Superguy

They wouldn't.

ralfp

AFAIK there is no prohibition on the general public's discussing/disseminating such information (right?). Does the FOUO designation place any restrictions on how a member of the public (non-government employee) can use such information?

It's simply a way to mark documents as "interesting" for the Googlebot (as Steph3n has pointed out).

red456

Superguy responded:

A reference to this thread, with the quote about the SOP being a "national intelligence secret", appears on the blog.

estnet

too funny (since it wasn't me).... you couldn't have made this up!

exerda

That's my understanding as well. A person leaking FOUO info could face some sort of penalty depending on the agency, but nothing like they could for classified info... and unlike classified info, once it's out into the public domain's hands, the people handling it have no legal requirement not to discuss or disseminate it further.

IANAL, but that's my reading of it. (You won't catch me disseminating FOUO info, anyway, if you were wondering.)

And so much junk gets marked FOUO that there have to be all sorts of violations with it all the time. I brought a huge bag into the office to shred in the FOUO bins the other day which I'd accumulated from several conferences and meetings. Agencies would mark their brochures and one-page handouts as such. So I had to actually handle it as such and shred it in a designated bin, vs. just trashing it.

Steph3n

Tell them that PDF files get indexed online

sefrischling

Interesting,I have discussed the TSA SOP in detail with many DHS/TSA supervisors and public affairs spokespeople in my role as a journalist.

It's OK that I told this info because I'm only a photographer and I don't write for my clients?

What a load of crap.

jonesing

I hear ya...I'm in a closed area and NO PAPER items go into the trash cans, only actual garbage--apple cores, kleenex, soda cans (oops, they go into the recycle bins).

ALL paper items (even your grocery list) go into the shred bins except classified documents which go right into the shredder that constantly overheats. The unclassified printer in here automatically stamps the top and bottom of every printed sheet with FOUO (yeah, even if I print this FT thread) and there's no way to disable that "feature" So the only way to print my grocery list without FOUO on it is to send it to the printer in the copy room next door.

OPSEC is one thing (which is why I never take any FOUO home even though it's allowed) but if Security had things their way, ALL printouts would go to their area for review and then we'd have to go pick them up. They're soooo concerned about proprietary and FOUO documents getting out that they forget my MP3 player holds 4Gb of anything, not just music.

dgolding

No. The US currently does not have an "official secrets" act. In other countries, disseminating classified or even sensitive information is a crime, but not here, with one caveat - if you give it to a foreign national, you could be arrested for espionage or violating technology export licensing, depending on the content.

PTravel

One clarification: I was, at one point in time, the possessor of a Secret security clearance (above Confidential, but below Top Secret and the numerous classifications beyond that). As part of the vetting process by the FBI, I had to sign a document that said, essentially, I would be privy to classified information and, if I disclosed it without permission, would be subject to criminal penalties. I don't recall which section of the U.S. Code was cited (this was long before I had even thought about law school), but it was pretty clear that I'd be in a heap of trouble if I blabbed about what I knew. Of course, all of this was disclosed up front and I had the opportunity to decline the clearance if I didn't want to be subject to these restrictions.

GUWonder

OSA-type legislation often enough applies to individuals who are not in the employ of the government and are not given such government security clearance as you mention.

Amongst others subjected to such legislation, include lawyers, publishers and journalists who have been forced to gag themselves as they don't want to end up in prison or separated from their assets/income for doing nothing more than publishing or publicly discussing (even in open court) "secret" information that came into their possession without even any wrongdoing on their part.

FliesWay2Much

The difference is that you were granted access to classified information. Going to jail for a disclosure is something you agree to do if you disclose classified information to someone unauthorized to possess it.

The general public -- those who have never had a clearance of any kind -- are under no obligation to protect any classified they happen to find on a street corner, dumpster, or in a hotel room. Most people are responsible enough, or intimidated enough, to at least turn it over to the cops or to burn it in their fireplaces.

Every once in a while, the government will put the squeeze on a reporter to reveal who leaked some classified information. A conservative judge might even put them in jail until they reveal their source(s). But, they are on shaky legal ground and essentially create a martyr out of the reporter.

FOUO or the sacred SSI isn't classified information as defined in EO 12958. Someone who mishandles it could be made an example of. But, any person who finds it could drop it from airplanes

GUWonder

Precisely.

For those countries where there is an OSA or legislation of OSA nature, even members of the general public can be punished for discussing "secret" information that "fell into their hands" without having engaged in any wrongdoing in acquiring the "secret" information. [The US is not such a country with OSA-type legislation applicable to the public, but OSA-type legislation applicable to the public is in place in a number of common law jurisdiction nations (e.g., the UK and other present and past Commonwealth nations) as well as in some countries that are code jurisdiction nations.]

We Will Never Forget

He could have been referring to the fact that if you plainly admitted that you had unauthorized access to the S.O.P., that a dozen or so people would want to talk to you about it. Kind of a catch-22. You tell him and he does nothing, he's negligent. You tell him and he reports it, wheels get spinning over something that amounts to nothing.

GUWonder

..... nothing good at least?

Thank you for that accurate description of TSA activities and the activities of the bosses of DHS's boss in the run up to March 2003.