NEED TO KNOW

Fox2! wrote:Manticore B, was used for working up things the First Space Lord didn't want any curious eyes and blabbering lips to see. This role later transferred to Trevor's Star, once it was liberated from the Peeps, and became part of the Star Kingdom. The dark R&D stayed in Gryphon orbit, or the associated asteroid belt(s).

Fair enough, I'll agree that the theoretical and early prototype stages of R&D can stay in Manticore-B and Weyland's replacement, simply because of the sheer proximity to everything else. With FTL comms, Manticore-B has a 15-minute one-way lag to either Manticore-A, Trevor's Star, or Beowulf. Researchers will want to talk to other researchers and academics, they'll want to read papers published from all over the Galaxy (which get distributed through the Junction anyway), and they'll want to talk to their families too. Plus, if they want to order some part that has just become available, it's easier to get it in the MBS than either produce it or get it to Bolthole.

The longest direct lag is actually between the two components of the MBS, because they are 13 light-hours apart. The Junction is only 6-7 light-hours from A and it's one of the furthest ever charted because of its massive size. I assume though we haven't been firmly told so that the termini in Trevor's Star and Sigma Draconis are closer to the inner systems than either of the MBS components, so in theory the lag between those two could be smaller, except that it requires two transits. Even assuming any and every ship making the transit carries mail.

Louis R wrote:This whole discussion missed a key element: the concept of 'lawful command' isn't limited to the massacre of unarmed civilians or looting of world-renowned museums. It embraces the entire body of law and regulation governing not just an armed service but the nation it belongs to. Thus ordering your driver to speed because you're late for the Mess Dinner is unlawful - and the fact that you issued that order won't shield her from the consequences of being pulled over for doing 90 in a 40 zone. But may very well get you charged with 'conduct to the prejudice' for giving that order in the first place. With career-ending consequences.

So in the rather far-fetched examples being discussed, the security of classified information is governed by some sort of security instructions [in Canada, issued under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff in accordance with QR&O] that form the framework within which orders can be issued. IOW, that lowly Ensign would have the [indirect] backing of the CDS when he said 'no', because an order to reveal classified info to somebody without a demonstrable need to know isn't a lawful command. And when an operational situation goes sideways, need-to-know becomes obvious pretty darned quickly.

I can see your point, but, you must not overlook the gray areas, which are aplenty.

Take your notion of lawful command. Lawful command is ripe with gray areas. The military teaches you to follow commands. Factor that into the possible awe inspired "hero worship." What lowly Ensign would you expect could hold out against unlawfully sharing need to know info with the Salamander? Could he or she be considered of sound mind and judgement if he refuses? It is conceivable that even Honor can be denied access to certain information.

At any rate, there is quicksand inherent within the definition itself ...

wiki wrote:The term "need to know", when used by government and other organizations (particularly those related to the military or espionage), describes the restriction of data which is considered very sensitive. Under need-to-know restrictions, even if one has all the necessary official approvals (such as a security clearance) to access certain information, one would not be given access to such information, or read into a clandestine operation, unless one has a specific need to know; that is, access to the information must be necessary for one to conduct one's official duties. This term also includes anyone that the people with the knowledge deemed necessary to share it with.

Therein lies the kicker. The "unlucky" Ensign - who is lucky enough to be trusted with this critical secret - CAN, according to the definition, decide that he can share it with someone else whom HE deems it is necessary to share the information with.

The problem lies in the fact that top brass know that fact as well. What lowly maggot in the Navy can turn down General Patton, Halsey, or the Salamander when the brass that they are wearing is blinding him.

Does anyone think Pavel Young should have been trusted with information about Apollo even if he had been alive? If Young would have been captured, he would have sung like a choir with an all-star ensemble. If given the chance!

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:Because shit happens and in the Navy it stinks something awful.

If an Ensign aboard HMS Fearless (CM-56) had been privy to Apollo, and he ran into Pavel Young in the Basilisk System, Young damn sure wouldn't have had a need to know.

I asked "chain of command." The captain of another ship is not in the chain of command of one ensign.

But ok, I understand your point now. How would an lower-ranked officer handle being asked to talk about his or her work by a much senior officer whom he or she didn't know had the clearance to know about it? Confirm with their own chain of command. In a professional service, one can't be faulted for being careful with state secrets. Junior officers and enlisted should be taught to and empowered to refuse sharing until they're certain that they're doing the right thing. At worst, this could cause a minor annoyance and delay in information-sharing, but it's clearly better than the alternative of revealing a secret to someone whom shouldn't know it.

I get it that in a pre-war RMN, a Pavel Young like in your supposition could take revenge on the poor ensign and stall his/her career, or get him/her even dismissed from service. That would be a loss... but wouldn't it be preferable to letting Pavel Young know whatever secret that was?

If captured, Young would have sung. But he would not have hesitated in browbeating a lowly Ensign, or a Captain for that matter. And the threat of a career loss would have been the bull in the china shop.

