Talk:Sensitive but unclassified

Untitled

Recommend moving this article to a new "Controlled Unclassified Information" (CUI) article per the new blanket designation. SBU is now an obsolete term. Landarski (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Might not hurt, but I'd personally rather wait until the term is widely used. Is there evidence of multiple agencies switching over to the new designation in practice/on actual documents? MrZaius^talk 01:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Landarski. Wide use does not define encyclopedic value, especially wrt government policy/doctrine. Not sure how to do it, but recommend just making it so that when someone enters Sensitive but unclassified they end up on CUI, and then mention that SBU is no longer appropriate per reference "xyz". That's my $.02. regards, Warren Fish (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As of 24 February 2012, within the U.S. DoD the designation SBU is now officially obsolete. CUI is the only appropriate designation for official U.S. DoD Unclassified information which may be withheld from release to the general public. This is enshrined in DoDM 5200.01 (four volumes) which was published on 24 February 2012 by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)). All four volumes of DoDM 5200.01 are, per document marking, approved for public release. They can all be found at the DTIC public issuances website[1]]. Volume 4 is the primary source for CUI markings. Volume 1 provides the background information. Volume 2 contains a bit of CUI guidance. The rest are primarily for Classified informaiton. Anyone regularly handling DoD information in general is required to have mastery of this manual and annual training is prescribed therein. NB: SBU is officially invalid for DoD information, but SBU is still used by the Department of State. DoD components will acknowledge, respect, and maintain markings used by other official U.S. Government organizations. casual disregard (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: this information ONLY applies to U.S. DoD information! DoD has no purview over information generated and controlled 100% by other U.S. Government organizations. And once more, DoD components will acknowledge, respect, and maintain markings used by other official U.S. Government organizations. U.S. DoD will also acknowledge, respect, and maintain markings used by Foreign Governments. It's all in DoDM 5200.01! Read it, know it, embrace it, love it! casual disregard (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless the images of U/FOUO documents are overstamped as being released for public dissemination, or some other document is issued rescinding the FOUO status of these documents they should be removed. Whether they were taken from another public website or not does not negate the fact that these documents ARE marked FOUO. These documents are NOT for public consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.2.42 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So how does U//FOUO compare to Confidential info?

Confidential is considered a level of classification (the lowest level). U//FOUO is considered unclassified, but is supposed to be treated like Confidential info. So then what exactly is the difference? What is allowed with U//FOUO that is not allowed Confidential info? What about U//LES? Is this just another name for U//FOUO, or does it have its own set of rules (and if so, what are those)? Animedude5555 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Only information which falls under an exemption of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) can be marked “For Official Use Only” (FOUO), whereas any information that would cause "damage" (not serious or exceptionally grave [S or TS]) is confidential. See pages 5 and 41 of the reference document. -Ayeroxor (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sensitive but unclassified. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327231204/http://nasataxonomy.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/access/nasa-access-3.php to http://nasataxonomy.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/access/nasa-access-3.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327231151/http://nasataxonomy.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/access/nasa-access-10.php to http://nasataxonomy.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/access/nasa-access-10.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160112205237/http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/02/aba-sbu.pdf to http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/02/aba-sbu.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sensitive but unclassified. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102142248/http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3323622 to http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3323622

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

This looks more like a descriptive list rather than a Wikipedia article.

You have | Failed | This Universe | 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)