View Full Version : State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook, Twitter
I know I've said it before, be careful what you do and say online.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101205/tc_mashable/state_department_warns_students_against_discussing _wikileaks_on_facebook_twitter
State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook, Twitter
A State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects.
The official, a former student of the school, called the career services office of his alma mater to advise students not to post links to WikiLeaks documents, nor to make comments on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as "engaging in these activities would call into question [a student's] ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government," he was quoted as saying in an e-mail sent to students by the career services office on Tuesday.
It's good advice. A lot of you may end up needing some sort of clearance or background check when you finish school. I did, and I know a lot of others here that did. Why take the chance?
Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation? Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation. Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.
Expect me in the gulags for this post.
Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation? Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation. Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.
Expect me in the gulags for this post.We're talking about security clearances. A lot of jobs in physics require them.
chingkui
Dec6-10, 07:12 PM
Classified information is still classified even if it is leaked.
Topher925
Dec6-10, 07:21 PM
Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation? Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation. Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.
Expect me in the gulags for this post.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the government but more do with with potential employers. Just about any job that involves the research or development of new technologies, whether it be in industry or government, involves security clearance. Try getting a job as a researcher at Lockheed-Martin when you've been spouting anarchist rants about confidential documents all over the internet.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 07:29 PM
We're talking about security clearances. A lot of jobs in physics require them.
Correct.
This is more about making sure the employee being hired is an obedient, docile cog, or at the very least will conform to the system. Since I have no interest in making weapons systems for the government, I do not care.
But yeah, to those interested in working in physics, by all means, do not read, discuss, anything those documents.
Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation?
If the rest of the governments in the world were as incompetent as the United States', it would be a very different world indeed.
Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation.
That's (mostly) true. Too bad the concern in the OP has nothing to do with this.
Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.
Again, not the point. Re-read.
State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook, Twitter
A State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects.
The official, a former student of the school, called the career services office of his alma mater to advise students not to post links to WikiLeaks documents, nor to make comments on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as "engaging in these activities would call into question [a student's] ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government," he was quoted as saying in an e-mail sent to students by the career services office on Tuesday.
It's good advice. A lot of you may end up needing some sort of clearance or background check when you finish school. I did, and I know a lot of others here that did. Why take the chance?
Cowardly.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 07:57 PM
Correct.
This is more about making sure the employee being hired is an obedient, docile cog, or at the very least will conform to the system. Since I have no interest in making weapons systems for the government, I do not care.
But yeah, to those interested in working in physics, by all means, do not read, discuss, anything those documents. I'm not sure how old you are, but there are an awful lot of jobs, not just in physics, that require security checks. I'm a heating and air conditioning engineer and I work for pharmacueticals - they require background checks (of varying seriousness) too.
Kids reject conforming and obeying rules. That seems nice when you're a kid, but that's not a good way to be a functional member of society.
Evo, I'm thinking this should probably be in P&WA...
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 07:59 PM
Cowardly. In your journey, you'll need to learn realism, responsibility and maturity. You cannot break the rules and then blame those who make the rules for not letting you play the game anymore.
This issue is blindingly simple: if you are a person who doesn't respect the ability of the government to have secrets, an employer has every reason to believe you won't respect their ability to have secrets.
From this thread and the ones in the Politics forum, I can see there's a definite split between those who think Wikileaks is doing good vs. doing evil. Interestingly, I don't think the split is down the usual left/right lines. Instead, I think it's age.
Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here.
CRGreathouse
Dec6-10, 08:04 PM
From this thread and the ones in the Politics forum, I can see there's a definite split between those who think Wikileaks is doing good vs. doing evil. Interestingly, I don't think the split is down the usual left/right lines. Instead, I think it's age.
Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here.
In light of the first paragraph, can I interpret the second paragraph as suggesting that you do not consider yourself one of the "younger folks here"?
In light of the first paragraph, can I interpret the second paragraph as suggesting that you do not consider yourself one of the "younger folks here"?
You're just one click away from discovering that for yourself :wink:!
I know I've said it before, be careful what you do and say online.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101205/tc_mashable/state_department_warns_students_against_discussing _wikileaks_on_facebook_twitter
It's good advice. A lot of you may end up needing some sort of clearance or background check when you finish school. I did, and I know a lot of others here that did. Why take the chance?So, the young people who are identified as discussing these disclosures in public forums probably won't be doing government work (at least a high level), or getting government grants and subsidies. I agree that they should be made aware of this. But not necessarily advised against participating in such discussions. What message do we want to give to our young people? That they should trust those in power? That would seem to me to be opposed to our form of government which is based on the idea that governments and the governed are, necessarily, adversaries.
So, the young people who are identified as discussing these disclosures in public forums probably won't be doing government work (at least a high level), or getting government grants and subsidies. I agree that they should be made aware of this. But not necessarily advised against participating in such discussions. What message do we want to give to our young people? That they should trust those in power? That would seem to me to be opposed to our form of government which is based on the idea that governments and the governed are, necessarily, adversaries.
I think that's a fair point, except I see nothing wrong with offering advice - you can take it, or not. Of course, the judgement you have at 20 will be quite different from the judgement you'll have at 40.
humanino
Dec6-10, 08:29 PM
I think it's age.
Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here.Maybe, maybe not. For instance, why is this not naive :
This issue is blindingly simple: if you are a person who doesn't respect the ability of the government to have secrets, an employer has every reason to believe you won't respect their ability to have secrets.This is a mere analogy. The two are not necessarily related. Assange is not even a US citizen, he has no reason to support the US government. If I work for somebody, I made the choice to work with them. I see every reason to behave differently.
While I am saying that, I do not wish to support Assange anymore either. I am just not willing to buy any argument.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 08:36 PM
In my case it has little to do with age and more to do with the disgust and contempt I hold towards my society. Namely, the little value human life has in our modern, global society. Actually, let me correct that, your value to society is proportional to the amount of money you command.
Yes, I enjoy liberty here in my country, but we are largely insulated from the cost of that liberty, and most of that cost is covered by foreign nationals.
This issue is blindingly simple: if you are a person who doesn't respect the ability of the government to have secrets, an employer has every reason to believe you won't respect their ability to have secrets.I agree, the issue is simple. How much secrecy do you want your government or employer, or your friends for that matter, to hide behind? If you say, well, nobody can be trusted. Then I agree. Isn't that why our system, with it's codified rights, and freedoms, and requirements for openness and disclosure, and separation (and, supposed, balancing) of powers has evolved?
Maybe, maybe not. For instance, why is this not naive :
This is a mere analogy. The two are not necessarily related. Assange is not even a US citizen, he has no reason to support the US government. If I work for somebody, I made the choice to work with them. I see every reason to behave differently.
But would an employer see it as a simple analogy, or evidence of a "Stick it to the man" attitude?
(For non-native speakers: "Stick it to the man" refers to an attitude of defiance and resistance to authority - government, big business, your boss, etc.)
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 08:48 PM
But that is only because the employer-employee relationship is seen as adversarial, when it does not need to be that way. Besides, I always thought going to college meant acquiring skills that would permit one to analyze sources, develop one's independent thinking, and form one's own opinions. Why waste years of my life developing that just to end up accepting whatever "The Man" wants me to accept?
