Classification Nation

     “Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.” – Author unknown

     Lately we’ve been hearing a lot about classified information, levels thereof, exposures of sources and methods, and so forth, mostly as the recent “dueling memos” skirmishes relate to those subjects. As I have some acquaintance with the subject, it seemed an appropriate time to drop a few thoughts into the mill.

     First and foremost: the aim of classification is simple: to restrict access to a qualified item of information to a group of trustworthy persons with a need to know it. The qualifications are fairly simple: if a datum pertains to some strategic or tactical capability, intention, or knowledge of a potential enemy’s capabilities or intentions, it’s a candidate for classification. We don’t classify data that lacks those qualifications; there’s no point.

     When I was introduced to classified material, I was often surprised at the sort of data that fell into that bag. For example: at one point I learned that the size of a particular field in a communications stream – i.e., the number of bits required to convey it from the sender to the receiver – was classified Secret. I asked why. My tutor in these matters told me that knowing the required number of bits facilitates the deduction of the range and fineness of the relevant capability. It struck me as obscure, until I realized that knowledge of the associated enemy capability, when combined with knowledge of the field size, would provide exactly that – and the enemy surely knew his own capability.

     Persons who originate classifications must be able to think in that fashion.

     Second, classification levels are based on how severe the damage would be if an enemy were to obtain the classified datum. The three bottom levels are:

1. Confidential: Some damage, probably recoverable.
2. Secret: More severe damage, unknown probability of recovery.
3. Top Secret: Extremely severe damage, recovery highly unlikely.

     There are levels above those three, but they’re reserved for matters we who labor in the defense industry have no need to know.

     Third, a datum’s classification level is not a permanent characteristic. The classification level of some datum will often decrease over time, for example due to technological advances or the disclosure of related data in the course of a war. Rarely will a datum’s classification level increase as time passes, though it has happened now and then.

     At every classification level, the criteria for access are personal trustworthiness and need to know.

---

     There are some problems with the classification system. I’ve droned on about them in the past, but a reprise seems appropriate.

     First, classification itself points a big red arrow at the datum. If the enemy knows that Datum X is Top Secret, he knows what to look for. As the storage requirements for TS data are explicit and very strict, he also knows where to find it. If the datum is that sensitive, there’s no help for this except extreme care and vigilance in handling it.

     Second, need to know is a somewhat nebulous thing. For one thing, need to know will usually expire at some point – but there’s no way to remove the knowledge from those who’ve had access to it. Indeed, over time one who knows a given classified datum can forget that it’s classified. For another, there are many classified items that are routinely shared with “foreign nationals:” usually the citizens of nations that are partners in an alliance with the United States. It’s more difficult for our Defense Investigative Service (DIS) to determine the need to know of such a person than to make the equivalent determination for a “U.S. person.” Yet certain collaborative projects, including some that go on for years or decades, make it unavoidable.

     Third and last for now, classification can be used to conceal information that ought not to be hidden. A classification authority with something to hide is a terrible thing, a potentially fatal wound in the nation. I have no idea what sort of qualification procedure applies to persons with classification authority. We can only hope that it’s stringent about character and personal vulnerabilities.

     However, at this time these are enduring problems without known solutions.

---

     Probably the most interesting aspect of classification is the need to protect “sources and methods:” i.e., how we learned what we know about the capabilities and intentions of potential enemies. Time was, this pertained solely to intelligence gathered by human beings. Today it encompasses a great many non-human devices and techniques.

     You can easily see how this ties into the classified aspects of our own technology. One reason to keep some technical capability secret is what it allows us to learn about others. For example, the National Security Agency has a considerable range of capabilities to intercept electronic communications. Some of them are kept classified so that potential enemies against which they’re being employed won’t change their methods of communication to something the NSA hasn’t yet cracked.

     There are sometimes wheels within the wheels. Some parts of our own communications are easily monitored; others are more closely encrypted. One way to feed a potential enemy false information is to deploy – secretly, of course – a new communications technique that uses a previously unknown encryption method, while continuing to “use” a technique we know the enemy has cracked. This can be used to misdirect the enemy nation about our intentions, provided he doesn’t discover the new communications method. Of course, the enemy can use the same method to mislead us, which makes it a subject to which a fair amount of brainpower is dedicated.