.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:Because shit happens and in the Navy it stinks something awful.

If an Ensign aboard HMS Fearless (CM-56) had been privy to Apollo, and he ran into Pavel Young in the Basilisk System, Young damn sure wouldn't have had a need to know.

I asked "chain of command." The captain of another ship is not in the chain of command of one ensign.

But ok, I understand your point now. How would an lower-ranked officer handle being asked to talk about his or her work by a much senior officer whom he or she didn't know had the clearance to know about it? Confirm with their own chain of command. In a professional service, one can't be faulted for being careful with state secrets. Junior officers and enlisted should be taught to and empowered to refuse sharing until they're certain that they're doing the right thing. At worst, this could cause a minor annoyance and delay in information-sharing, but it's clearly better than the alternative of revealing a secret to someone whom shouldn't know it.

I get it that in a pre-war RMN, a Pavel Young like in your supposition could take revenge on the poor ensign and stall his/her career, or get him/her even dismissed from service. That would be a loss... but wouldn't it be preferable to letting Pavel Young know whatever secret that was?

To be honest, I don't even think "chain of command" would mean diddly squat in a SNAFU.

Would an Ensign aboard Fearless be in the chain of command of a Colonel when he is groundside, if he finds himself in his company at the time when the system is invaded? Even if Thandi Palane is strongly enquiring?

cthia wrote:To be honest, I don't even think "chain of command" would mean diddly squat in a SNAFU.

Would an Ensign aboard Fearless be in the chain of command of a Colonel when he is groundside, if he finds himself in his company at the time when the system is invaded? Even if Thandi Palane is strongly enquiring?

Chain of command is always critical. But there are exceptions in regulations.

For example, a US Navy doctor can only command medical units, and only aviation officers can command operational aviation units. I wold tend to suspect that a RMMC officer, no matter how senior, can command a RMN vessel unless you are literately the last commissioned officer still alive. He might be in charge of the task force, but not in direct command. Similarly, a RMN officer can't command a RMMC unit. He can tell them what to do, but that isn't at all the same thing.

cthia wrote:I can see your point, but, you must not overlook the gray areas, which are aplenty.

Take your notion of lawful command. Lawful command is ripe with gray areas. The military teaches you to follow commands. Factor that into the possible awe inspired "hero worship." What lowly Ensign would you expect could hold out against unlawfully sharing need to know info with the Salamander? Could he or she be considered of sound mind and judgement if he refuses? It is conceivable that even Honor can be denied access to certain information.

You mean the 5-star Fleet Admiral who's married to the First Lord of the Admiralty and is personal friend with the Queen and Empress? Is there any military classification she's not allowed?

Anyway, indeed there are grey areas. As you say, in the military one has to follow orders, but also know which orders are unlawful and NOT follow those. That does indeed open up for a lot of subjectivity. A well-squared military must be flexible enough that the people on-site can adapt to circumstances and not be required to follow orders that have gone OBE, but not so flexible that no orders get followed and the strategists can't get anything done.

I'm not saying this is easy. That's also why there are officers and enlisted (in theory): the enlisted crew is taught to follow the officers practically blindly after a few months in Boot Camp, but officers are required to have higher education and are taught to think during the years they spend at Saganami Island. That's of course a remnant from societies of a couple of centuries ago where education was much less available to the population, and enlisted crew may not even know how to read and write, while officers usually came from the aristocracy and had well-rounded education. In an advanced society like Manticore is supposed to be, that's not the case, and yet the distinction remains.

Therein lies the kicker. The "unlucky" Ensign - who is lucky enough to be trusted with this critical secret - CAN, according to the definition, decide that he can share it with someone else whom HE deems it is necessary to share the information with.

The problem lies in the fact that top brass know that fact as well. What lowly maggot in the Navy can turn down General Patton, Halsey, or the Salamander when the brass that they are wearing is blinding him.

Indeed, but as I said above, such brass is usually intelligent enough to know when they should ask for information. And besides, how would they know that the information was there to be asked in the first place? Doesn't that imply that they already knew about it?

And if this lowly Ensign is in Honor's chain of command, then she is most likely the ultimate CO in the area in the situation this is likely to happen.

In any case, hero worship does not change the rules. The ensign is supposed to ignore that and focus on the rules. The fact that it's difficult is not relevant at that time. What should have happened is that the situation not be allowed to happen in the first place, by those who created it. Don't put lowly ensigns in this position!

Does anyone think Pavel Young should have been trusted with information about Apollo even if he had been alive? If Young would have been captured, he would have sung like a choir with an all-star ensemble. If given the chance!

No, which is why he'd never have been briefed on it or allowed anywhere near the system. He'd also have never been put in a position where he might get captured in the first place. He was court-martialled after the first real action he saw, so if he were still in the RMN during a time when Apollo existed, then it's because this court-martial gave him a desk to fly with a standing order to never let the seat temperature drop below 95% human butt temperature.

Unfortunately, he couldn't have been assigned to the RMN's equivalent of GSN Francis Mueller because he'd already made Captain of the List.

