Barking marking

My employers have thoughtfully provided me with a 16-page booklet entitled “Frequently Asked Questions on Protective Marking.”

It was something of a revelation that anyone would want to utter the words “protective marking”, let alone that there are people who are asking questions about it. Frequently.

But perhaps most surprising is that someone should take the time and expense to furnish me with an expensively-produced booket, complete with colour photographs.

I tried to repay this generosity by reading it, but quickly became discouraged. I suspect it was written by someone who either a) does not have English as a first language; or b) takes particular delight in reading computer manuals cover to cover.

The booklet’s opening paragraph set the scene: “This is meant as a tool to provide accessible answers to the most frequently asked questions…if you have any further questions, please contact…an authorised Originator in your probation area.”

I’ve no idea what or who an authorised (or unauthorised) Originator is, but I guess they must be important to have a capital letter to their title.

My favourite “Frequently Asked Question” of the 28 on offer (OK, it was a hard choice), was question 13:

Q: “What should I do if I suspect that the ‘consequences of compromise’ have changed for a particular information asset?”

A: “Circumstances surrounding a subject of a file or document (or a third party connected to such a file or document) can change to such an extent that there could be an increased or decreased risk of harm if the file was compromised. This would imply that the current Protective Marking might be incorrect.”

I could go on. But for reasons which are probably extremely clear by now, I won’t.