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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a State Department warning to students about discussing WikiLeaks on social media, particularly in relation to employment prospects in government and sensitive positions. The scope includes concerns about security clearances, the nature of government secrecy, and the impact of political expression on job opportunities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that discussing WikiLeaks could jeopardize future employment, particularly in positions requiring security clearances.
  • Others argue that the government's warning reflects an attempt to suppress dissent and that political affiliation should not impact job eligibility.
  • There are claims that classified information remains classified regardless of its leak status.
  • Some participants suggest that the warning is more about ensuring conformity and obedience in potential employees rather than genuine security concerns.
  • A few participants note a generational divide in perspectives on WikiLeaks, with younger individuals perceived as more naive about the implications of discussing leaked information.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for realism and responsibility in navigating the rules set by employers regarding confidentiality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement. While there is recognition of the potential risks associated with discussing WikiLeaks, opinions diverge on whether this is justified or an overreach by the government. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the ethical implications of WikiLeaks and its impact on employment.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the importance of understanding the balance between free expression and the expectations of confidentiality in professional settings. There is also mention of varying requirements for background checks across different fields, indicating that the implications of the discussion may not be uniform across all professions.

  • #31
lisab said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
humanino said:
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.
 
  • #33
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #34
Mathnomalous said:
"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.
 
  • #35
ThomasT said:
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. Let's 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.
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
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".
 
  • #37
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
  • #38
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #39
humanino said:
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.
 
  • #40
humanino said:
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.
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #42
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #43
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
  • #44
lisab said:
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.
 
  • #45
humanino said:
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.
 
  • #46
lisab said:
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".
lisab said:
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.
 
  • #47
lisab said:
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.
 
  • #48
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #49
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.
Some will get it and some won't. Kind of like an intellectual Darwin Award. :-p
 
  • #50
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K