I think that's a fair point, except I see nothing wrong with offering advice - you can take it, or not.I agree, as long as the 'advice' is sufficiently qualified, ie., that the considerations and entailments are sufficiently elaborated.
Of course, the judgement you have at 20 will be quite different from the judgement you'll have at 40.Not necessarily. However, while I'd have to agree with you that this seems to me also to be the case, I don't want to see people being any less driven by ideas of courage, honor, equality of justice, honesty, etc. at 40 than they are at 20.
humanino
Dec6-10, 08:58 PM
But would an employer see it as a simple analogy, or evidence of a "Stick it to the man" attitude?It may be that if an employer is incapable of understanding the difference, I would personally not be interested in working with them. It is not about defiance. If I am an employer, I expect more respect from my employee to our business than an elected official can expect respect from a foreign national, who happens to be in disagreement with the politics the official is leading. An employer is entitled to expect a lot of respect from the employees. An elected official may expect the very minimal amount of respect from a foreign national in disagreement with their politics. Even just by law, there is quite a difference.
Example : I do not believe I would breach any US official documents' confidentiality. I moved from abroad here, and I think I respect highly this country. It would take quite a cataclysm revealed in the document for me to change my mind and challenge my entire life on it. On the other hand, I would be very likely to breach North Korea or China official documents' confidentiality if I believed they reveal human rights violation for instance. I would send them to a journalist. There is a reason : I would never have made the choice to move to North Korea or China. I do not owe them anything.
Proton Soup
Dec6-10, 08:58 PM
well, if all the government wants is conformists, i think they will be missing out on some of the best and brightest
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 09:00 PM
I know I've said it before, be careful what you do and say online.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101205/tc_mashable/state_department_warns_students_against_discussing _wikileaks_on_facebook_twitter
...nor to make comments on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as "engaging in these activities would call into question [a student's] ability to deal with confidential information...
I guess this ought to apply just as well to all of us here that have been discussing this issue on this particular social network! Shouldn't all discussion on this matter be forbidden at PF, since it involves "making comments" about "confidential information"?
Topher925
Dec6-10, 09:09 PM
I guess this ought to apply just as well to all of us here that have been discussing this issue on this particular social network! Shouldn't all discussion on this matter be forbidden at PF, since it involves "making comments" about "confidential information"?
Nah, I don't think so. The topic of this thread is about ethics and freedom of speech, not the documents Wikileaks dumped.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 09:10 PM
Example : I do not believe I would breach any US official documents' confidentiality. I moved from abroad here, and I think I respect highly this country. It would take quite a cataclysm revealed in the document for me to change my mind and challenge my entire life on it. On the other hand, I would be very likely to breach North Korea or China official documents' confidentiality if I believed they reveal human rights violation for instance. I would send them to a journalist. There is a reason : I would never have made the choice to move to North Korea or China. I do not owe them anything.
This is where you lost me.
If you discover documents detailing human rights violations by the US, you would not disclose them? But you apparently would disclose the same if it was China and NK. It would take "quite a cataclysm" for you to release those US documents. Do you not see a problem here?
Whether it is done by the US, China, or NK, you owe those who suffered a chance for justice.
I mean, seriously...
"I saw my dad steal a bike, but I will not report him to the authorities because he is my dad; on the other hand, I saw my neighbor do the same thing, so let me go ahead and call the police on his butt."
The crime is the same regardless of who committed it.
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 09:12 PM
The article linked in the OP warns people "that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects". We have at least three threads that are active, and at least two earlier threads on the matter, that involve discussion of specific leaks and their implications.
well, if all the government wants is conformists, i think they will be missing out on some of the best and brightest
Working in the government really isn't unlike working in private industry. There are slightly different goals and pay scales, but government employees "conform" to their employer's wishes just as much as a worker in private industry conforms to theirs.
The article linked in the OP warns people "that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects". We have at least three threads that are active, and at least two earlier threads on the matter, that involve discussion of specific leaks and their implications.That's why I am posting this for those that are smart enough to figure out that they need to be careful of what they say online. I already deleted an admission of illegal activity by one kid, but I might not be around to catch everything before it gets cached.
But would an employer see it as a simple analogy, or evidence of a "Stick it to the man" attitude?Of course. Look, those who aren't 'the man' are going to have a 'stick it to the man' attitude. And, 'the man', is going to tend to 'stick it to' those who aren't 'the man'. These are, necessarily, adversarial situations we're talking about. Wrt the OP 'the man' has a vested interest in not having 'his' dirty laundry exposed and discussed openly. And those who aren't 'the man' have a vested interest in exposing and discussing it. Period.
Unless of course one wants to just 'trust' ones governmental officials and employers. In which case I would have to say that one is not a true American -- or a true freedom loving human being and 'citizen of the world'.
Maybe the time will come, hopefully soon enough, that all of us humans will have to choose between more or less transitory nationalistic and ethnic divisions and harmonic survival. Maybe not of course. Who knows.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:27 PM
From this thread and the ones in the Politics forum, I can see there's a definite split between those who think Wikileaks is doing good vs. doing evil. Interestingly, I don't think the split is down the usual left/right lines. Instead, I think it's age.
Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here. Whether or not one thinks Wikileaks is doing good doesn't have anything to do with the fact that lack of respect for authority can harm one's prospects at employment. One is an opinion and the other is a practical reality and they are two completely separate issues.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:29 PM
This is a mere analogy. The two are not necessarily related. Assange is not even a US citizen, he has no reason to support the US government. If I work for somebody, I made the choice to work with them. I see every reason to behave differently.
While I am saying that, I do not wish to support Assange anymore either. I am just not willing to buy any argument. You misread my post: This isn't about whether Assange did anything right or wrong, but about whether those who show support for him are doing anything wrong. The "you" in that quote isn't Assange, it is the kids posting support for him on facebook.
Of course. Look, those who aren't 'the man' are going to have a 'stick it to the man' attitude. And, 'the man', is going to tend to 'stick it to' those who aren't 'the man'. These are, necessarily, adversarial situations we're talking about. Wrt the OP 'the man' has a vested interest in not having 'his' dirty laundry exposed and discussed openly. And those who aren't 'the man' have a vested interest in exposing and discussing it. Period.
Unless of course one wants to just 'trust' ones governmental officials and employers. In which case I would have to say that one is not a true American -- or a true freedom loving human being and 'citizen of the world'.
Maybe the time will come, hopefully soon enough, that all of us humans will have to choose between more or less transitory nationalistic and ethnic divisions and harmonic survival. Maybe not of course. Who knows.You do realize that in private industry that trade secrets are everywhere. If you were dumb enough to state online that you are a blabbermouth and your prospective employer sees that (you are aware that employers now hire companies that specialize in searching for posts by applicants?), you will be passed over. You'll never even know why you didn't get the job, or why you didn't even get an interview.
Ignorance is bliss, but I'd rather have a job.
humanino
Dec6-10, 09:33 PM
"I saw my dad steal a bike, but I will not report him to the authorities because he is my dad; on the other hand, I saw my neighbor do the same thing, so let me go ahead and call the police on his butt."Except if I know and trust my dad, I would be less inclined to believe he stole the bike. Maybe the car is out of service and he is trying to help someone. So I would definitely cross-check and make sure he really stole the bike. If on the other hand the neighbor is known for being a bike stealer, I would report them much more easily, yes. That is normal human behavior. In this sense, it is not obvious at all that the argument raised by russ is valid. In particular, Assange who is so defiant of the US government is very faithful to wikileaks.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:33 PM
I agree, the issue is simple. How much secrecy do you want your government or employer, or your friends for that matter, to hide behind? If you say, well, nobody can be trusted. Then I agree. Isn't that why our system, with it's codified rights, and freedoms, and requirements for openness and disclosure, and separation (and, supposed, balancing) of powers has evolved? That's fractured and naive. Lets turn it around: how much privacy do you think you are entitled to? Why is a government or a company not entitled to any?....
