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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The State Department has issued a warning to students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs against discussing WikiLeaks on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. A former student, now a State Department official, emphasized that such discussions could jeopardize students' employment prospects, particularly for positions requiring security clearances. Engaging in these activities may raise concerns about a candidate's ability to handle confidential information, which is crucial for many federal jobs. This advice serves as a caution for students who may seek careers in government or industries requiring strict confidentiality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of security clearance processes in government employment
  • Familiarity with the implications of discussing sensitive information online
  • Knowledge of the role of social media in professional reputation
  • Awareness of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding whistleblowing and information leaks
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the process of obtaining a security clearance in the U.S. government
  • Learn about the impact of social media on career opportunities and professional branding
  • Explore the legal ramifications of discussing classified information publicly
  • Investigate the ethical considerations of whistleblowing and its effects on employment
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students in international relations, aspiring government employees, and professionals in industries that require confidentiality, such as defense and technology sectors.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

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