Classified Documents

[WARREN SMITH]

In context of national security, is classified just "分類された," or does a different term apply?

 

Thanks,

 

Warren Smith

[John Stroman]

Warren,

I do not translate into Japanese, but going to "classified document" in Wiki and then back translating into Japanese, the term used there is 国家機密.  This is reflected on the 日本弁護士連合会 website at : https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/document/civil_liberties/year/1985/1985_2.html 

in an article entitled 「国家機密に係るスパイ行為等の防止に関する法律案」に反対する決議 , so I think it is valid.

John Stroman

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1596787799.1004998.1706032400662%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Yuko Fukami]

分類 is simply to sort or categorize. I would think you’d want to use 機密扱い or something like it.

Yuko Fukami

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CAJVTx94HgumLCTMsGZLeDn6TNmEhjxrewEVEHVR%3D4uqMSwG0dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[WARREN SMITH]

Thank you for your comments.  

 

In part of my post-translation career transition, I am going to be making a presentation in Japan next week regarding secrecy orders under US patent law. A US patent application can be under a "secrecy order" if it contains information that is considered relating to national security, but still not secret to the level as to be "classified" (that is, the document that is given a "confidential," "secret," or "top secret" classification, which would cause all sorts of compliance headaches to the US patent attorney).  

 

Specifically, here is the sentence I am trying to say in Japanese: "Type I Secrecy Order: For patent applications that disclose critical technology with military or space application that is not national security classified or classifiable"

 

My friendly AI assistants like 分類, but I am not convinced....

 

Thank you all, for your help!

 

Warren 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/58AA2EBF-D75C-4BB8-A488-D236BDD8A077%40gmail.com.

[John Stroman]

Warren,

I think Fukami-san made an excellent suggestion.

Now that we know your context, the following link should provide you with the terminology you are looking for. Scroll down to the bold fonts of the different categories under 

分類のレベルとカテゴリー.

https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/jp/classified-information-in-the-united-states

John Stroman

----------------

[Herman]

On 1/23/24 12:01, WARREN SMITH wrote:
> Specifically, here is the sentence I am trying to say in Japanese: "Type
> I Secrecy Order: For patent applications that disclose critical
> technology with military or space application that is not national
> security classified or classifiable"
> My friendly AI assistants like 分類, but I am not convinced....

I think　in this case 指定　(未指定・指定不可） may be more appropriate, as
in　（国家安全保障上の）機密区分を指定する.

Herman Kahn

[Warren Smith]

Thank you. I thought for a few minutes that this site might be authoritative, but then I find a sentence like the last sentence below:

分類のレベルとカテゴリー
米国政府は、不正な開示が国家安全保障を脅かす程度に応じて機密情報を分類しています。分類の 3 つの主なレベル (最低から​​最高) は、社外秘、社外秘、および最高機密です。

This looks like a pretty bad machine translation, as it has "社外秘" for both "confidential" and "secret," where, in this context, 社外秘 is incorrect in both cases.

Unfortunately, it appears as if this site cannot be trusted as a source for vocabulary.

I like Herman's idea. Indeed, I think it is brilliant. Very outside-the-box, but an excellent way to refer to "designated" as classified. Can't really use it when I am trying to actually quote the law, but a much more Nihogo-rashii way to refer to classification in actual conversation. Thanks, Herman.

Warren

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/26f728c9-f9a7-4bf7-bad9-fd244d20b326%40lmi.net.

[Herman]

On 1/24/24 08:07, Warren Smith wrote:
> Thank you. I thought for a few minutes that this site might be authoritative, but then I find a sentence like the last sentence below:
>
> 分類のレベルとカテゴリー
> 米国政府は、不正な開示が国家安全保障を脅かす程度に応じて機密情報を分類しています。分類の 3 つの主なレベル (最低から​​最高) は、社外秘、社外秘、および最高機密です。
>
> This looks like a pretty bad machine translation, as it has "社外秘" for both "confidential" and "secret," where, in this context, 社外秘 is incorrect in both cases.
>
> Unfortunately, it appears as if this site cannot be trusted as a source for vocabulary.
>
> I like Herman's idea. Indeed, I think it is brilliant. Very outside-the-box, but an excellent way to refer to "designated" as classified. Can't really use it when I am trying to actually quote the law, but a much more Nihogo-rashii way to refer to classification in actual conversation. Thanks, Herman.
>

To clarify the suggestion, I think 区分指定 is more appropriate than 分類 as
a translation for "classification" in this context (or 区分未指定 for
"unclassified", etc) because here, to classify means "to assign a
category (to a specific document)", not "to come up with categories".
And since the term itself strongly implies a category of secrecy, 機密区分
may be more appropriate than just 区分.

Herman Kahn

[Herman]

On 1/24/24 10:29, 'Herman' via Honyaku E<>J translation list wrote:
>>
> To clarify the suggestion, I think 区分指定 is more appropriate than 分
> 類 as a translation for "classification" in this context (or 区分未指定
> for "unclassified", etc) because here, to classify means "to assign a
> category (to a specific document)", not "to come up with categories".
> And since the term itself strongly implies a category of secrecy, 機密区
> 分 may be more appropriate than just 区分.
>

Or at least that is the impression I got from reading that one sentence
- I could be wrong.