---

     Nag? Are you there?
     Always, Christine.
     Oh, good. You’ve been so quiet most of the day that I was getting worried.
     Is something the matter other than that, Christine?
     You can see this hill full of oaks through my eyes, right? Am I right to be worried about it, or am I being paranoid?
     How would you expect me to know?
     Well...
     You know far more about violence and combat than I. Trust your own judgment. I can’t improve on it.
     I’m just worried that I’m being...well...
     Insecure?
     Yeah.
     That’s the best of all mindsets for a security operative, wouldn’t you say?
     Hm. Good point.

     [From Shadow Of A Sword]

     A good security officer – i.e., one who is tasked with the protection of some collection of classified information and is serious about it – will never completely relax. He’s subliminally aware that efforts to penetrate that which he has been charged with protecting are never-ending. It tends to make him guarded about everything he says or does, even among family and friends.

     It’s a thankless job. It’s a wonder that anyone ever accepts it. It’s a greater wonder that anyone in such a position ever admits to it. And that, too, is a pressure point against the classification system. People like to talk about their work. To be inhibited against doing so is a source of considerable internal tension.

     Sometimes external tension, too. Time was, I would have laughed at the following brief exchange. I would have assumed it was fictional:

     Wife: How was work today, sweetie?
     Husband: You have no need to know.

     Unfortunately, it isn’t.

Self-Censorship In The Face Of Ignorance And Viciousness

     A long time ago, having observed – and experienced – the consequences of opinion-venting without prior acquisition of relevant knowledge, I resolved never again to speak or write on a subject before familiarizing myself with it. While that’s had a certain tempering effect on me...well, on some subjects, anyway...it’s also given me many occasions for amusement at persons who allow themselves opinions about subjects on which they know little or nothing.

     Unfortunately, it’s also given me many occasions for a facepalm over the behavior of others, including persons and institutions I value.

     One of those arrived just yesterday, at Mass. If you’re unfamiliar with how Catholics conduct Mass, one segment, which is called the prayers of the faithful, involves the reading of (supposedly) worthy intentions by the lector, to which the assembled worshippers are expected to reply with a chorus of affirmation. Those intentions will often include an appeal to God for wisdom and prudence in our high officials, which is about as worthy an intention as is possible when one is speaking of power-mongers. But now and then the intentions go further...unwisely.

     Yesterday’s prayers of the faithful included an appeal for the elimination of nuclear weapons. To say I was startled by it is a grotesque understatement. Yet I could hardly rise to object in the middle of a sacred rite.

     I have no idea who decided to insert that appeal into yesterday’s prayers of the faithful. Whoever it was must be ignorant of the history of the past seventy-two years. Not only did atomic bombs bring an end to World War II in the Pacific, preserving the lives of many thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen; nuclear weapons have been instrumental in restraining armed conflict between nations ever since.

     To take merely one example: before they became nuclear powers, India and Pakistan were at war. The conflict between them was essentially continuous. When India acquired nukes, armed conflicts between them essentially ceased – and not because of ahimsa.

     Brendan at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler notes another important case — one that did not occur:

     See…these entitled, stupid ignorant halfassed millennials never picked up a book. Never read any history.
     Don’t know that, were it not for a sudden change in tactics, Peenemunde would never have been bombed. The British scientists sneered at the idea of an atomic bomb, calling it “silly water”. They and others laughed at the concept of such a device even existing.
     Then the V1′s and V2′s visited London. Thousands died.
     The reality came home…Germany had a delivery system...all they needed was the warhead.
     One detonation.
     London.
     A village.
     A demonstration strike on an uninhabited region.
     An ultimatum.
     “We have the atomic bomb. Surrender. NOW.”
     Those of us older, wiser, hardened and educated in the vagaries of Lady Fate, are in no doubt that, had the above occurred, this planet would have screamed for centuries from the nightmare that was the Third Reich.

     Ignorance of such things is understandable and forgivable...in the young and callow. It’s completely unforgivable in persons who expect respect for their opinions – and a pastor, priest, or member of the clerisy who parades his ignorance in such a fashion risks far more than personal ridicule.

---

     Among our race’s misfortunes is a tendency to defer to a loud voice on the assumption that the speaker knows what he’s talking about. That’s never been a wise assumption. These days it’s chancier than ever.

     There are a lot of loud voices in the national discourse. Very few of them have any basis for their assertions. The black race-hustlers, the feminist “patriarchy”-shouters, those who rail against “white nationalism” or “cis-heteronormativity” or other twaddle seldom actually present an argument for their positions. Rather, they rely upon the intimidation possible to one willing to sling invective, backed by the understandable desire common among persons of good will not to be attacked. Sadly, that results in the shouters and demonizers being granted more air time, larger audiences, and more respect than they deserve.

