Graduate Students Being Warned Away From Leaked Cables 685
IamTheRealMike writes "The US State Department has started to warn potential recruits from universities not to read leaked cables, lest it jeopardize their chances of getting a job. They're also showing warnings to troops who access news websites and the Library of Congress and Department of Education have blocked WikiLeaks on their own networks. Quite what happens when these employees go home is an open question." Update: 12/04 17:48 GMT by T : The friendly warning to students specifically cautioned them not to comment online or otherwise indicate that they'd read any of the leaked information; reading them quietly wasn't specifically named as a deal-breaker.
Streisand effect obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I want all of these cables specifically because I read the summary. Where can I find them? Are they on The Pirate Bay yet?
Re:I'm trying to understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't you think about who that "potential employer" is and the kind of access to information that they have.
Will ringing sex lines stop you getting a job at Walmart? No. Would it leave you open to compromise in a highly senstiive government position? Yes.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a difference between an individual's right to privacy and the government's need to be honest and open about its functions.
When there's an equity of power between the State and the Individual, then the government's need for privacy becomes equal. Until then, the government does not deserve privacy as individuals do.
("Government" here means the collective organization as well as the individual agents that comprise that organization.)
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikileaks hasn't actually released anything that the New York Times hasn't also released, with precisely the same redactions.
So the message here is that reading the New York Times can potentially cost you a job.
Re:Yay. Let's all bash America. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't live in other countries nor do I really care what they do to their people. I do, however, live in the US and believe that we are a free nation which based in our past history should be held to a much higher standard than Arab countries and North Korea (per your chosen examples).
The people of this country have the power and we should be the ones standing up to the government when they do things that are NOT aligned with what this country is supposed to stand for. Honestly the documents provided by WikiLeaks are nothing exciting to me. All countries do shady shit behind closed doors but what is shocking is the bullshit response to it.
I'm sorry but the reaction is not acceptable and all congressmen and senators who are condemning this by suggesting death should be put to death themselves.
That's just messed up (Score:5, Interesting)
To Quote "1984" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who has gone through the process of getting a top tier TS clearance, I can say that what you are saying is a nice theory, but that is all. Under normal circumstances, it would have a minimal impact, if any, on getting a security clearance. (You have civilians who are already privy to classified info, etc. and get further clearances...) The primary concerns of the government when granting a clearance are not about what you know, they are "have you ever done anything that you can be blackmailed for in your past" and "can you keep a secret and follow orders to not even tell your spouse". This DSS (was DIS) criteria isn't new or secret. It is all about insuring that future information you would have access to can't be obtained through you by manipulation or threat.
What the government is doing is a form of censorship after the fact. They can't stop the information from flowing, but they can use FUD to scare their loyal employees from reading it, lowering morale, etc. It is despicable and very possibly illegal, all under the guise of "well, we don't want it to prevent you from getting a job, [wink, wink]. It is a thinly veiled threat.
DoD as well (Score:3, Interesting)
No big surprize, but the DoD is doing this as well. Ironically, I don't think it's having the effect they wanted; at least one of my coworkers asked me if I knew what wikileaks was, and I told her it was the digital equivalent of the Pentagon Papers. [wikipedia.org]. Needless to say, I can almost guarantee she looked up wikileaks at home that night. All I can say is, if they want to turn away job applicants who are curious, inquisitive and willing to do research on their own time, they will reap what they sow.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:2, Interesting)
This shit almost makes me wish someone would start spamming the documents to government email addresses, since as I understand that would "contaminate" the email server and require the hard drives be destroyed. It would be amusing, at least. But more importantly it might convince the government to stop pretending the documents are still secret.
The documents are out. The horse has left the stable, there's no point in closing the gate. No point in pretending anything else.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens when our government is in violation of our constitution? Who will hold the law makers accountable?
Usually, the voters, unless they exceed their boundaries, which they are trying to do. The Founding Fathers anticipated that, which is why the 2nd Amendment was created. Not as a final solution, but to limit the government's ability (and willingness) to get to a worst case scenario. And in the unlikely worst case scenario, as a final solution.
People might say "oh, the military has tanks and missiles, your little AR-15 isn't going to stop anything", but those are operated by young, freedom loving people like you and I. The only *really* dangerous people in government are the lifetime bureaucrats (civilian and military) at the top, who are very far removed from the average person. Fortunately, we outnumber them by hundreds of thousands to one. I may have little faith in our government, but I have a lot of faith in the average American.