It is also - again - completely irrelevant to the practical reality of the warning. The issue isn't whether you think secrecy is good or bad, the issue is to make people aware that saying anti-government things on the internet can be bad for your job prospects. So the question isn't whether you think secrecy is good or bad, but whether you are willing to risk your future job prospects by promoting that belief on the internet.
humanino
Dec6-10, 09:35 PM
You misread my post: This isn't about whether Assange did anything right or wrong, but about whether those who show support for him are doing anything wrong. The "you" in that quote isn't Assange, it is the kids posting support for him on facebook.I do not support Assange, but I do not support either how he is being targeted. He should be on interpol's red list for espionage or some other clear charge, not "sex crime".
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:37 PM
But that is only because the employer-employee relationship is seen as adversarial, when it does not need to be that way. It's seen as adversarial by you and that's why it is necessary for them to protect themselves against you. That's what your opinion is based-on and ironically, you validate the point by saying that! Your logic is all twisted around.
Besides, I always thought going to college meant acquiring skills that would permit one to analyze sources, develop one's independent thinking, and form one's own opinions. Why waste years of my life developing that just to end up accepting whatever "The Man" wants me to accept? Not posting every thought that pops into your head on Facebook doesn't have anything at all with controlling your thoughts. Perhaps in college, you will learn some of the following skills:
1. Picking your battles.
2. Doing what is necessary to be successful.
3. Teamwork.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 09:37 PM
Whether or not one thinks Wikileaks is doing good doesn't have anything to do with the fact that lack of respect for authority can harm one's prospects at employment. One is an opinion and the other is a practical reality and they are two completely separate issues.
There is a difference between respecting authority and being subservient to authority. In your practical reality, your employer has significant control over your life.
I do not support Assange, but I do not support either how he is being targeted. He should be on interpol's red list for espionage or some other clear charge, not "sex crime".
The women who allege those crimes are probably quite happy with the charges.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:38 PM
I do not support Assange, but I do not support either how he is being targeted. He should be on interpol's red list for espionage or some other clear charge, not "sex crime". Be that as it may, you still misread my post. The "you" in my post was not Assange.
Whether or not one thinks Wikileaks is doing good doesn't have anything to do with the fact that lack of respect for authority can harm one's prospects at employment. One is an opinion and the other is a practical reality and they are two completely separate issues.
If you lack respect for authority, you're far more likely to be cheering on what Wikileaks is doing.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:40 PM
I guess this ought to apply just as well to all of us here that have been discussing this issue on this particular social network! Shouldn't all discussion on this matter be forbidden at PF, since it involves "making comments" about "confidential information"? What does "forbidden" have to do with anything? Neither the quoted passage nor anyone else in this thread has suggested that anything be forbidden.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:42 PM
There is a difference between respecting authority and being subservient to authority. Agreed. In your practical reality, your employer has significant control over your life. That's not even a little bit true.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 09:44 PM
If you lack respect for authority, you're far more likely to be cheering on what Wikileaks is doing.
Yes, but again, agreeing with Assange isn't what could damage your job prospects, posting on the internet that you agree with Assange is.
I do not support Assange, but I do not support either how he is being targeted. He should be on interpol's red list for espionage or some other clear charge, not "sex crime".The Swede's insist the request to interrogate is sincere. Honestly I don't know Swedish law and apparently they have some weird ones. I just don't believe the circumstances. I have to give you that one humanino, a warrant for something called "surprise sex"? Would a normal person have Interpol involved, I doubt it. I still think Assange is scum of the earth for the damage he's done and continues to do though.
humanino
Dec6-10, 09:47 PM
The women who allege those crimes are probably quite happy with the charges.It may very well be, but I challenge you to find a similar case ever on interpol red list. I personally failed. You may know that interpol spokesman declared "if it wasn't for a request from Sweden, we would not have changed the status of his warrant".If you lack respect for authority, you're far more likely to be cheering on what Wikileaks is doing.But one may also not cheer on what wikileaks is currently doing, and still believe that "authority" is not something automatic. The "authority" should clarify for what they want Assange, and I do want to see Assange answer questions (including his Sweden story, but that's second in importance). It is also a matter of credibility for the current government.
If you lack respect for authority, you're far more likely to be cheering on what Wikileaks is doing.I've agreed with everything you've posted.
You do realize that in private industry that trade secrets are everywhere. If you were dumb enough to state online that you are a blabbermouth and your prospective employer sees that (you are aware that employers now hire companies that specialize in searching for posts by applicants?), you will be passed over. You'll never even know why you didn't get the job, or why you didn't even get an interview.
Ignorance is bliss, but I'd rather have a job.Well, ... yes. I post what I do in order to get perspectives that might enlighten me. Still, I had a somewhat higher goal in mind. Eg., if one happens to believe in freedom of speech and openness and honesty and full disclosure and integrity and all of that stuff -- and one also happens to be really smart -- then maybe one might succeed without kowtowing to the status quo. Some people do and some people don't.
Yes, but again, agreeing with Assange isn't what could damage your job prospects, posting on the internet that you agree with Assange is.
Some will get it and some won't. Kind of like an intellectual Darwin Award. :tongue2:
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 09:58 PM
You are conflating respect for authority with agreeing with the actions of authority. It is possible to disagree with a law and still follow that law; it is possible to follow the orders issued by authority and disagree with those orders. Nuremberg Trials, anyone? What you are suggesting is that if I disagree with authority I am automatically disrespecting authority.
DaveC426913
Dec6-10, 10:00 PM
I'm a bit confused. Could someone just walk me through the logic?
What exactly happens if someone talks about the controversy on Facebook or Twitter? Is it illegal?
Is a student putting himself at more risk with an employer than if he FB'ed about the stupid cop that ticketed him for jaywalking?
I am not being facetious; I really am naive about the whole risk situation.
You are conflating respect for authority with agreeing with the actions of authority. It is possible to disagree with a law and still follow that law; it is possible to follow the orders issued by authority and disagree with those orders. Nuremberg Trials, anyone? What you are suggesting is that if I disagree with authority I am automatically disrespecting authority.Your posts have been pretty clear that you disrespect authority, no?
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 10:02 PM
You are conflating respect for authority with agreeing with the actions of authority. It is possible to disagree with a law and still follow that law; it is possible to follow the orders issued by authority and disagree with those orders. Nuremberg Trials, anyone? What you are suggesting is that if I disagree with authority I am automatically disrespecting authority. In this particular case, if you agree with Assange that it is ok to steal and distribute classified documents, then you are most definitely disrespecting authority.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 10:05 PM
I'm a bit confused. Could someone just walk me through the logic?
What exactly happens if someone talks about the controversy on Facebook or Twitter? Is it illegal? Again, no one said anything is forbidden/illegal.
