SUMMARY General Comments 1. The Task Force considered the matter of classification from several viewpoints; however, it focused its main attention on the classification of scientific and technical information. 2. The Task Force noted that it is unlikely that classified information will remain secure for periods as long as five years, and it is more reasonable to assume that it will become known by others in periods as short as one year through independent discovery, clandestine disclosure or other means. 3. The Task Force noted that the classification of information has both negative as well as positive aspects. On the negative side, in addition to the dollar costs of operating under conditions of classification and of maintaining our information security system, classification establishes barriers between nations, creates areas of uncertainty in the public mind on policy issues, and impedes the flow of useful information within our own country as well as abroad. 4. The Task Force noted that more might be gained than lost if our nation were to adopt--unilaterally, if necessary--a policy of complete openness in all areas of information, but agreed that in spite of the great advantages that might accrue from such a policy, it is not a practical proposal at the present time. The Task Force believes that such a policy would not be acceptable within the current framework of national attitudes toward classified Defense work. A number of areas of information in which classification may be expected to continue are listed in the text. 5. The Task Force noted that the types of scientific and technical information that most deserve classification lie in those phases close to the design and production, having to do with detailed drawings and special techniques of manufacture. Such information is similar to that which industry often treats as proprietary and is not infrequently closer to the technical arts than to science. The Task Force believes that most of the force of attention in classifying technical information should be directed to these phases rather than to research and exploratory development. 6. In the opinion of the Task Force the volume of scientific and technical information that is classified could profitably be decreased by perhaps as much as 90 percent through limiting the amount of information classified and the duration of its classification. Such action would better serve to protect that information necessarily classified since then the regulations concerning the enforcement of classification could be applied more rigorously than at present. Recommendations General 1. Selectivity in classifying. In overhauling our classification guides the advantages that might accrue from inhibiting the acquisition of the information by a competitor or potential enemy through classification should be balanced against the advantages of possibly speeding development in the U. S. through not classifying the information. 2. Time limit on classification. Whenever a document is classified a time limit should be set for its automatic declassification. This time limit should be adapted to the specific topic involved. As a general guideline, one may set a period between one and five years for complete declassification. (Note, however, the exemptions stated below for certain types of information.) This time limit should be extended only if clear evidence is presented that changed circumstances make such an extension necessary. 3. Declassification of material now classified. All material now classified should be reviewed as soon as possible after the adoption of the new policy; we hope this might be accomplished in as short a time as two years. The review should either declassify the document or set an appropriate date for its declassification. Research, Development and Deployment 1. As a general rule, research and early development should be unclassified. Thus in the main, 6.1 and 6. 2 should be open, while 6. 3 may be classified. The partition between 6.2 and 6. 3 is not rigid, and classification should be tailored to fit the individual circumstances. 2. In general, we expect classification to be most justifiable when the development approaches the "blueprint" stage. This coincides with the phase when expenditures become substantial. Protection is most desirable when an item requiring a considerable lead time for development is being prepared for deployment. 3. After deployment, classification may be reduced or canceled. At that stage, the information will have been disseminated to many people so tight classification may no longer be realistic. Secrecy will usually be most valuable in maintaining a technological lead during the period of development. 4. The Task Force believes that the "Confidential" category is not appropriate for R&D programs and that "special access" limitations are more likely than not to seriously impede difficult technical programs. Plans and Operations 1. In contrast, the information involved in high-level planning requires rigid protection on a need-to-know basis. To declassify such information would not speed technical development; the contingencies envisaged in such planning may never arise, and their publication may cause ill feelings. The only reason for declassification is the interest of the historian. Stringently limited distribution and extended classification time limits may be justified in this category. 2. Information relating to specific operational plans should remain classified as long as the plan is in effect--and perhaps even beyond, insofar as declassification could reveal genuine details of possible use to a potential enemy in developing countermeasures. If secrecy is required, the best protection is afforded by frequent changes in the pattern of operations. Classification of a specific operational plan should be promptly canceled if it becomes irrelevant. Responses to Specific Questions The Task Force's responses to specific questions posed in its charter are as follows: Question: Is our security system generally effective in denying to potential enemies DoD information that affects the national security? As a corollary question, how long can we reasonably expect that classified information will remain unknown to potential enemies? Response: Security has a limited effectiveness. One may guess that tightly controlled information will remain secret, on the average, for perhaps five years. But on vital information, one should not rely on effective secrecy for more than one year. The Task Force believes that classification may sometimes be more effective in withholding information from our friends than from potential enemies. It further emphasizes that never in the past has it been possible to keep secret the truly important discoveries, such as the discovery that an atomic bomb can be made to work or that hypersonic flight is possible. Question: Granted that excessive use is being made of classification and limitations on distribution, what practical steps can be taken to better define the DoD information that should be protected in the interest of national security? Consideration of this question should include the cost and effect of controlling DoD information to the U.S. and its allies, versus the benefits to potential enemies of its open release. Response: Starting from the premise that the interests of an open society and the speedy exploitation of technology are best served by minimal classification consistent with essential security, the Task Force identified a number of critical areas to be discussed below, in which continued classification appears justified. These critical areas span a much narrower region, however, than is now included under existing classification rules. The Task Force felt equipped to recommend only general philosophy, as opposed to detailed classification guidelines. Also, we did not consider monetary costs of security measures but only their likely inhibition on U. S. technological development. Specifically, it is recommended that the present emphasis, that promotes classification, be reversed to discourage classification by requiring in each instance of classification: a meaningful written justification by the initiator of the classification action; and a time limit on the classification, as short as possible, which could be extended with detailed justification. Question: Are there key points in the research, development, production and deploymen: cycle at which information should be controlled? That is, should we adopt the policy that all DoD research be unclassified and freely available and therefore impose controls only on information pertaining to specific pieces of hardware? One point which should be carefully considered here is the additional lead time that will be available to a potential enemy if he obtains knowledge of our significant research and technology activities and thus can predict its end use in a weapon system. Response: The Task Force has weighed the detrimental effect of security controls on the conduct of R&D programs against the need to meet other national objectives and to avoid disclosures beneficial to potential enemies. It appears that little is to be gained by classifying basic research; it is noted that DoD policy and practices are already in virtually complete accord with this view. Similarly, it seems that, as a general rule, much of the early exploratory development could be kept unclassified. Exceptions should require formal documentation and formal approval by OSD; each approval of classification in this category should be accompanied by a rigid deadline for declassification. For all other development work, including advanced exploratory development and advanced development, classification procedures similar to those employed today are suitable. The criteria should be sharpened, however, so that classification may be imposed only to preclude major technological advantages to potential enemies, to prevent disclosure of information of major importance in the development of countermeasures, or to support national policy directives and regulations. Within this framework, the classification of each system, component, subsystem or technique in advanced development should be considered individually on its own merits. Here, too, a rigid schedule for declassification should be imposed from the beginning. Major programmatic changes in any category of classified R&D should be accompanied by reconsideration of the program's security classification. Particularly, when a system is operationally deployed, the large increase in known system technology and its diffusion among many people should be recognized, and classification should be revised accordingly, with major emphasis on preventing disclosure of system vulnerabilities and on forestalling the early development of specific countermeasures by potential enemies. 41-898 O 74 41 |