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

[ThomasT]

That's fractured and naive.

Perhaps so. But all that means is that I didn't formulate eloquently enough my understanding of ideals that I would assume we all espouse.

Lets turn it around: how much privacy do you think you are entitled to?

As much as any other individual.

Why is a government or a company not entitled to any?...

Because (1) governments and companies aren't individuals, and (2) because their collective wealth and power makes them adversaries wrt individual freedom.

Do you really not understand what the canons of separation/balance of powers are based on? They're based on the realization that nobody can be trusted to act honestly and fairly. Nobody. Not you. Not me. Not anybody. Especially when any of us is in a position of power and authority. And most especially wrt collective concentrations of wealth and power, such as 'governments' and 'corporations'.

So, it's wrt governments and other such concentrations of wealth and power that exposure and disclosure is of life or death sort of importance. The life or death of our espoused democratic, republican ideals. What we, supposedly, stand for. Without that then our 'government' is just a certain group of people asserting, via various forces, their will over a certain other group of people. Why? Because they, the governors, think that that's best for the society at large. Or, because they, the governors, think that that's best for their interests. And have the means to enforce it. Our system is, supposedly, designed to minimize the probability that the governors are acting according to the latter. However, if we trust the governors. If we accede to the sorts of demands that would require us to not openly discuss their communications, then we've taken the first step toward the very sort of political situation that all of us say we don't want, but seem to be advocating.

It is also - again - completely irrelevant to the practical reality of the warning. The issue isn't whether you think secrecy is good or bad, the issue is to make people aware that saying anti-government things on the internet can be bad for your job prospects.

Bad for your job prospects?? Job prospects?? Ok. The advice is saying anti-government things will hurt your job prospects. What's next? Saying anti-government things will affect ...? What? Your life? Your family? For all of you so-called mature people who want to advocate this sort of behavior, all I can say is that I was, as a youth, willing to die for quite the opposite. That anybody, anywhere, at any time could say any goddamned thing they wanted to about the freaking government. Now, you tell me, was I wrong? Were more than 200,000 young people killed or wounded in Vietnam wrong?

I mean, what are you talking about? Don't you want a government that's propagating lies or doing bad things to be exposed? Well, if you say yes to that, then the only way to go about it is to have as much exposure, disclosure, and freedom of discussion as possible -- don't you think?

 

[Evo]

I mean, what are you talking about? Don't you want a government that's propagating lies or doing bad things to be exposed? Well, if you say yes to that, then the only way to go about it is to have as much exposure, disclosure, and freedom of discussion as possible -- don't you think?

What are you talking about? This thread is a warning not to post dumb stuff that will ruin your life.

 

[Galteeth]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/columbia-university-walks_n_792684.html

According to this article, the university in question has changed their position on the issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Mathnomalous]

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?

 

[Evo]

It must be shocking stuff, since I am positive almost everyone at some point has posted something that may be deemed controversial online. Can we get specific examples?

You're in high school, surely you know how to google. Like I said, it's been posted before. It's not new.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/

 

[Mathnomalous]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

What are you talking about? This thread is a warning not to post dumb stuff that will ruin your life.

What are you talking about? Do you want to live in a society governed by propagandists? Would you acquiesce to lies? Or, would you rather be part of that element of society that exposes lies? It's a pretty straightforward question. If you say that you would want to expose lies, then that entails that you would be amenable to examining and discussing, in public, critically, what government and corporate entities forward as 'truth'. And, if so, then it would seem that you would encourage any discussions of any governmental and/or corporate communications that have been exposed. Which would seem to obviate any admonitions wrt such behavior that you're already given in this thread.

 

[Mathnomalous]

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.

 

[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.