The logic is this:
You agree with Assange and post online that there should be no secrets and it is ok to sabbotage organizations that try to have secrets. Then you try to get a job working for NorthrupGrumman. They google you and find out you have no interest in keeping secrets and decide it is too risky to give you a job where you might have to keep secrets.
Is a student putting himself at more risk with an employer than if he FB'ed about the stupid cop that ticketed him for jaywalking? Absolutely!
Here's an article on the subject: Employees have been fired when their employer construed their blog posts as sharing confidential information, making inappropriate comments about the company, or both. Posting company news, pictures, and even making positive comments about a company have cost bloggers their jobs.
How about job seekers? Can having a blog, a personal web site, or an account on a social networking site impact your job search, for better or for worse? It could. One blogger posted recently that he lies in interviews. That wouldn't thrill a prospective employer if they knew about it. Another job seeker's blog mentions that she loves to party all night, drinks to excess on a regular basis, and steals on occasion. Again, not a profile that would thrill most employers.
http://jobsearch.about.com/od/jobsearchblogs/a/jobsearchblog.htm
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 10:11 PM
Your posts have been pretty clear that you disrespect authority, no?
And as a thinking man, you are aware there are many kinds of authority and many ways in which authority uses its power. I generally disrespect authority that uses its power in irresponsible and harmful ways, such as most modern governments. Teachers are another form of authority who use their power in constructive ways, and I generally respect them.
See? That was easy.
In this particular case, if you agree with Assange that it is ok to steal and distribute classified documents, then you are most definitely disrespecting authority.
In that case, you should go lock up all CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. employees since they are in the business of stealing and distributing classified documents owned by foreign governments. That looks to me like a disrespect of foreign authority and sovereignty. Ah, let me guess, it is ok if we do it to them, but unfair when it is done to us.
As far as I can tell, Assange received those documents. Just like any reporter, he is distributing information he received. You should go lock up most journalists, too.
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 10:13 PM
Yes, but again, agreeing with Assange isn't what could damage your job prospects, posting on the internet that you agree with Assange is.According to the State Dept official cited in the link in the OP, posting any thoughts about Wikileaks on the internet is sufficient to damage your job prospects. Going strictly by that warning, we've got a number of threads running that are essentially inviting participants to hurt their future prospects by making a post.
DaveC426913
Dec6-10, 10:14 PM
Here's an article on the subject: http://jobsearch.about.com/od/jobsearchblogs/a/jobsearchblog.htm
There's not one mention in that blurb about political viewpoints.
Anyways, guys, this is like Thought Police stuff. You can't go around telling people that their desire to have and speak their own opinions about current issues is tantamount to a unilateral "disrespect for authority".
Holy Jesoosi Christoosi.
And as a thinking man, you are aware there are many kinds of authority and many ways in which authority uses its power. I generally disrespect authority that uses its power in irresponsible and harmful ways, such as most modern governments. Right, you are so abused as a US citizen. :rolleyes:
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 10:18 PM
In that case, you should go lock up all CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. employees since they are in the business of stealing and distributing classified documents owned by foreign governments. That looks to me like a disrespect of foreign authority and sovereignty. Ah, let me guess, it is ok if we do it to them, but unfair when it is done to us.
Welcome to real life. As far as I can tell, Assange received those documents. Just like any reporter, he is distributing information he received. You should go lock up most journalists, too. Most journalists aren't in the habit of publishing stolen documents.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 10:18 PM
According to the State Dept official cited in the link in the OP, posting any thoughts about Wikileaks on the internet is sufficient to damage your job prospects. Going strictly by that warning, we've got a number of threads running that are essentially inviting participants to hurt their future prospects by making a post. Agreed.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 10:20 PM
Right, you are so abused as a US citizen. :rolleyes:
Even though most US citizens do encounter government abuse on a daily basis (local, state, federal) I do not have to be personally abused in order to say government authority is being used irresponsibly and in harmful ways. Take a look at: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc.
It is something called human responsibility: the notion that I am responsible for the actions of my government, whether right or wrong, since I am allegedly the government.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 10:21 PM
There's not one mention in that blurb about political viewpoints. True, but we're not having a discussion about political viewpoints.
Anyways, guys, this is like Thought Police stuff. You can't go around telling people that their desire to have and speak their own opinions about current issues is tantamount to a unilateral "disrespect for authority". That's a misunderstanding of how freedom of speech works. Speech - even protected speech - sometimes has negative consequences and part of accepting the freedom is accepting the consequences.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 10:23 PM
Welcome to real life.
Yes, indeed. In real life even the government gets screwed. Deal with it, you would say, right?
Most journalists aren't in the habit of publishing stolen documents.
Except when they do publish stolen documents, leaked information, etc. etc. etc. Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Wikileaks... ...Bin Laden Determined to Strike US, Valerie Plame leak...
Some will get it and some won't. Kind of like an intellectual Darwin Award. :tongue2:
Aaaahahahhahaha....that made me laugh....
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 10:25 PM
Most journalists aren't in the habit of publishing stolen documents.Plenty of journalists have published stories based on classified information that was leaked to them by some government employee (e.g., Armitage + Novak). I don't know a single one that has been charged with espionage.
Plenty of journalists have published stories based on classified information that was leaked to them by some Government employee. I don't know a single one that has been charged with espionage.Assange isn't considered a journalist though. He is being accused of wilfully retaining and dispersing illegally obtained classified government documents.
The Associated Press has come out and publicly stated that they have refused to publish the latest leak. It seems even the press are turning against Assange.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 10:37 PM
Plenty of journalists have published stories based on classified information that was leaked to them by some government employee (e.g., Armitage + Novak). I don't know a single one that has been charged with espionage.
On the fingers of one hand in the past 50 years. In any case, Daniel Ellsberg was tried, but acquitted for reasons not related to the merrit of the case.
This is all OT, though.
[edit] Disclaimer: please do not take this post to be a statement that I consider Assange a journalist. I do not.
DaveC426913
Dec6-10, 10:45 PM
True, but we're not having a discussion about political viewpoints.
The article is about corporations becoming aware of how potential emplyees behave in ways that directly impact the corporation - slagging the company or lying in interviews.
That has nothing to do with someone's viewpoints on Wikileaks. At least, no more than a kid callin' a cop a pig. You could tell the kid he's got a unilateral issue with authority for that too, if you had a mind to. But why jump on the scare bandwagon?
That's a misunderstanding of how freedom of speech works. Speech - even protected speech - sometimes has negative consequences and part of accepting the freedom is accepting the consequences.
I said nothing about free speech. Don't put words in my mouth.
I can't believe PF members are promoting this attitude that people should muzzle themselves.
I get that anything you can say online could alway come back to bite you, but that's true of this this issue no more or less than anything else. I'm just shocked at PF members. I always saw PFers as more moderarate and sensible, and able to recognize this as the scare tactic it is.
You guys sound like the bitter old uncle, telling the kids that they better respect their elders, or else.
The article is about corporations becoming aware of how potential emplyees behave in ways that directly impact the corporation - slagging the company or lying in interviews.
That has nothing to do with someone's viewpoints on Wikileaks. At least, no more than a kid callin' a cop a pig. You could tell the kid he's got a unilateral issue with authority for that too, if you had a mind to. But why jump on the scare bandwagon?
I said nothing about free speech. Don't put words in my mouth.
