State Dept Warns Students: Don't Discuss WikiLeaks on Social Media

AI Thread Summary
The State Department has warned students at Columbia University against discussing WikiLeaks on social media, as it may jeopardize their future employment opportunities, particularly for positions requiring security clearances. A former student emphasized that engaging with WikiLeaks content could raise concerns about a candidate's ability to handle confidential information, which is critical for many federal jobs. The discussion highlighted a divide between those who support WikiLeaks and those who view it as a threat to governmental secrecy. Some participants expressed frustration over perceived government overreach in stifling dissent and the implications for personal expression. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the tension between free speech and the practical realities of career prospects in sensitive fields.
  • #51
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Mathnomalous said:
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?
 
  • #53
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
  • #54
DaveC426913 said:
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
 
  • #55
Evo said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #56
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #57
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #58
Mathnomalous said:
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:
 
  • #59
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
  • #60
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #61
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #62
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
Welcome to real life.

Yes, indeed. In real life even the government gets screwed. Deal with it, you would say, right?

russ_watters said:
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...
 
  • #64
Evo said:
Some will get it and some won't. Kind of like an intellectual Darwin Award. :-p

Aaaahahahhahaha...that made me laugh...
 
  • #65
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #66
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #67
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
russ_watters said:
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?

russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #69
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #70
Evo said:
Like I said..Darwin Award. The smarts ones will get it.

What will they get?
 
  • #71
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?

Wikipedia said:
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?
 
  • #72
DaveC426913 said:
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!
 
  • #73
Mathnomalous said:
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?
 
  • #74
Evo said:
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?
 
  • #75
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #76
Evo said:
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?

Evo said:
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.
 
  • #77
DaveC426913 said:
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]
 
Last edited:
  • #78
russ_watters said:
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?
 
  • #79
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.
 
  • #80
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #81
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #82
Gokul43201 said:
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, let's discuss it.
 
  • #83
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...rospective-recruits-to-steer-clear-of-wi.html
 
  • #84
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.
 
  • #85
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #86
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
  • #87
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.
 
  • #88
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.
 
  • #89
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #90
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #91
russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
Lets turn it around: how much privacy do you think you are entitled to?
As much as any other individual.

russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #92
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #94
Evo said:
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, 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Gokul43201 said:
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, 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.
 
  • #96
Evo said:
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?
 
  • #97
Mathnomalous said:
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/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
Evo said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #99
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #100
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.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top