     One of my self-imposed duties is to oppose such persons, their idiotic assertions, and their overall vileness. Someone must do it, after all, and who would do it better? The consequences are often unpleasant, but usually only briefly, as it becomes apparent to any third parties to the exchange that only one of us: 1) is a man of good will, and 2) knows the subject matter. It’s heartening to be approached afterward and thanked by persons whose private convictions I’ve defended...and saddening when they add “but don’t tell anyone” and slink away before anyone can identify them. But then, courage of conviction isn’t a commonplace attribute any more...largely because the loud voices have acquired allegiants willing to employ violence to ensure that no opinion contrary to the ones they approve will be expressed.

---

     Yesterday’s piece, which I’ve come to think was improperly titled, addressed the chief barrier to Christian charity: fear. The loudest voices are the ones that engender much of that fear, whether it’s fear of being drawn into an ugly conflict or fear of being singled out for vengeance. The “Antifa / Black Bloc” thugs that have lately striven to suppress conservative events and views are only the most visible elements of the malady.

     It’s exceedingly difficult to build good will among us when fear has become as pervasive as it has in recent months. The quest for a remedy has become urgent. The well-being of the nation – indeed, of the entire world – depends on finding one. That the loud voices spout arrant, easily disproved nonsense should be part of the solution...but then, they probably know it already, so merely disabusing them of their “illusions” won’t help.

     With that, I yield the floor to my Gentle Readers. Put your thinking caps on, folks. I can’t do it alone, and the hour is getting late.

Munications

     Do you municate? That is, do you shout your opinions, theses, and conclusions into the world but do your damnedest not to hear divergent views?

     A lot of people are like that, you know. It’s at the core of the “safe spaces” and “microaggressions” nonsense. Eric Hoffer would diagnose it without hesitation.

     I had a coworker, some years ago, who was full of political opinions he’s bestow upon you free of charge – indeed, whether you’d asked for them or not. But you differed with him at your peril. He’d reflexively label anyone who might disagree with him as a “fascist” at the top of his voice. In consequence, sensible persons who saw him coming would swiftly find somewhere else to be. He was the sort of municator I have in mind.

     It’s bad enough when individuals do it, but ultimately that sort of munication reduces to mere noise. It’s usually not difficult to shut it out, or at least walk away from it. It’s much worse when institutions do it. Some intriguing thoughts on the subject:

     We are saturated with media. Young people have no frame of reference so they just assume it has always been thus, but our modern mass media culture is one of those rare things that is truly new. It really was not so long ago when it was easy to be entirely uninformed about the world. It took great effort to be well informed. That’s not to say we are all worldly cosmopolitans, but the world is literally at our fingertips. More important, media is everywhere and it hard to escape it.

     This newness means that the people in charge have struggled to put it to their uses. Buying off a few newspaper publishers was easy. Controlling the three TV networks required hardly any effort at all. A free wheeling mass media with millions of bloggers, podcasters and small outlets is a different task. Rounding up the farm’s bull is a hard job, but rounding up all the barn cats is actually much tougher. The former can get you killed, but the latter has a maddening number of variables.

     When the masses started to get on-line, the “media experts” said it was ushering in an era of wonderfulness because the people would now have a say. The news would be interactive! It was not that long ago when every Progressive commentator went on and on about the wonderfulness of interactive media. I used to laugh at it as I was on-line long before the media airheads had heard of the internet. I knew those hothouse flowers would not last very long in the rough and tumble world of the internet, but like missionaries headed off to the jungle, they were sure it was going to be great

     I was thinking about that yesterday when National Review announced they had been taken over by Facebook. Like a lot of these sites, they learned the hard way that their audience was not going to just nod along and clap when instructed. Instead, they posted articles and the comments filled up with ridicule and criticism. That led to lots of comments from NR writers about the awfulness of the comment threads. Now that millennial pansies are in charge, they have turned it over to Facebook to police their comments.

     Read the whole thing. It’s worth your time.

     “Interactive media” that suppress the expression of divergent or dissenting views aren’t attempting to foster communications or build new levels of comprehension of difficult issues. They’re trying to replicate the hegemony of the three national networks prior to the rise of talk radio and cable television. Back then, CBS, NBC, and ABC would decide on The Official Line and broadcast it to Us the Unwashed without any trace of dissent. We could accept it or turn off the television.

