From April, the Government and MOD will be changing the security classifications from 6 down to 3 - Official, Secret and Top Secret.
There’s a quite handy guide available on sharepoint if you want to know more, but I thought people might like to know 
And remember, Security is not a dirty word …
And ‘leak’ is a positively disgusting word!
Where’s the guide on share point?
And ‘leak’ is a positively disgusting word![/quote]
‘Crevice is a dirty word but security isn’t,’
Stand by for the directive to do the new government classification course. I’m sure that it can’t be far away.
I’m not taking the mick, there is an online course through the DLP about the new classification system.
[quote=“papa november” post=16259]Stand by for the directive to do the new government classification course. I’m sure that it can’t be far away.
I’m not taking the mick, there is an online course through the DLP about the new classification system.[/quote]
Done it - it’s painless - 20 mins and the test is easy!
Good info though!
[quote=“pEp” post=16253]From April, the Government and MOD will be changing the security classifications from 6 down to 3 - Official, Secret and Top Secret.
There’s a quite handy guide available on sharepoint if you want to know more, but I thought people might like to know :)[/quote]
Replaced the 6 Classifications with 3 Main Classification with one of those levels have 4 specified designators… So 3 + 4 = 7… oh wait, I thought they were streamlining things?
Not really, the old levels could have specific designators as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is also one here:
[quote=“flago” post=16261][quote=“pEp” post=16253]From April, the Government and MOD will be changing the security classifications from 6 down to 3 - Official, Secret and Top Secret.
There’s a quite handy guide available on sharepoint if you want to know more, but I thought people might like to know :)[/quote]
Replaced the 6 Classifications with 3 Main Classification with one of those levels have 4 specified designators… So 3 + 4 = 7… oh wait, I thought they were streamlining things?[/quote]
And the remaining classifications remain extant so thats 7 more.
True but there is a sub level as OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE is not a descriptor.
Half decent video on the changes as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHGP4ikjIp8
as good as that video is it mentioned “military” as Secret fairly early on (~0.40) so where do we, as the ACO come in?
this was discussed at Sqn recently as we are considering adding the Ultilearn material to our website.
Questions were raised is this allowed under security restrictions and considered placing this under the password protected section…although only restricts who can see it/access to the general public not necessarily what the Cadets/downloader does with it after
An argument for having them publically available being you type in the “old” material into Google and dozens of links appear to Squadron webpages.
so you’d be fair to assume “Official” for training material…but wait, shooting docs like Pam 5C is a training manual and is marked as “protect” so surely that should be “secret”…radio docs as well include callsigns and frequencies we should keep out of the public domain.
i’m sure there will be more examples others can give too…
so this leads to the age old argument, are we “military” or not…and i suspect its the same old answer…yes when it suits the situation!
So far as I can see, most of the stuff we deal with will be unaffected: The material which we currently use which is unmarked (unclassified) will remain unmarked (official)
Certain information such as the shooting PAMs, some radio bits and so on may be regraded (eventually) to Official-Sensitive which is broadly treated as the old Restricted but with a little more flexibility in storage or transmission - this could mean that we can still hold it on Bader. Alternatively, they could realise that the information contained therein isn’t really sensitive at all and just treat it as Official.
I would think that weapon pamphlets and security procedures would end up Official-Sensitive for us.
They don’t meet the criteria for Secret. If they were classified to that then it would also require those with regular access to be cleared to SC instead of CTC.
Our outdated radio procedures may not satisfy the test for Official-Sensitive so they may become Official.
Remember, just because something may be Official and unmarked doesn’t mean that it’s automatically equivalent to Unclassified and can be freely distributed.
The point of the new system is to grade everything and thus make people think about what should be released or not.
Instructions containing frequencies, authentication methods, etc should obviously not be released to those without a need to know.
Aside from Secret and Top Secret, it’s now less about the protective marking and more actually thinking about the security implications of the release or loss of that asset.
I highly doubt that Pam 5C would qualify for “secret”. It doesn’t at the moment and judging by the criteria in the document it still won’t as of 1 April.
If you look at the info text on the left it says “very sensitive”. I am oversimplifying, but the kind of thing it means is information that could present a threat to life, safety or military effectiveness if released. I doubt many documents used by the cadet forces would count.
ahhh good spot!
Government Policy document, open source via Google before anyone starts bleating about OpSec! 
Happy days of COSMIC TS UK EYES ALPHA + codeword! :S
handy!
I would be surprised if we had anything that met official sensitive if we apply the proper intent of the document. Even weapon stuff & radio freqs - they could be adequately controlled under official.