If captured, Young would have sung. But he would not have hesitated in browbeating a lowly Ensign, or a Captain for that matter. And the threat of a career loss would have been the bull in the china shop.

I understand. But rules are rules. The ensign is not supposed to violate them because a superior officer is threatening retaliation. Though Pavel Young would never actually threaten; everything would be implied but never proven.

kzt wrote:

cthia wrote:To be honest, I don't even think "chain of command" would mean diddly squat in a SNAFU.

Would an Ensign aboard Fearless be in the chain of command of a Colonel when he is groundside, if he finds himself in his company at the time when the system is invaded? Even if Thandi Palane is strongly enquiring?

Chain of command is always critical. But there are exceptions in regulations.

For example, a US Navy doctor can only command medical units, and only aviation officers can command operational aviation units. I wold tend to suspect that a RMMC officer, no matter how senior, can command a RMN vessel unless you are literately the last commissioned officer still alive. He might be in charge of the task force, but not in direct command. Similarly, a RMN officer can't command a RMMC unit. He can tell them what to do, but that isn't at all the same thing.

Interesting post, and spot on. It makes me consider a question I never put into words.

Who would be the boss in a situation when groundside if a Colonel of Marines had access to need to know information and a very decorated Admiral in the Navy is demanding the information. In a SNAFU.

I am sure they can work it out like good boys and girls. But what if they can't? It may not always be possible to kick the can upstairs to "a higher pay grade."

I suppose this is why it is necessary to establish the pecking order between the different branches of service. After all, other branches of the military is considered to be a department of the Navy.

This question actually crept up on me during storyline when ships and resources were "commandeered."

Can need to know information be commandeered? Technically, it can be.

cthia wrote:
Can need to know information be commandeered? Technically, it can be.

No, there is a specified method to be read into a program. The right answer to being ordered to provide information that the recipient has no authorization to or need to know is to treat them as the spy they are.

kzt wrote:

cthia wrote:
Can need to know information be commandeered? Technically, it can be.

No, there is a specified method to be read into a program. The right answer to being ordered to provide information that the recipient has no authorization to or need to know is to treat them as the spy they are.

And as mentioned above - why would the senior officer know there was information to even be ordered to disclose?

Now the read in person can have some obligation to decide if a situation is serious enough, and the information pertinent enough, to step beyond their technical authority and volunteer the information to someone who hasn't been properly read in.
But that's a very different situation from a superior improperly demanding access to information without going through the proper channels.

Also, if they did volunteer classified material they'd expect to be facing, at minimum, a hearing over the mater where they'd have to justify their unauthorized disclosure of classified material. (Now it's possible that the hearing with turn out to be pretty pro-forma with all involved quickly agreeing that in this specific situation it was appropriate. But there's always a risk that they'd get the book thrown at them instead; no matter how justified they felt their disclosure was at the time)

Jonathan_S wrote:And as mentioned above - why would the senior officer know there was information to even be ordered to disclose?

The only way said officer would know and not be read in in the first place is through the grapevine. And to know that a specific very junior officer has the knowledge should throw all sorts of red flags in that junior officer's judgement. That probably means they were targetted to disclose the information.

To try and construct a legitimate reason: CO knows that an ensign has just transferred from the WDB or some other R&D environment, and CO knows by reading between the lines that there is something new going on. For example, the types of requisitions this CO was asked to approve or cargo they're transporting. And to make the case for this CO having a need to know, it would need to be a bureaucratic screw up that skipped the actual reading in, such as having to ship out before a briefing the CO didn't know was important.

Now the shit has hit the fan and the CO is going to try a Hail Mary, so they ask the ensign to maybe disclose what it was, in hope that their lives get saved.

How would this ensign know this is a legitimate case where they should exercise their judgement?

1) the CO isn't asking the ensign by cornering them in the passageways, out of earshot of everyone else. This conversation is held on the bridge or in the CO's office, with the XO present.

2) the CO is asking the ensign if what they know may be relevant and use their judgement. If the ensign knows it isn't relevant or couldn't help anyway, they don't have to disclose anything.

3) the ensign can plainly see this is an extreme situation.

The situation cthia described with Pavel Young would fail all three criteria above.

An example of where this did work: when Travis caught Chomps with unauthorised access to HMS Phoenix's systems. Travis didn't have a need to know that Chomps was working for the SIS and so he didn't know. He confronted Chomps and Chomps did not disclose his affiliation even to his best friend. So Travis reported Chomps.

But both the CO (Capt. Castillo) and XO (Cmdr. Sladek) were read in the SIS operation. If this hadn't been the case, then the XO would probably have put Chomps in the brig and sent him ground-side as soon as possible, jeopardising the SIS mission in the process. So what actually happened was that when the XO received Travis' report, instead of reading Travis in, he chose to punish Chomps to keep his cover.

It wasn't until much later, when Travis himself is brought into SIS, that he gets to find out that what Chomps had done was actually legal and followed orders.