     When blogging arose, complete with the ability of readers to insert comments on what they’d read, I thought a breakthrough was imminent. Individuals would at least have the ability to argue with one another from a safe distance. Ideas would be tested as thoroughly as possible. We’d have a chance of assembling the insights and experiences of millions into new edifices of knowledge – a chance the munications of the previously dominant mass media had denied us.

     The ascendancy of dominant institutions on the World Wide Web – Facebook, Google, Huffington Post, National Review, and other major aggregators of news and opinion – has produced a state of affairs in which individuals’ conveyances of facts and expressions of opinion can again be filtered and tamed – i.e., communications can be displaced by munications while maintaining a pretense of genuine intercourse. While the managers of those institutions don’t agree on everything, they do share a common attitude: We know best. Sit down, shut up, and listen.

     To allow one’s worldview to be shaped by an institution that methodically suppresses dissent from its preferences is to surrender all claim to an individual perspective or opinion. Yet such institutions are gradually winning a stranglehold over the Web. Small voices such as the few genuine bloggers that remain are the sole alternative. However, we’re dwindling in number. Many of the originals have ceased to write. Few with true courage of convictions have stepped forward to replace them.

     I’ve long held that “opinions are like assholes; everyone’s gotta have one.” I certainly have my own set, and I’m not shy about expressing them. But I also maintain that until your opinions are so solidly backed up by real-world evidence that there’s no significant possibility of error, you must be willing to listen to those who disagree politely. The price of not being willing to listen is high. First, you forget how to argue for your positions. Second, you insulate yourself from evidence that might persuade you to alter your stance. Third, in the worst case you’ll become a “true believer:” a worshipper in “a compact and unified church” that will have its own agenda – an agenda that’s unlikely to care much about you or yours.

     Municative institutions are such churches. It’s best to stay away from them. Any representation they make about valuing your opinion is for public-relations purposes only. They don’t want dissenters; they want disciples aflame with the faith who’ll defend it against heresy, no matter from what source.

     Food for thought.

Quickies: Concentrations Of Influence

     Americans are justly suspicious of concentrations of power – more of us remember the “separation of powers” effect of the Constitution than the limiting of powers by enumeration it was intended to provide – but we might not be suspicious enough of concentrations of influence.

     Despite conservatives’ general disdain for the Old Media and preference for the new, digitally-enabled alternatives, we seldom ponder the concentration of the influences behind those alternatives. This article suggests that we give the matter some thought. It focuses first on Google, by far the most popular of the Internet search engines:

     The Google search engine is so good and so popular that the company’s name is now a commonly used verb in languages around the world.... Google has become the main gateway to virtually all knowledge, mainly because the search engine is so good at giving us exactly the information we are looking for, almost instantly and almost always in the first position of the list it shows us after we launch our search – the list of ‘search results’.

     That ordered list is so good, in fact, that about 50 per cent of our clicks go to the top two items, and more than 90 per cent of our clicks go to the 10 items listed on the first page of results; few people look at other results pages, even though they often number in the thousands, which means they probably contain lots of good information. Google decides which of the billions of web pages it is going to include in our search results, and it also decides how to rank them. How it decides these things is a deep, dark secret – one of the best-kept secrets in the world, like the formula for Coca-Cola.

     Google’s algorithms for search and presentation order, therefore, steer the attention of Internet users in a centralized, concentrated fashion. Does this have a pernicious effect on what people know...or think they know? Author Robert Epstein fears that it might, particularly with regard to elections:

     In most countries, 90 per cent of online search is conducted on Google, which gives the company even more power to flip elections than it has in the US and, with internet penetration increasing rapidly worldwide, this power is growing. In our PNAS article, Robertson and I calculated that Google now has the power to flip upwards of 25 per cent of the national elections in the world with no one knowing this is occurring. In fact, we estimate that, with or without deliberate planning on the part of company executives, Google’s search rankings have been impacting elections for years, with growing impact each year. And because search rankings are ephemeral, they leave no paper trail, which gives the company complete deniability.

     Various commentators have cast a suspicious eye at Google before, of course. If the problem is real, it’s a stiff one. The magnitude of capital investment and degree of technological prowess required to compete with Google is enormous. You’d have a better shot at cutting into General Motors' market for cars. That naturally limits the possibilities for competing with it.

     I find it noteworthy that Google’s only significant competitor in the search business is Microsoft’s Bing. That’s a gauge of how big one must be to compete in the search-engine market. It’s also a measure of the importance concentrations of both information and access to information can have to our perceptions and beliefs...and how utterly invisible those influences have become.