What WOULD be a good test?
FWIW, I accept at face value that Johnny has held a security clearance and he went to the Naval Academy but “I know the classification system inside and out. […] And I’m not impressed.” is just not endearing.
It would have to be something timed. Federal regulations on treatment of classified materials are public, but it would take time to find, read, and understand them. Give each person a short, fixed amount of time to answer a question that someone who dealt with classified materials would know the answer to off-hand, but a faker would have to look up.
By the way, my personal opinion is that crypto is a faker, and would fail this test.
There’s unlikely to be anything that I would feel comfortable answering that couldn’t be googled anyway. There are reasons for what I said about the email scandal which delve into cautious territory. It has to do in part with the classification system itself, which in many cases is pretty stupid and arbitrary, and partly with other atmospheric factors.
Whatever, believe it or don’t. I can’t convince you, so you get to get away with calling me a bullshit artist. Congratulations.
Yeah, so what’s the answer?
Look, I don’t want to argue with you anymore or make this personal but you are old enough and have been on the internet long enough to know that “Trust me, I’m an expert. I can say no more” is just totally uncool. At least, I hope you know that now.
Oh yeah? How old am I? I’m not going to take YOUR word for it. 
Lol. I have no idea but if Johnny went to the Academy in '86 I figure he’s pushing pushing 50. I know because I finished my astronaut and commando training in '86 and I’m pushing 50.
Pushed and passed. 
The problem with that is the same as stated above. If you haven’t dealt with clearance stuff or classifications, you won’t be able to come up with a question that can’t be answered quickly via Google.
Also, a lot of things are not answerable on a public message board.
I will say that anyone who thinks that classified information on a non-secure server should always result in jail time has NEVER worked with classified information before.
And people who think that the heads of government departments HAVE to follow that department’s policies has never worked in government before.
These appear to be the relevant regulations, which say (in part):
All classified information physically transmitted outside
facilities shall be enclosed in two layers, both of which provide
reasonable evidence of tampering and which conceal the contents. The
inner enclosure shall clearly identify the address of both the sender
and the intended recipient, the highest classification level of the
contents, and any appropriate warning notices. The outer enclosure
shall be the same except that no markings to indicate that the contents
are classified shall be visible. Intended recipients shall be
identified by name only as part of an attention line.
Here’s a link to a supplier of “Classified Material Bags–Dual Locks” to the government with exact specifications of the lock bags.
That’s why a strict time limit is necessary. Say, “here’s three basic questions about handling classified materials. Provide your answer to all three questions within 5 minutes.” So the question re: lock bags could be one of the questions.
Of course, you’d need the interviewee to participate, to be prepared to answer the questions the time you post them. You probably couldn’t get a faker to participate, but they wouldn’t participate anyway.
Basic questions about handling classified materials can be answered in 10 seconds via Google. That’s why they are “basic questions”
Not sure you can prove someone’s authenticity via a message board.
That’s not what I’m asking. If you’ve dealt with a lockbag before, you wouldn’t quote regulations.
No, it would take longer than that. Looking up the lock bag information, reading the regs to make sure they were the right ones, faking knowledge based on reading the regs…that would take me a couple minutes easy. And that’s just one questions and I’m a very fast researcher/reader.
Tell you what…if I gave you 5 minutes to answer some basic questions about regs I do know off the top of my head, do you think you could do it? I don’t think you could.
Sample question: what’s a non-contestable interest rate range that can be charged between related parties?
For simplicity, here’s the relevant regs.
I wouldn’t quote the regs in my answer, I would re-write it to make it seem as though it was coming off the top of my head (if I were a faker).
By the way, I will note that there’s no restriction on the locks, other than they “provide reasonable evidence of tampering and which conceal the contents”.
So, what answer were you looking for?
Yes, but you know the answer already. You need someone who deals with classified information to develop the questions. And then what would be the point? You already have someone who knows, you don’t need to vet another person.
I could come up with questions, but I already know the answers. I don’t need to prove that someone else on this message board deals with classified information, because I already know the correct answer.
Yeah, you would say something like: “The end of the zipper goes into a space under the lock. The lock has a mechanism that pushes down and locks the zipper tab into place.”
If that what he’s looking for, then that’s a worse question than I thought. Those bags aren’t just used for classified materials. I have one that I used for collecting donations. You can buy them at Staples.
The purpose of the question isn’t necessarily that “right answer equals trustworthy.” It’s that bad answers probably equal untrustworthy, and there’s a certain not-so-common feature of the locks that if one was familiar with them, there’s a 50/50 chance you’d mention it without having to be prompted. If you mentioned it without being prompted, it’s more likely (but not certain) you know what you’re talking about as opposed to those googling for answers.
ETA: just the fact that an innocuous question caused a tizzy of several posters jumping in to botch answers to the question, pretty much speaks for itself.