Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Security Classifications Needs Re-Thinking, Says Board

Posted by timothy on from the this-post-is-ultra-double-secret-probation-only dept.

coondoggie writes "The U.S. government's overly complicated way of classifying and declassifying information needs to be dumped and reinvented with the help of a huge technology injection if it is to keep from being buried under its own weight. That was one of the main conclusions of a government board tasked with making recommendations on exactly how the government should transform the current security classification system (PDF)."

5 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Tautology Club by Antipater · · Score: 3, Funny

    So a board tasked with finding a way to revamp our security classification system came to the conclusion that our security classification system needs a revamp?

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
    1. Re:Tautology Club by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... which will delegate to a sub-committee, which will branch off into intersessions, which will be all attended by a single, unpaid intern with a legal pad and one blue pen.

      FYI, all official notes and correspondence must be written in black ink.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  2. Needs a technological solution you say? by sir_eccles · · Score: 4, Funny

    You wouldn't happen to have a friend waiting in the wings who owns a company that just so happens to supply such solutions at great cost to government entities would you?

  3. Re:There ... fixed it for you by Defenestrar · · Score: 5, Funny

    US Security Needs Re-Thinking

    US Security Needs Thinking

    FTFY

  4. I couldn't agree more... by Shoten · · Score: 3, Funny

    Man, let me tell you how hard the current situation is to work with. This one time, I was working on (REDACTED) and then (REDACTED) comes up to me and (REDACTED), "Dude, where are the (REDACTED) on the (REDACTED) flesh-eating (REDACTED)?" To which I had to say, "Well, the problem is that (REDACTED) is all kept over in (REDACTED) so that in the event of (REDACTED) most of the (REDACTED) will be (REDACTED)."

    I mean, who here can't identify with that?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.