way that is verifiable and more complete than simple annecdotes about defense or security or national interests.

Security clearance revocations: January 6, 2021

[edit]

I would like to add this to the section on security clearance revocations: 

=== Related to [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]] ===
{{Transcluded section|source=United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government#Third hearing}}
{{trim|{{#section-h:United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
|Third hearing}}}}

Ss0jse (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Security_clearance&oldid=1254776253"