It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


List of security clearances

page: 17
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by Pyros

you are someone who knows what they are talking about

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:50 AM

Originally posted by surfnow
reply to post by StarChild

Im sure you know this already but the SF86 has been digitized and I believe is the only it can be filled out now. i made several copies of mine before they did this, which are locked up so i can refer to them when i have to fill it out again

This gentleman is correct. What you fill out now is referred to as the eQip. I did the same with mine - printed out a copy and locked it away for when I have to go back and do it again in a couple of years.

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by drunk
This seems like a dangerous topic discussing Security Clearances in public, dont you think?

edit on 9-7-2012 by Violater1 because: classified

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by Violater1

I completely agree.
Such subjects should be discussed in case only via private message if necessary.

By the way, have you been able to read my last PM?
I am sorry to hurt, but it is very serious to me. Thanks

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:50 AM
Hi everyone. This is my first forum post anywhere in my life so I'm sorry if I shouldn't be writing here or whatever.

I noticed that there was some talk about Phil Schneider and his 'Rhyolite' clearance. You may be interested to know that RHYOLITE is a sub-compartment of the old Byeman system and was used for information collected from SIGINT satellites.

I also found evidence on the web to prove it here:

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:51 PM
There is alot of misinformation in this post. First COMSEC is not a clearnce type or level. It's simply an acronymn used by the government for Communications Security. It's a program just like EMSEC, OPSEC, etc that explains the policy and protocol for dealing with communication security. It's a very common term, most of which programs are taught in Basic Training and used extensively through one's career.

The next thing is that there are only 3 main classifications of clearance: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret, Top Secret being the highest. From there you can get be read into a number of additional programs such as Yankee White (reserved for jobs associated with the protection of the President). You must have this clearance for most White House agency jobs. Another popular one is SCI which stands for sensitive compartmented information. Basically it's mostly a need to know type identifier but there are different requirements for certain kinds. For instance the initial program is a simple application and brief once accepted. Then there are polygraph's (full scope/lifestyle or counter intelligence) for additional clearance. There is also SAP or special access program that is essentially the same thing as SCI, need to know type criteria.

The WIKI page is pretty accurate.

edit on 30-3-2013 by Anonymous1ne because: Word mis

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by Anonymous1ne

You are correct. My clearance in the Air Force was Top Secret SCI 1/14

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 10:39 PM
a reply to: drunk

Drunk I was Yankee White trust me when I tell you the KGB was reading from our papers standing beside us in 1985 under the S. A. L. T. Treaty.... This ain't no secret.

posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 02:33 AM
I found this site by accident and just wanted to say a couple of things.

I was hired by a DoD contractor to build a system for assisting procurement officers. I didn’t know what project I’d be working on much less the government agency. My SSBI was given a “silver bullet” — meaning it was given a high priority because they needed me to start right away. From the time I handed in my 86 until I was told to report to our security officer to be “read in” was just under 45 days. I was told that was highly unusual. In that time I had been getting calls from friends and friends of friends who were a little freaked out.

One thing I pointedly did on my form was to tell the truth to an astonishing degree of accuracy. In my younger days I was quite fond of the devil’s lettuce. Due to an incident involving the police, and knowing the professionals processing my SSBI they would discover this. So when they asked about my drug use, specifically dates and the number of times, I said “thousands of times between x and y, over a period of 15 years.”

I guess they appreciated the honesty and/or they were getting pressured to let me start working. So before my reading in, I had to sign my forms. I specifically remember that I was to never tell anyone on “The outside” that I had a clearance, much less the code words. At best I could say I had “special access”. And this was a life long commitment. I definitely couldn’t mention who my client was, even to my family. In fact, my client at the time was a black agency. They did not exist. Only a few months later did the agency decide to step into the light and acknowledge their existence. It was a confusing time for me, that’s for sure.

Many, if not all of you signed that same form when you were read in. So it surprises me that people openly mentions code words in your posts. It’s been a long time, but I’m pretty sure that’s still a no-no.

posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 03:32 AM
a reply to: WhiskerBiscuit

Well, the other side of the coin is that regular folk like you did as you were instructed and treated access to classified information appropriately. Unfortunately, those expectations didn't seem to apply to some of the highest officials in the USA. I can well imagine how the system would have 'handled' you had you placed classified information on servers connected to the internet.

I would expect the double standard so publicly displayed rankles among those who did as they were expected to regarding classified information.

edit on 29-11-2019 by F2d5thCavv2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:18 AM
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

If you’re referring to the Sec. Clinton private email server mess, I’m of two minds on that. As a contractor I had several email accounts. Classified and unclassified email accounts. Most of my work could be handled unclassified. IIRC the government did an audit on their contractors and found many incidents of classified markings on the unclassified systems. No one got fired, much less reprimanded. Maybe because the same thing was happening on the government side.

When I learned of Hillary’s setup and how they bullied state dept. employees I was pissed. Ultimately I saw her team’s decision was based not on their stated rationale of “convenience” but rather of control. They were paranoid, and rightfully so of someone political in Foggy Bottom digging thru her emails for dirt. But the decision to use that setup was the height of arrogance. Yet to this day politicians are still using private email to conduct official business. #ing hypocrites.

Where Clinton messed up was their backtracking and changing stories. Should have just ripped the band aid off and say, “ooops. We messed up” and the story would have died.

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16   >>

log in