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

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

You are giving the key to somebody who enters your home at night with a gun and you won't survive?

A national safety issue means safety and national means you, not an incompetent government or anything of that.

 

[ThomasT]

You are giving the key to somebody who enters your home at night with a gun and you won't 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.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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?

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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]

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.

 

[fss]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[chronon]

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]

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]

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 [ˈklæsɪˌfaɪd]
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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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]

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.

 

[lisab]

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]

• 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]

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 :)

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[G037H3]

++Why's my name pink.

You're a PF contributor.

 

[Evo]

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]

 

[G037H3]

fail edit, evo

umad?

 

[Mathnomalous]

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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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:

 

[Evo]

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]

lesson learned, keep clean email addresses

 

[lisab]

lesson learned, keep clean email addresses

Well, keep one clean address