I can't believe PF members are promoting this attitude that people should muzzle themselves.
I get that anything you can say online could alway come back to bite you, but that's true of this this issue no more or less than anything else. I'm just shocked at PF members. I always saw PFers as more moderarate and sensible, and able to recognize this as the scare tactic it is.
You guys sound like the bitter old uncle, telling the kids that they better respect their elders, or else.
Like I said..Darwin Award. The smarts ones will get it.
DaveC426913
Dec6-10, 10:49 PM
Like I said..Darwin Award. The smarts ones will get it.
What will they get?
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 10:51 PM
Oh, anyone with 1/10 of a brain gets it: you are free to say what you like, so long as it does not challenge authority, even if what you say is valid.
I ask once again, who is a journalist?
A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is acknowledged as journalism.
Do Assange's actions fit the description?
What will they get?Not to be stupid online. Go do some research Dave, there is tons of information out there about how employers are searching the internet for what appplicants have posted.
There was even a thread on this here a few years ago about employers turning down applicants based on online comments. You missed all of this? It's all over the internet!
Oh, anyone with 1/10 of a brain gets it: you are free to say what you like, so long as it does not challenge authority, even if what you say is valid.
I ask once again, who is a journalist?
Do Assange's actions fit the description?No he put up a website and solicited people to upload hacked files. Do you ever read anything?
DaveC426913
Dec6-10, 10:56 PM
Not to be stupid online. Go do some research Dave, there is tons of information out there about how employers are searching the internet for what appplicants have posted.
There was even a thread on this here a few years ago about employers turning down applicants based on online comments. You missed all of this? It's all over the internet!
Not sure why you think I don't know all this...
But why do you think this is any stupider than any other thing one might not want an employer to read?
Not sure why you think I don't know all this...
But why do you think this is any stupider than any other thing one might not want an employer to read?Go do some research dave. Your post made it obvious you don't know this. I'm just going by your post.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 11:00 PM
Not to be stupid online. Go do some research Dave, there is tons of information out there about how employers are searching the internet for what appplicants have posted.
There was even a thread on this here a few years ago about employers turning down applicants based on online comments. You missed all of this? It's all over the internet!
Do you not see the danger in that? What you are basically saying, is that people should not voice their concerns or controversial opinions because employers might not hire them. Not online, not on the phone, not to friends, even close ones. What kind of society would you have if no one said anything that might be interpreted as controversial?
No he put up a website and solicited people to upload hackes files. Do you ever read anything?
Yes, guilty of soliciting. Alright, point for you.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 11:00 PM
The article is about corporations becoming aware of how potential emplyees behave in ways that directly impact the corporation - slagging the company or lying in interviews.
That has nothing to do with someone's viewpoints on Wikileaks. Dave, it really seems to me like you are being obtuse just for the sake of being difficult. The last sentence in the quote I posted was for things not directly related to the job, but that could affect job performance. Are you seriously saying you can't see how not taking document security seriously would call into question a prospective employee's ability to keep company secrets? I said nothing about free speech. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say you mentioned free speech, Dave. What I said was that what you are saying reflects a misunderstanding of it. I can't believe PF members are promoting this attitude that people should muzzle themselves. I can't believe you don't see how a person can damage themselves with inappropriate speech. Have you never found yourself "muzzling yourself"? I get that anything you can say online could alway come back to bite you... So why are you arguing about it!?!? ....but that's true of this this issue no more or less than anything else. Perhaps, but this one made the news today....and the way people are arguing, it seems like they don't get it, so I think it was worthwhile to discuss.
I'm just shocked at PF members. I always saw PFers as more moderarate and sensible, and able to recognize this as the scare tactic it is.
I have always known this site is not moderate so I for one am not surprised by some of the naive, knee-jerk left-wing responses I am seeing.
What possible reason could there be for this to be a "scare tactic"? The documents are already in the public domain. Students discussing them does not do any damage to the government. You guys sound like the bitter old uncle, telling the kids that they better respect their elders, or else. Or perhaps we're just giving prudent advice?
[edit: fixed some interlaced quotes]
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 11:10 PM
Or perhaps we're just giving prudent advice?Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects?
Galteeth
Dec6-10, 11:16 PM
Expressing political viewpoints, or any viewpoints for that matter, has always had real world consequences. I don't think it is immature to decide that you value your ability to speak your mind freely more then the theoretical economic security of some job prospects. There is of course, the other side of things, that those who never say or do anything opinionated or controversial rarely get far in life.
While this is common sense, I think it is a bit "chilling" to have government agencies be dispensing such advice (chilling in the sense of not outright censorship, but the sense in which is the word is commonly applied to speech).
To borrow an old word, I think some of what you are seeing is "reactionary". The government and power elite have realized information can no longer be controlled like it used to be, and they are freaking.
Galteeth
Dec6-10, 11:18 PM
Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects?
I think it's more so a recognition of reality. What people say online is a record, and it may have consequences. I didn't get the impression that such discussions are banned at physics forums, more so, discuss at your own risk.
russ_watters
Dec6-10, 11:18 PM
Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects? Well first off, no one is telling anyone not to post in any thread. But [shrug] the article was published yesterday, Gokul.
And I guess it depends on if one thinks we should ban this subject. If we do that, then we're being the "thought police" people in this thread are accusing "they" of being. The only way this subject would be a violation of our TOS is if we were actually discussing how to hack Pentagon servers.
Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects?I don't think discussing the topic is bad if you aren't irresponsible enough to discuss it without putting yourself in a predicament. It's only those that mouth off at their own detriment that have to worry, which is why I also started a thread warning people not to post something that could hurt them.
Do you think we should ban discussion of wikileaks here? I mean, if you think wikileaks should go on the banned topics list, lets discuss it.
It looks like they're more concerned about people disseminating the cables than merely discussing news of the leaks. The letter is only hearsay and interpreted.
From the link in the OP:
From: “Office of Career Services”
Date: November 30, 2010 15:26:53 EST:
Hi students,
We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.
The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.
Regards,
Office of Career Services
This is the original source of the letter: http://www.arabist.net/blog/2010/12/2/state-dept-warning-prospective-recruits-to-steer-clear-of-wi.html
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 11:32 PM
Was a similar email sent when the "collateral murder" video was recently released by Wikileaks? Going back a bit further, was a similar email sent when Valerie Plame's name was leaked?
Those are two very important questions.
Gokul43201
Dec6-10, 11:37 PM
On the fingers of one hand in the past 50 years. In any case, Daniel Ellsberg was tried, but acquitted for reasons not related to the merrit of the case. Ellsberg was the whistle-blower, not the journalist that publicized the Papers. No one at the Times (or later at the Post) was ever charged with espionage, treason, or, to my knowledge, anything remotely close to that. Even the mere injunction to stop the papers from printing further details didn't survive the courts.
[edit] Disclaimer: please do not take this post to be a statement that I consider Assange a journalist. I do not.I believe he is generally considered a journalist. Whether or not the hosting and publicizing of the leaked information constitutes an act of first-amendment-protected journalism is a different matter, one on which I don't have a solid opinion yet.
As for the policy decision, I think it would be prudent and at least somewhat more overtly consistent to have a clear "post at your own peril" kind of warning in some prominent place (like the thread title) in the other threads.
Was a similar email sent when the "collateral murder" video was recently released by Wikileaks? Going back a bit further, was a similar email sent when Valerie Plame's name was leaked?