Same reason I would feel safer on an airplane full of bikers than in one full of TSA agents.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's ok. You're no longer in the military.
He still has the clearance because of his civilian job. The government can get him fired, believe me, by simply saying "he is a security risk and has to be pulled from any government related task". Instant pink slip, he can collect unemployment but can't sue. And he gets to explain to his next employer that he was a security risk. This is why I am saying that what the government is doing is a thinly veiled threat, it is a form of extortion. If anyone but the government was doing it, it would be a felony.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bravo sir. There was a time in our Republic's history that the State Department and War Department were required to explain their actions and budget to the people and the several states. The people elected the Representatives and the states, jealous of their right to govern, elected Senators.
But today we have a Department of Defense and direct election of Senators. No one serves the interests of the local governments, but instead all elected officials have exclusively the short term interests of their constituents in mind. There is no concern for preserving the long term interests of the Republic, but rather voting the people demand bread and circuses. (Long term unemployment benefits?)
The impotent fury, bordering on paroxysm, of the United States' response to the released cables is astounding and concerning. It has become evident that in the 21st century, the people serve the government.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. I dont care who is blowing who as long as the politician is doing his job. Morality is not the Governments job.
I do not need some jackass in DC telling me my Midget porn collection is wrong and should be banned.
The Federal Government needs to be returned to doing a few things and those things only.
The Common Defense. (Note the word DEFENSE)
Interstate Commerce (And no that does not mean saying what a state may sell inside its own borders)
Foreign relations for the common good. ( And only if it does not go against the US Constitution)
Supreme Court. To make sure all laws do not tread on American rights and are constitutional.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no connection between direct election of Senators and the growth of the modern security state. State governments have shown themselves just as eager to participate in the post-9/11 feeding frenzy as the federal government is; if they, instead of the voters, chose Senators, the Senate would have even less reason to pay attention to the outrage of the American people than it does now.
Incidentally, there's a fine Russian word for a hierarchical system of representation, in which smaller governmental bodies choose representatives to the national government: "Soviet." Yeah, that sure helped protect the liberties of the people and the long-term interests of the republic, didn't it?
Re:Guilty much? (Score:4, Interesting)
By openly discussing a very contentious issue, correcting (thank you) and, one hopes, enlightening one another through the free exchange of ideas and by remaining capable of accepting -and sharing- input from all sources.
If I were a prospective State Department employee, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation, and I would know less than I do now.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure the state legislators electing the senators had anything to do with their being "jealous of their right to govern".
I think it had more to do with them not wanting the riff-raff to get too much power. But now that's no longer a worry, since the riff-raff seem to be so susceptible to social engineering in the form of what passes for a news media. If you have sufficient money and access to media, you can get the people to do pretty much whatever you want, including vote against their own best interests.
Or at least you can get enough of them to do what you want. The rest you just have to persuade to stay away from the polls. In 50 years' time, historians will be studying the 2010 elections as an example of this.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:5, Interesting)
So you think that the problem with that system was hierarchical representation rather then the fact that the elections were rigged? How did you come to that conclusion?
Re:Guilty much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, no. Perhaps the *article* says that, but we just had an emergency briefing at work (for the U.S. army—mostly civilian employees and contractors in my office) yesterday regarding all the recent Wikileaks activity.
Seeking out (even on your own time, using your own computer) the information will result in—at best—a suspension of one's clearance, if not an outright immediate termination of said clearance (either of which would result in one losing one's job).
Downloading the material (which has not been declassified, which is all the security wonks care about) will result in what we call "spillage." Your machine (yes, even your personally owned computer), once having held the data is considered classified, to be turned over to the relevant authorities (seized).
They were very, very clear on this, citing all legal precedent and demonstrating authority to do so, to the point where a roomful of my fellow cantankerous IT engineers even stopped asking annoyed questions and silenced down.
Bottom line (at least as far as the Army is concerned): The material is classified, and any possession of said material (be it form Wikileaks or the NYT) will get your ass in hot water pretty damn quickly.
Heh, I got a *nasty* glare from one of the security officers when I asked "What about the stuff they read out loud during newscasts on NPR while I'm driving home? Is my brain classified now?" That got a good chuckle from the assembled engineers, but not the security folks, hahaha.
Re:Guilty much? (Score:4, Interesting)
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.