In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:43:18 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:
Basically, what I'm "alluding to" is that although there's no problem at all
discussing security clearances in the generic sense as you have done here;
if you personally have a security clearance, or even HAD a security
clearance, discussing that clearance, and anything associated with it's
relationship to you personally is bad juju!

Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
= TS.

Agree almost completely, though in my experience it's a colour code
rather than a star count to define clearance levels. Still simple easy
at-a-glance option of "is that person allowed in this area? Escorted?
Unescorted?"

Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
to the system.

I might be cleared to UK RESTRICTED (which isn't even recognised as
'classified' by the US, IIRC). I might be cleared to SECRET, or TOP
SECRET, or hold no clearance at all. Doesn't matter a damn - if I give
away classified information I'm eligible for a quick trip to and long
stay in jail, regardless of how cleared or not I was.

(FWIW I've got a cabinet full of SECRET stuff, but for this forum it's a
big 'so what'? I've also got good access to assorted unclassified
sources which is _much_ more useful)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk