<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Army Presents Standard Classification Methodology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/11/army_presents_standard_classif.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/11/army_presents_standard_classif.html</link>
	<description>Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:23:26 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robot.Economist</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/11/army_presents_standard_classif.html/comment-page-1#comment-655</link>
		<dc:creator>Robot.Economist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:12:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/11/army_presents_standard_classification_methodology.html#comment-655</guid>
		<description>Steve - Read the last paragraph of page 26 of the methodology.  Doesn&#039;t it seem odd that the Army Public Affairs Office has final review over the releasability of unclassified information?  I work for the Army and that rule often feels like censorship more than &#039;information assurance&#039; to me.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve &#8211; Read the last paragraph of page 26 of the methodology.  Doesn&#8217;t it seem odd that the Army Public Affairs Office has final review over the releasability of unclassified information?  I work for the Army and that rule often feels like censorship more than &#8216;information assurance&#8217; to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
