'NATO RESTRICTED': The lowest possible classification So the hacktivist collective Anonymous, parts of which have recently tangled with News International title The Sun and may have looted an explosive trove of emails from Rupert Murdoch's media empire, also say they have a big stash of classified material stolen from NATO. As evidence they have released two documents marked "NATO …
Government data rules mean that RESTRICTED documents do have to be shredded.
Holding NATO RESTRICTED on unaccredited information systems is still a breach of the Official Secrets Acts, even though anything marked as such is pretty openly shareable within the military community.....
So the Sun and NI (not being in the military community) are breaking the official secrets act, and hence both people tracked to having them, reading them and their organisation's information owner can still be arrested and done from at most treason.....
And the official government classification labels are actually:
Unclassified
Protect
Restricted
Confidential
Secret
Top Secret
J
Having signed the Official Secrets Act myself, I am not convinced that holding documents in any form can breach it, as it is simply a reminder that you must not pass on sensitive information and that you can be prosecuted for it.
Here is the truth about the Official Secrets Act: there is no such thing as "being bounce by signing the Official Secrets Act". Everyone in the UK is bound by it (whether they have seen it or not) and can be prosecuted under it. You are asked to formally sign it simply to ensure you cannot claim ignorance, and as a reminder of your (already existing) obligations under it.
Where I used to work, it was mainly used by the contractor to go after employees or ex-employees. The government didn't need anything as you say; they either flattened you in a court, or you parked your car in your garage with the engine running, or fell off the balcony that you never even went near because you were afraid of heights...
The funny thing about Restricted documents is that the only reason they are restricted is because they have "restricted" written on them. I knew someone would would trim that part off documents so that he could recycle the remainder, but the little strips that had "NATO Restricted" written on them would have to be shredded.
>Afghanistan
>Stuff nearby
The AfPak debacle is just proof that NATO is a tool for US foreign policy and finds compliant Europols that are not averse to present bodyparts for random access.
Next up:
1) Georgia in NATO
2) Ukraine in NATO
3) NATO in Africa (hold on, that's already occurring)
4) NATO to pipe all its docs to Israel (as recently demanded by two retards in US Congress)
5) NATO vs. Iran
This post has been deleted by its author
Do you honestly need a lesson in the history, role and administration of NATO, which predates the fall of the Berlin wall?
I assume your trying to make a smart arse comment
And let me get this straight, you want a "European" army run by Europe as a whole protecting us, the same EU govenment that hasnt been able to balance its financial books for 16 years!
16 years of our money going to an unelected govenment who dont know what they are spending money on. over 700million euros has gone missing, 109million in 2009 alone, due to missmangment and fraud. Im sorry but the UK may waste money left right and centre but at elast we can say we know about it and where it is more or less, the EU is so big money can just vanish and with the auditors refusing to fully sign off the books people are just picking the money off the trees with full knowledge that nothing will be done about it.
you what them looking after your needs? then i suggest you move to Brussels
So you're saying NATO isn't an alliance because one of its members co-locates one of its army's sub-commands with the NATO HQ? Surely that just makes sense, you know saving costs and all or would you rather every NATO command had an HQ separate from any other military entity in the country it's in?
Considering the main point of NATO for the first 50 odd years of its existence was to stop the Warsaw Pact walking into Western Europe putting the HQ of its biggest land formation at the same place as its main HQ actually makes some sense. Only some mind because ICBMs are cheap*.
Vaguely on topic, NATO RESTRICTED was once explained to me as 'Italy has it so we can safely assume so does everyone else'.
*Compared to a frontal assault obviously.
how about regaining some sanity and supporting national defense initiatives? the eu is collapsing anyway.
of course nato is an anachronism. it's old and demented. does not even exhibit desired levels of reading comprehension when confronted with own statute.
no wonder peeps steal stuff from them...
"UK/US/AUS/CAN/NZ EYES ONLY ..... Echelon is supposedly used by the US to spy on the other members of that list. Very friendly." .... banjomike Posted Thursday 21st July 2011 15:37 GMT
And maybe even ISrael too, banjomike, for this is odd tale from the antipodes ....... http://cryptogon.com/?p=23614
In the days before 9/11, if the US Military wanted intelligence intercepts from inside the US, they'd just ask one of the UK/AUS/CAN/NZ members of that list for the intercept. That made it 'intelligence sharing in cooperation with our allies" instead of "illegal intelligence-gathering activities.'
Of course, NSA already *had* the intelligence they were looking for, but still needed some plausible figleaf behind which to hide if ever it were caught out.
I understand the IT Angle but really EL Reg is giving these jokers far too much publicity already, this is like the 3rd article we have of Lulzsec "planning to release" this stuff in so many days. Unless they actually grow a pair and finally DO release anything then its not worth getting all hyped up about.
If they had anything it would have been splashed across TPB already, they had no qualms about doing so in the past so why would this be any different?
I remember a very funny time when 1 expert working on a project was not allowed to see any of the documents because he was an Australian, and so not a part of NATO. In that project, every single word I wrote was "NATO RESTRICTED" but was of no use or interest to anyone.
As for not needing to shred hard-copies, that was true where I was, although all hardcopies were securely collected and taken to the incinerator (together with type-writer ribbons!) for disposal. The more secret stuff was cross-shredded first, and then securly taken to be incinerated.
The only way to get an electronic copy of something was to physically go into the secure VAX room and copy it off. The only way you could then read that information was to go into another secure VAX room and copy it onto another VAX; if you were lucky, one of those VAXs would be on a PC network, so then all you needed was to find a PC with a diskdrive in it that was permitted to connect to the "insecure" VAX... People these days could learn a thing or two!
"RESTRICTED information is so unimportant that hard copies don't even have to be shredded on disposal. Add a NATO prefix and you have something completely insignificant."
Both of these sentences are wrong.
Adding NATO actually restricts the number of people in the UK who can see the document. I'll leave you to work out why.
Anon, because, well...
In order of LEAST detrimental first...
NATO:
1.NATO RESTRICTED (NR).
2.NATO CONFIDENTIAL (NC), and
3.NATO SECRET (NS),
4.COSMIC TOP SECRET (CTS),
UK Gov:
UNCLASSIFIED, PROTECT, RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information#NATO_classifications
As above, RESTRICTED docs do have to be shredded, mustn't be EMailed over an insecure networks, left out on desks overnight etc.
RESTRICTED may be low down on the protective marking food chain but care is still required when dealing with the information. You'd think a DV cleared author would have known that.
For someone who held DV, you don't half talk bollocks. There is a considerable amount of classified material generated by NATO (made up of civilian and military personnel within agencies such as NC3A, NETMA, NACMA etc.) itself. You're confusing this with national material which is classified according to that nation's security policy (JSP 440 in the case of the UK).
US classification, I thought they did away with RESTRICTED a long time ago. They replaced it with SUB (Sensitive, Unclassified, Burn), and even that they replaced with FOUO (For Official Use Only). FOUO isn't classified, but it's not public. They were trying to downgrade a lot of CONFIDENTIAL as well.
The reason was to reduce the number of documents which had to be tracked I thought, and a lot of CONFIDENTIAL information was downgraded for saving money.
It's simplified a lot since I've been in that stuff.
One memento my father had of his wartime service with the Canadian merchant marine was a textbook on arithmetic - fractions, decimals, and even how to extract square roots. It was classified "restricted". Presumably, it might aid the enemy to know exactly what facts of basic arithmetic our troops were required to know... but, of course, the book contained nothing secret of itself.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
