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.

  • #121
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
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
 
  • #123
lisab said:
  • 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?
 
  • #124
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 :)
 
  • #125
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #126
zomgwtf said:
++Why's my name pink.

You're a PF contributor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127
zomgwtf said:
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]
 
  • #128
fail edit, evo

umad?
 
  • #129
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #130
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
  • #131
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:
 
  • #132
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
  • #133
lesson learned, keep clean email addresses
 
  • #134
Proton Soup said:
lesson learned, keep clean email addresses

Well, keep one clean address o:)
 

Similar threads

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