So you can use contractors that don't have a Secret clearance. The government calls a lot of things Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), its unclassified but its controlled and there are strict requirements on transmission and storage of CUI. See CMMC.
cmmc is not in effect, v1.02 is like 2 months old, and v2 is rumored to come out in a month or two.
nist 800-171, which is where the majority of cmmc comes from, didnt even require formal external attestation until like 6 months ago when dfars 252.204-7019 required posting in SPRS to continue doing business with the DoD.
ive never seen, nor heard of, anything actually marked as CUI.
> ive never seen, nor heard of, anything actually marked as CUI.
That’s because CUI is a recent label. Per DoDI 5200.48, effective March 6, 2020, CUI is is replacing legacy labels such as For Official Use Only (FOUO), Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU), and Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES). [0]
This is one of tge more annoying aspects of the Executive branch that just rubs me the wrong way the older I get. The whole infor.ation control aspect.
I do not like perception management, and for the definition of a set of public services, the Federal government sure does seem to do a hell of a lot of it. Nat Sec be damned, it isn't a blank check.
Furthermore, once you start doing things like creating mew classifications to ease up the logistics of getting people who can actually work with it, that sure sounds like you're abusing classification (using the word in the "bucketing info for special treatment" sense) far beyond the realm of what you should be.
Nevermind that it makes questions about the current state of DoD classification minutiae the best Fed bait on the planet.
So if you're a suspect in a federal case, that should be public record? I should be able to get law enforcement's version of events and prejudge you based on a FOIA request, before you have a chance to defend yourself?
And in return should you be able to get the name and contact information of the confidential informant in your case? All the witnesses against you and their CLEOC reports? Vehicle registrations, license plates, home phone numbers, home addresses?
It's a quite frustrating phenomenon on HN that when someone speaks from a position of expertise and experience, but it runs counter to the GRAR consensus, legitimate attempts at engagement get downvoted without response.
If you don't think this is the kind of information that "Law Enforcement Sensitive" applies to, you are incorrect. If you do think this information should be released unfettered to the public, you should justify that position.
While I have never been involved in jet engine manufacturing, probably because those same engines and their repair parts are sold to a number of US allies and temporary-allies-of-convenience who use US/NATO spec aircraft and systems, where having a classified piece of technology would be impossible to maintain chain of custody on. I'm thinking specifically of all the foreign military sales for the F16, F15, etc.
having a classified piece of technology would be impossible to maintain chain of custody on. I'm thinking specifically of all the foreign military sales for the F16, F15, etc
Being in physical possession of a turbine blade doesn’t give you the secrets of how to manufacture it, which are extremely tightly controlled.
It gets you maybe 1/3 of the way there in the sense you have a work product to compare to for your own efforts to figure out how-to. Falls apart a bit if you're trying to nail down chemistry or something like an IC production process though where the equipment itself is built by people who will neither talk nor possibly sell to you.
Look into the Soviet konkordski tire counter-intel effort. If I recall correctly, NATO found out the Soviets were trying to get their hands on the rubber formulation for the tires of the landing gear, and counterintelligence worked with manufacturers to leak the formula for the "worst rubber for the job ever". Keep trying to find where I stumbled on that, but it seems to be lost to the all seeing eye of the Internet now. Closest I get is references to Pavlov smuggling the plans for the landing gear assembly out of France.
Give me two copies of something that you don't want to tell me how to make, one for destructive analysis, and one to compare against as a finished product, and I can at least filter out some false starts from the get-go.
Falls apart a bit if you're trying to nail down chemistry or something like an IC production process though where the equipment itself is built by people who will neither talk nor possibly sell to you.
Turbine blades are like ICs in the sense that the secret sauce is in the materials and the manufacturing processes. You can imitate the exterior shape perfectly and it still be completely useless.
Agreed, bit for this crowd I think a better metaphor would be possession of a microprocessor. Having one doesn't tell you much in terms for duplicating the technology needed to make it unless you're already at that level.
