﻿<?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: Don&#8217;t Remove Gov&#8217;t Records, Departing Officials Are Told</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/11/dont_remove.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/11/dont_remove.html</link>
	<description>Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nemo</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/11/dont_remove.html/comment-page-1#comment-2312</link>
		<dc:creator>Nemo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2104#comment-2312</guid>
		<description>Steven: Doesn&#039;t this come right back to the whole issue of rampant overclassification, though?  I would argue that many officials have documents they probably *should* be allowed to retain *copies* of, many of which are probably &quot;classified&quot; as FOUO, or LES, or SBU, or whatever.  Given how some bodies construe any sort of &quot;administrative&quot; marking as a form of classification, and how little practical regulation there is on the subject between departments and agencies, I could actually see, say, letters of commendation marked FOUO or even &quot;personal and confidential&quot; being considered &quot;properly classified&quot;...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steven: Doesn&#8217;t this come right back to the whole issue of rampant overclassification, though?  I would argue that many officials have documents they probably *should* be allowed to retain *copies* of, many of which are probably &#8220;classified&#8221; as FOUO, or LES, or SBU, or whatever.  Given how some bodies construe any sort of &#8220;administrative&#8221; marking as a form of classification, and how little practical regulation there is on the subject between departments and agencies, I could actually see, say, letters of commendation marked FOUO or even &#8220;personal and confidential&#8221; being considered &#8220;properly classified&#8221;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A. Scott Crawford</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/11/dont_remove.html/comment-page-1#comment-2294</link>
		<dc:creator>A. Scott Crawford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2104#comment-2294</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s not mince words... &quot;Document removal&quot; by outgoing officials of classified material is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted if discovered.  The &quot;Insider Threat&quot; movement slowly creeping through the Federal System will face it&#039;s first vital existential test in how it reacts to this category of discovered abuse (as EVERYONE just HAS to keep their notes in order to write their Authoritive Memoirs!  lol.)  Good Luck Agent Tate!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s not mince words&#8230; &#8220;Document removal&#8221; by outgoing officials of classified material is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted if discovered.  The &#8220;Insider Threat&#8221; movement slowly creeping through the Federal System will face it&#8217;s first vital existential test in how it reacts to this category of discovered abuse (as EVERYONE just HAS to keep their notes in order to write their Authoritive Memoirs!  lol.)  Good Luck Agent Tate!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