Those are two very important questions.Those weren't on the level of the current uploads. The government has now come out officially stating that anyone in possesion of or dispersing the files are violating the law. It's serious now. People that were foolish enough to go to a server that had the files and download them are now on record. The government doesn't know if you were just curious or intending harm.
Jack21222
Dec6-10, 11:42 PM
I've already resigned myself to never having security clearance, so I'm not too worried about discussing the documents on the internet. I freely admit that I have no particular allegiance to the United States, and the only thing keeping me here is inertia.
Galteeth
Dec6-10, 11:45 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/columbia-students-wikileaks-cables
"The state department insisted no such advice had been sent out formally. Its spokesman, PJ Crowley, in an email to the Huffington Post, which had posted the Columbia University warning on its site, wrote: "This is not true. We have instructed state department employees not to access the WikiLeaks site and download posted documents using an unclassified network since these documents are still classified."
The US social security administration has joined the list of federal departments warning its employees not to browse WikiLeaks. It says in a circular: "Despite these documents being publicly accessible over the internet, the documents remain classified and SSA employees should not access, download, or transmit them. Individuals may be subject to applicable federal criminal statutes for unlawful access to or transmission of classified information."
It seems the state department has told people not to download them, but not that they cannot discuss them.
Mathnomalous
Dec6-10, 11:49 PM
Those weren't on the level of the current uploads. The government has now come out officially stating that anyone in possesion of or dispersing the files are violating the law. It's serious now. People that were foolish enough to go to a server that had the files and download them are now on record. The government doesn't know if you were just curious or intending harm.
Is the US government ready to prosecute "over 100,000" people? That is the number claimed by Assange.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/world/europe/07assange.html?_r=1&hp
Since the files were on several servers worldwide, it is safe to assume many people downloaded those documents, including non-US citizens. Containing information on the Internet? very difficult. The level of government panic indicates to me those documents are about to spark something... or maybe not.
I believe he is generally considered a journalist.Actually what I've been reading is that he is not *currently* considered a journalist. There have been so many issues, I have not saved everything that I have read. But no, wikileaks is definitely not considered a news site and doesn't qualify as journalism, it is considered a site simply for uploading files due to the wikileaks purpose statement.
As for the policy decision, I think it would be prudent and at least somewhat more overtly consistent to have a clear "post at your own peril" kind of warning in some prominent place (like the thread title) in the other threads.We could do that, but this thread was my "wake up call" and you see that people still don't get it.
That's fractured and naive.Perhaps so. But all that means is that I didn't formulate eloquently enough my understanding of ideals that I would assume we all espouse.
Lets turn it around: how much privacy do you think you are entitled to?As much as any other individual.
Why is a government or a company not entitled to any?....Because (1) governments and companies aren't individuals, and (2) because their collective wealth and power makes them adversaries wrt individual freedom.
Do you really not understand what the canons of separation/balance of powers are based on? They're based on the realization that nobody can be trusted to act honestly and fairly. Nobody. Not you. Not me. Not anybody. Especially when any of us is in a position of power and authority. And most especially wrt collective concentrations of wealth and power, such as 'governments' and 'corporations'.
So, it's wrt governments and other such concentrations of wealth and power that exposure and disclosure is of life or death sort of importance. The life or death of our espoused democratic, republican ideals. What we, supposedly, stand for. Without that then our 'government' is just a certain group of people asserting, via various forces, their will over a certain other group of people. Why? Because they, the governors, think that that's best for the society at large. Or, because they, the governors, think that that's best for their interests. And have the means to enforce it. Our system is, supposedly, designed to minimize the probability that the governors are acting according to the latter. However, if we trust the governors. If we accede to the sorts of demands that would require us to not openly discuss their communications, then we've taken the first step toward the very sort of political situation that all of us say we don't want, but seem to be advocating.
It is also - again - completely irrelevant to the practical reality of the warning. The issue isn't whether you think secrecy is good or bad, the issue is to make people aware that saying anti-government things on the internet can be bad for your job prospects.Bad for your job prospects?? Job prospects?? Ok. The advice is saying anti-government things will hurt your job prospects. What's next? Saying anti-government things will affect ...? What? Your life? Your family? For all of you so-called mature people who want to advocate this sort of behavior, all I can say is that I was, as a youth, willing to die for quite the opposite. That anybody, anywhere, at any time could say any goddamned thing they wanted to about the freaking government. Now, you tell me, was I wrong? Were more than 200,000 young people killed or wounded in Vietnam wrong?
I mean, what are you talking about? Don't you want a government that's propagating lies or doing bad things to be exposed? Well, if you say yes to that, then the only way to go about it is to have as much exposure, disclosure, and freedom of discussion as possible -- don't you think?
I mean, what are you talking about? Don't you want a government that's propagating lies or doing bad things to be exposed? Well, if you say yes to that, then the only way to go about it is to have as much exposure, disclosure, and freedom of discussion as possible -- don't you think?What are you talking about? This thread is a warning not to post dumb stuff that will ruin your life.
Galteeth
Dec7-10, 12:21 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/columbia-university-walks_n_792684.html
According to this article, the university in question has changed their position on the issue.
Gokul43201
Dec7-10, 12:24 AM
Actually what I've been reading is that he is not *currently* considered a journalist. There have been so many issues, I have not saved everything that I have read. But no, wikileaks is definitely not considered a news site and doesn't qualify as journalism, it is considered a site simply for uploading files due to the wikileaks purpose statement.The question should not so much be whether wikileaks qualifies as journalism as much as whether their work is protected under the first amendment. The case law, as far as I'm aware, takes a broad view of what gets to be protected under the freedom of press.
Reading from the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States), the notable precedent seem to be Lovell v. City of Griffin, in which Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." I think something like wikileaks would very well fit under that definition.
We could do that, but this thread was my "wake up call" and you see that people still don't get it.I might be one of those people. I think it's reasonable to expect that an employer like the government might not be inclined to hire someone that praises the leaking. At the same time, I think it does look like a bit of an over-the-top threat to warn that any discussion about wikileaks would jeopardize your possibility of government employment.
Edit: Was typing this up simultaneously with galteeth's post above.
The question should not so much be whether wikileaks qualifies as journalism as much as whether their work is protected under the first amendment. The case law, as far as I'm aware, takes a broad view of what gets to be protected under the freedom of press.
Reading from the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States), the notable precedent seem to be Lovell v. City of Griffin, in which Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." I think something like wikileaks would very well fit under that definition.
I might be one of those people. I think it's reasonable to expect that an employer like the government might not be inclined to hire someone that praises the leaking. At the same time, I think it does look like a bit of an over-the-top threat to warn that any discussion about wikileaks would jeopardize your possibility of government employment.
Edit: Was typing this up simultaneously with galteeth's post above.Of course they will publicly say "do what you want". Is that surprising? The fact is that employers are refusing to hire people based on what they posted online.
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 12:38 AM
Of course they will publicly say "do what you want". Is that surprising? The fact is that employers are refusing to hire people based on what they posted online.
It must be shocking stuff, since I am positive almost everyone at some point has posted something that may be deemed controversial online. Can we get specific examples?