Herman Kahn

[Warren Smith]

I think your translation is very good. I wonder if it is standard though. I had a discussion with a Japanese attorney the other day about how to render "claimed invention" in Japanese. In the end we rejected what we thought were good translations to go with the term that appears most in the literature  (クレーム発明) so that we didn't come across as ignorant of the literature. Sigh...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/a921fbf0-4e85-45f5-a6ef-309d9d03d69d%40lmi.net.

[Warren Smith]

Took a long time to find, but I ended up finding this in a METI archive:

 

https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/economy/chizai/chiteki/pdf/tip_houkokusyo.pdf

 

Looking at pages 56-57 (and assuming that this document is authoritative), I think that Herman is absolutely right (yet again....)

 

Thank you, Herman!

 

W

---

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 3:49 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Classified Documents

 

I think your translation is very good. I wonder if it is standard though. I had a discussion with a Japanese attorney the other day about how to render "claimed invention" in Japanese. In the end we rejected what we thought were good translations to go with the term that appears most in the literature  (クレーム発明) so that we didn't come across as ignorant of the literature. Sigh...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CAPwG%3DUd3FS3FTUo3VkcsaQt6DDFz5Q2Lf00Ah-3X2DoZd%2BH%3D8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Herman]

On 1/24/24 12:48, Warren Smith wrote:
> I think your translation is very good. I wonder if it is standard
> though.

I don't know if the translation I suggested is standard or if a standard
Japanese translation even exists, although I suspect the most commonly
used translation for "classification", etc. would be 分類 or some
derivative thereof (which I don't think is good fit in this context).
For maximum clarity, I would probably put the English term in
parentheses rather than relying just on the translation.

Herman Kahn

[WARREN SMITH]

I am toying with another approach to this, wondering if the difference between 機密 and 秘密 might be useful, where "秘密" is secret and "機密" is classified.

For my presentation, I have to figure out when to use which of these words, which has become a challenge for me.

If anybody is interested in a primer on some aspects of patent law, here are the presentations I am working on:
English: tinyurl.com/cle-english
Japanese: tinyurl.com/cle-japanese

Warren

[Herman]

On 1/25/24 08:06, WARREN SMITH wrote:
> I am toying with another approach to this, wondering if the difference between 機密 and 秘密 might be useful, where "秘密" is secret and "機密" is classified.

That may be possible if 機密 is suitably defined in the text. 国家機密 would
be more clear, or 国家機密指定された.

Herman Kahn

[Jens Wilkinson]

In discussing the case against Trump for taking out classified documents, the Japanese media has tended to use: 秘密文書, so 
 think that is a good translation. For example: 

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR6B2G61R6BUHBI003.html

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1596787799.1004998.1706032400662%40connect.xfinity.com.

--

Jens Wilkinson

[Warren Smith]

Thank you. This is a very useful reference It is an excellent translation indeed -- for most purposes. While it is good to know the word that is being used for a general discussion of such documents, I need a bit of a finer distinction between "secret" and "classified" for my purposes.  

 

Thanks for the response!

 

W

 

 

 

---

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jens Wilkinson
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 9:40 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Classified Documents

 

In discussing the case against Trump for taking out classified documents, the Japanese media has tended to use: 秘密文書, so 

 

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR6B2G61R6BUHBI003.html

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CAAFxYfEbREpRjZBezyvjo5e7mBe3YzT%3Dr7KnLxBbrrjm7e-4pA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Warren Smith]

I had a long discussion on the topic of national security with a client yesterday, and eventually we resorted to katakana. But what a mouthful! クラシファイド. Shall we introduce a new word, クラシ, into the Japanese language? I think I will try it on for size in my lecture tonight.

 

Wait -- Bill Lise used to be a spook, so he would know all about this. Bill?

 

W

 

---

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/6D68A00B116A4CDE85EC58A15AA5CB08%40WarrenSmithDell.

[Bill Lise]

Well, my involvement in the spooksphere was with respect to the Soviet Union (the first time it was an enemy), and I had access to  a subset of information that we knew about them (my clearance was TS _cryptologic_), including some information from collateral sources such as assets. 

Working in an anglophone organization, however, I didn’t have need to think about Japanese  terminology.

Regarding the term that should be used for classified, I don’t like the easy (but cumbersome) solution of katakanaization and, although I haven’t commented on this before, I would think that something like [防衛] 機密指定の would work as an adjective before 

Or if it is to be followed by something like 情報, you should be able to drop the の. The 指定 is there to emphasize that somebody performed the act of classifying the information.

Unlike copyright, which exists from the moment of creation, classification is the result of the act of classification. And I would think that 情報 rather than 文書 would be better because it is more generic. An article or a photo could be classified. Our Russian typewriters, some of which had no letters marked on keytops, were classified. When non-spook crew members on the vessel we were on needed access to our workspace, we covered the typewriters. Welcome to the world of the Cold War. 

Apologies if this is duplication of a suggestion already made. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/16903F76FB6441479EE4EA95208D883D%40WarrenSmithDell.