A recent report from the AAAS raises concern that government agencies are applying the SBU label to more and more information, and in an "inconsistent and arbitrary manner" from agency to agency. In particular the academy reports that the label is being increasingly applied to fundamental research in science.
As its mildly Orwellian name suggests, SBU is a classification outside the formal system of classification. Unlike documents marked "SECRET", documents marked "SBU" (or "FOUO") are still accessible via FOIA requests, but they remain restricted indefinitely--they have no declassification date--and there are no standard or sensible guidelines for when to apply the SBU label.
A GAO report from 2006 found 56 different definitions of SBU, each from a different department or office, each vague. For example, the Department of Homeland Security dictates the SBU label should be used for any information, "the unauthorized disclosure of which could adversely impact a person's privacy or welfare, the conduct of Federal programs, or other programs or operations essential to the national interest." In other words, for pretty much anything you please.
As a result, a lethal combination of national security paranoia and CYA has caused officials stamp "SBU" on almost everything. When it comes to releasing information, as one former Pentagon official put it, "The only safe thing for a junior person in the bureaucracy to do... is to say no and err on the side of caution."
It was not meant to be like this. In 1989, the Reagan administration issued National Security Decision Directive NSDD-189 which stated in relevant part,
It is the policy of this administration that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted. It is also the policy of this Administration that, where the national security requires control, the mechanism for control of information generated during federally-funded fundamental research in science, technology and engineering at colleges, universities and laboratories is classification. [my italics]
We have a fairly well-regulated scheme of document classification in this country. It has many defects, but at least it balances freedom and secrecy in a process with well-established precedent. Apparently innocuous levels of classification are more dangerous than the big ones and are especially virulent in the agar of a conservative bureaucracy. With the explosive growth of SBU, a well-intended kludge to safeguard American interests has become yet another front in the Bush administration's war on science. As the AAAS report warns,
The political leadership of the United States must understand, and in turn must help all Americans understand, that as a nation the United States has no exclusive ownership of ideas or knowledge and that scientific discoveries and technological advances made in the United States often rely on knowledge created outside our borders.
Let's hope the next administration has the courage return to the basic principles of NSDD-189 and eliminate the SBU category altogether. To quote a 2002 statement from the Presidents of the National Academies of Science:
A successful balance between these two needs--security and openness--demands clarity in the distinctions between classified and uclassified research. We believe it to be essential that these distinctions not include poorly defined categories of "sensitive but unclassified" information... The inevitable effect is to stifle scientific creativity and weaken national security.
Read More...
Summary only...