It must be shocking stuff, since I am positive almost everyone at some point has posted something that may be deemed controversial online. Can we get specific examples?You're in high school, surely you know how to google. Like I said, it's been posted before. It's not new.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 12:59 AM
You're in high school, surely you know how to google. Like I said, it's been posted before. It's not new.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/
There is no need for petty personal jabs, Ms. Evo (seems you are a woman, no?)
Yes, I am aware companies scour the Internet before they hire a candidate. A good solution is setting the profile to private. And your link does not answer my question.
What are you talking about? This thread is a warning not to post dumb stuff that will ruin your life.What are you talking about? Do you want to live in a society governed by propagandists? Would you acquiesce to lies? Or, would you rather be part of that element of society that exposes lies? It's a pretty straightforward question. If you say that you would want to expose lies, then that entails that you would be amenable to examining and discussing, in public, critically, what government and corporate entities forward as 'truth'. And, if so, then it would seem that you would encourage any discussions of any governmental and/or corporate communications that have been exposed. Which would seem to obviate any admonitions wrt such behavior that you're already given in this thread.
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 01:45 AM
Mr. ThomasT, in another thread, Ms. Evo claimed she works under a non-disclosure contract for the US Department of Homeland Security. If this is true, part of her duties include, but are not limited to, the protection of classified US Government documents; that means she is not at liberty to discuss classified US Government business and must discourage and/or report any such discussions that may violate US federal laws.
Which really means, her side of the issue is already forced upon her, for good reasons, and however she truly feels about this issue, you will not know about it, unless she is released of her duties (depending on her clearance, up to 50 years, perhaps more). Basically, if the US Government engages in any wrong-doing, she must protect that information, because it may be classified information.
Mr. ThomasT, in another thread, Ms. Evo claimed she works under a non-disclosure contract for the US Department of Homeland Security. If this is true, part of her duties include, but are not limited to, the protection of classified US Government documents; that means she is not at liberty to discuss classified US Government business and must discourage and/or report any such discussions that may violate US federal laws.I didn't know that. Anyway, I don't think this changes the general tenor of the discussion.
Which really means, her side of the issue is already forced upon her, for good reasons, and however she truly feels about this issue, you will not know about it, unless she is released of her duties (depending on her clearance, up to 50 years, perhaps more). Basically, if the US Government engages in any wrong-doing, she must protect that information, because it may be classified information.Well ... ok.
Excuse me that I have not read all posts in this thread, so this may have been said before. But what would you think if somebody of the family went on the street and distributed all the keys of your house and the combination of the safe to anybody who wants it. Now would it matter then if your dad was super or an incompetent government? It's a matter of your security and your belongings. I can't even remotely understand how people sympathize with this jeapardizing their own interests.
Lisa talked about age relating to anybody position to this, maybe so but, IMO it's likely blind anger and/or some foreign interpretation of common sense to sympathize with such a crime.
Galteeth
Dec7-10, 02:31 AM
Excuse me that I have not read all posts in this thread, so this may have been said before. But what would you think if somebody of the family went on the street and distributed all the keys of your house and the combination of the safe to anybody who wants it. Now would it matter then if your dad was super or an incompetent government? It's a matter of your security and your belongings. I can't even remotely understand how people sympathize with this jeapardizing their own interests.
Lisa talked about age relating to anybody position to this, maybe so but, IMO it's likely blind anger and/or some foreign interpretation of common sense to sympathize with such a crime.
How is that analogous? It's more equivalent to giving someone the key to a safe that contains evidence of crimes, and this person is a very powerful public figure.
You are giving the key to somebody who enters your home at night with a gun and you wont survive?
A national safety issue means safety and national means you, not an incompetent government or anything of that.
You are giving the key to somebody who enters your home at night with a gun and you wont survive?
A national safety issue means safety and national means you, not an incompetent government or anything of that.This thread is about the right of any segment of the population to discuss publicly exposed government documents without fear of some sort of retribution by the governmental officials who authored those documents.
What is being recommended is that people who want careers in government, or governmental monetary assistance, should ignore whatever is said in these documents, or else face the consequence of governmental censure.
Now, I ask you. What's next?
The United States of America, the country that I was, 40 years ago, willing to give my life for, is becoming a third world country.
Of course, the silliness of all this is that the documents revealed by Wikileaks are pretty innocuous. Well, aren't they? So, what's the big deal? Personally, I WANT prospective leaders of this country to be concerned about and to discuss statements and behaviors of current leaders of this country. A general climate of secrecy is definitely not a good thing, imho. But that seems to be what we have here in the USA. Not a good thing, imho. And, bad advice, wrt the future of this country, to advise young people to shy away from talking about, or facing, possible governmental wrongdoing.
That is sad, my sympathy, and I understand that these problems cause outragement which makes it seem justified to expose any classified information.
But -sorry talking to the youth- would that justify giving the keys of the house to anybody who loves to wreck it, and for that matter, also that of the neigbors? It's still your house and that of the neighbors who can't be blamed for your problems.
That is sad, my sympathy, and I understand that these problems cause outragement which makes it seem justified to expose any classified information.
But -sorry talking to the youth- would that justify giving the keys of the house to anybody who loves to wreck it, and for that matter, also that of the neigbors? It's still your house and that of the neighbors who can't be blamed for your problems.And I feel sorry for you that you seem to want to live in a society dominated by secrecy rather than open discussion, because of ... what? Your fears?
I understand that problem. I think I do not live in a society dominated by secrecy. When I was able to have a look over the shoulders of those who made policy, secrecy of policy was a mortal sin. If any member of the government, would lie as much as a comma to the parliament, his political life was over and we have a long list of sinners here in this country, who did that, and became exposed eventually. So the strict policy in our department was, no policy secrets, never ever. But strategical confidentiality is something completely different.
I concede that it's a problem when a government engages in backroom wheeling and dealing. But if you start exposings, as wikileaks did, who will judge where the borders between decency and national safety are? Who is harmed when which information is revealed? And exposing vital strategic assets for the normal operation of the complete society is way, way past that line.
I understand that problem. I think I do not live in a society dominated by secrecy. When I was able to have a look over the shoulders of those who made policy, secrecy of policy was a mortal sin. If any member of the government, would lie as much as a comma to the parliament, his political life was over and we have a long list of sinners here in this country, who did that, and became exposed eventually. So the strict policy in our department was, no policy secrets, never ever. But strategical confidentiality is something completely different.
I concede that it's a problem when a government engages in backroom wheeling and dealing. But if you start exposings, as wikileaks did, who will judge where the borders between decency and national safety are? Who is harmed when which information is revealed? And exposing vital strategic assets for the normal operation of the complete society is way, way past that line.Yes, I agree absolutely. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
xxChrisxx
Dec7-10, 04:58 AM
As much as it does seem to be a bit authoritarian to be told you can't talk about wikileaks online. It's out in the open now, telling people not to discuss it is like people asking not to comment on the elephant in the room.
However in an excercise in covering your own arse (which since i've been working i've discovered is the most prudent thing ever), I'd never talk about something that could potentially damage/discredit myself where it's stored and open for the world to see. It's like people who insult their bosses on facebook, just crazy.
It's just good sense not to make free with sensitive topics.
It's just good sense not to make free with sensitive topics.Yes, of course, the best advice we can give to young people is to not criticize ... anything, because there's no telling when such critcism might come back to bite you.
xxChrisxx
Dec7-10, 05:36 AM
Yes, of course, the best advice we can give to young people is to not criticize ... anything, because there's no telling when such critcism might come back to bite you.
I've always been an advocate of not saying anything behind anyones back that you wouldn't say to their face. I tend to say untactful things that others would shy away from. I also accept that my (overly) honest approach to dealing with people and situations has pissed quite a few people off.
It's only since i've been working that I've learned that it's sometimes better to keep your mouth firmly shut.
Someone typing on facebook now, has to be made aware of and understand that it will have implications in the future. If they accept that, then all is well.
In this particular case, if you agree with Assange that it is ok to steal and distribute classified documents, then you are most definitely disrespecting authority.
Assange didn't steal them, he acquired them from Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning didn't steal them either- he was allowed access to the documents. "Stealing" is definitely not the correct accusation. Nobody has stolen anything.
I've always been an advocate of not saying anything behind anyones back that you wouldn't say to their face. I tend to say untactful things that others would shy away from. I also accept that my (overly) honest approach to dealing with people and situations has pissed quite a few people off.
It's only since i've been working that I've learned that it's sometimes better to keep your mouth firmly shut.
Someone typing on facebook now, has to be made aware of and understand that it will have implications in the future. If they accept that, then all is well.Point taken. Spank you very much. for chrisxx.
Yes, I am aware companies scour the Internet before they hire a candidate. A good solution is setting the profile to private.
Rather ironic, don't you think, suggesting that it's OK to discuss secret information - you just need to keep your identity secret.
(Personally I accept that it's trivial for anyone to find out who I am, and whatever I post on the internet is based on that assumption)
DaveC426913
Dec7-10, 08:10 AM
Rather ironic, don't you think, suggesting that it's OK to discuss secret information - you just need to keep your identity secret.
No, it's not ironic. Personal privacy is a basic right. Corporate privacy is a completely different animal.
Jasongreat
Dec7-10, 11:35 AM
How can anyone be held accountable for discussing secret documents, that arent secret? I think a better description is that they are documents that were formerly secret, now they are just documents, they definitely are no longer classified.
classified [ˈklęsɪˌfaɪd]
adj
1. arranged according to some system of classification
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Government (of information) not available to people outside a restricted group, esp for reasons of national security
3. (of information) closely concealed or secret
Maybe if the government was so concerned with the info they contain, they should have protected them better, when they were the only ones privy to what they contained, instead of resorting to threats now that they are public.
How can anyone be held accountable for discussing secret documents, that arent secret? I think a better description is that they are documents that were formerly secret, now they are just documents, they definitely are no longer classified. Wrong, the information remains classified until the US Government goes through the process of declassifying them. Are you thinking that that an illegal upload to the internet declassified them?
Gokul43201
Dec7-10, 12:07 PM
I think it becomes a little tricky for the government to punish someone for discussing classified material while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that the leaked material is indeed classified government secrets. That doesn't mean they won't or can't do it, or that it's necessarily wrong for them to.
Also, and I may very well be wrong, but I think that it would be very difficult to prosecute someone for repeating, copy/pasting, or discussing the content of the leaks, especially content that has appeared in a newspaper. Refusing to hire would be a lot easier.
Galteeth
Dec7-10, 06:26 PM
I think the original statement of advice was more along the lines of; if you support the idea of wikileaks, and that's on record, how can future companies trust that you won't leak their secrets?
Which is a valid point.
The Onion reports some of the things that have been revealed in the leaks:
In 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy gave everyone else iPods for Christmas, but U.S. diplomats received candles
Kim Jong-il is registered with the Writers Guild of America under the pseudonym "Roland Emmerich"
Rahm Emanuel brushes his teeth if he eats so much as a snack
Since the first day of his tenure, U.K. prime minister David Cameron has lobbied the Queen to knight Spacemen 3 as a band
Threats and aid offers equally ineffective in forcing Vladimir Putin to put a shirt on during diplomatic negotiations
Ahmadinejad has a closet with, like, 200 of those jackets
The majority of diplomatic relations with Israel still go through comatose former prime minister Ariel Sharon
U.S. diplomatic privacy measures are terrible
Mathnomalous
Dec7-10, 10:34 PM
Ahmadinejad has a closet with, like, 200 of those jackets
That in itself should be grounds for UN sanctions. Come on, Ahmadinejad, even Fidel mixes it up a little bit. Who started this wear-the-same-outfit-always trend among dictator types? Stalin?
Pythagorean
Dec8-10, 07:37 AM
Not particularly concerned myself, since I don't want to work for the military industrial complex.
Also, not particularly surprised the state department is trying help clean up the mess by fear-mongering :)
Wrong, the information remains classified until the US Government goes through the process of declassifying them. Are you thinking that that an illegal upload to the internet declassified them?
An illegal upload to the internet certainly made them discussable in the public sphere. In my mind at least.
People shouldn't be worried about not getting jobs based on the fact that they discussed something to do with the government online, that's just bogus. And I don't support the leak for the record.
++Why's my name pink.
++Why's my name pink.
You're a PF contributor.
An illegal upload to the internet certainly made them discussable in the public sphere. In my mind at least. Ah, is that what people are confused about? No, you can look at the papers in the news, that's no problem. They are still classified documents however, so you should not go to one of the servers illegally hosting them and download them.
People shouldn't be worried about not getting jobs based on the fact that they discussed something to do with the government online, that's just bogus. That's why we have discussions here. of course there is discussion then there is saying something stupid that might come back to haunt you, just don't post things that you might not want the world to see at some point in your life.[/QUOTE]
Mathnomalous
Dec8-10, 10:57 AM
That's why we have discussions here. of course there is discussion then there is saying something stupid that might come back to haunt you, just don't post things that you might not want the world to see at some point in your life.[/QUOTE]
That is reasonable advice. I suspect most people think most employers will not go beyond a superficial look at one's online life. Personally, I do not think the average employer will invest significant amounts of time or money searching for my revolutionary postings.
That is reasonable advice. I suspect most people think most employers will not go beyond a superficial look at one's online life. Personally, I do not think the average employer will invest significant amounts of time or money searching for my revolutionary postings.
Actually, the new thing is for employers to use screening companies that are expert at doing web searches on people. I was reading an article on this recently.
Mathnomalous
Dec8-10, 12:19 PM
I *heard* something similar but I did not give it much importance at the time. I does not surprise, however. Are these companies matching IP addresses with geographical addresses or mostly limited to names provided to the company?
I am not necessarily worried about any political comments I make online, but I would be concerned about my NSFW postings elsewhere. :shy:
I *heard* something similar but I did not give it much importance at the time. I does not surprise, however. Are these companies matching IP addresses with geographical addresses or mostly limited to names provided to the company?
I am not necessarily worried about any political comments I make online, but I would be concerned about my NSFW postings elsewhere. :shy:They mentioned all kinds of things, a lot of employers will have you go online to answer questions, they ask for your e-mail address. Even if you have Facebook set to "private" do you have a friend that has posted something of yours on their page, and did a friend of theirs respond to it, so it's now on a page that you aren't even aware of? They had all kinds of tricks, they look up stuff from school and track you down that way. They posted examples of some of the stuff that was found. If I can find the article, I'll post it.
Proton Soup
Dec8-10, 11:29 PM
lesson learned, keep clean email addresses
lesson learned, keep clean email addresses
Well, keep one clean address o:)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.