Who are we, fucking CHINA!?!

[Sitnam]

Apparently the federal government has given federal employees (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-03/us/wikileaks.access.warning_1_wikileaks-website-memo-documents?_s=PM:US) and students (http://mashable.com/2010/12/05/wikileaks-columbia-university-state-department/) an 'or else' warning to avert their eyes to information on the Net.


I cannot be more succinct than this: Fuck that shit

[Sitnam]

I'm so fucking pissed off right now, I take back my early misgivings about Assange's activities and now fully support him. This crap just proves how necessary freedom of information is.

[Koxinga]

I don't think it's a big deal, or even marks any kind of remarkable change for government employment. I imagine there's a lot of things involved in qualifying for a security clearance that would seem draconian if applied to the larger populace. It seems inadvisable for these current and future government employees to view and discuss the documents in the same way it may be inadvisable for them to join the Communist Party, or the American Nazi Party, or have friends who are gang members, or whatever else might put a black mark on a background check. You're free to join or associate those groups, but by the same token you're free to kill your future career prospects with the federal government. It's been that way for at least half a century.

[Death of Rats]

I am not seeing the outrage here, at least with reguards to the students. No one told them they can't look at it, they were warned by an alumnus in the State Department that people who are going to school specifically to get a degree that will get them a government position who blab about sensative documents on public social networking sites are going to be viewed by the State Department as untrustworthy with sensative documents and lose out on job opportunities in the State Department to canidates who have demonstrated the ability to keep thier traps shut.

Seems like common sense to me.

This was not even an official warning from the SD, it was an SD employee passing along helpful advice to students whose entire career goal is working for the SD in sensative areas. Best they know now not to blab on Facebook.

[Yllaria]

Like Koxinga and Death of Rats said, the link for the students doesn't show an or-else command. Someone sent a message to a specific school, for students taking majors that funnel into federal employment, reminding them that if they make comments online about documents that are still considered by the federal government to be classified, that it would probably hurt their chances of working for the feds later in positions that require a security clearance.

Not an or-else at all. Not even a suggestion not to read them. And not from the government. Just a friendly piece of advice from an alum to his old school to think before posting.

[Sitnam]

Ok, rage subsiding, temperature cooling, vision clearing.

Still comes across as juvenile, you'd think the government would want employees that were interested in the government. Or not, lets just get hear/see/speak-no-evil monkeys.

[Death of Rats]

Even the message to the Federal Employees is a warning that the documents themselves are still classified and the leak has not changed that so if you do not have the proper clearance to view them in the government network you do not have the security to view them on Wikileaks and the leak will not be a defense against violating your security clearance to view classified documents.

Not that strange. The leak did not change the security classification of the docuements and Federal workers are still bound by those classifications.

[Chessic Sense]

Sitnam, you're a fucking idiot. Everyone with a security clearance knows that even if classified information is leaked, it DOES NOT become declassified. It is still therefore a crime to release or discuss classified information even if it's on the front page of the paper.

Classified info gets leaked to the press all. the. damn. time. Every time it happens, we get internal warnings reminding us that we can't talk about it, no matter what's common knowledge already. Both of these links you've provided sound exactly like those cautionary emails. The students, especially, should be thankful that someone told them before they did something stupid.

You are entirely ignorant of the facts.

ETA: Can't remember any times classified info was leaked into the news? Goooood. That's the point. That's why we can't talk about it/them despite being on wikipedia. So don't ask me for a cite or I'll just give you a :rolleyes:

[Really Not All That Bright]

This Pitting would be much better if it actually involved sex with China. 1/10.

[Acid Lamp]

Sitnam, you're a fucking idiot. Everyone with a security clearance knows that even if classified information is leaked, it DOES NOT become declassified. It is still therefore a crime to release or discuss classified information even if it's on the front page of the paper.

Classified info gets leaked to the press all. the. damn. time. Every time it happens, we get internal warnings reminding us that we can't talk about it, no matter what's common knowledge already. Both of these links you've provided sound exactly like those cautionary emails. The students, especially, should be thankful that someone told them before they did something stupid.

You are entirely ignorant of the facts.

ETA: Can't remember any times classified info was leaked into the news? Goooood. That's the point. That's why we can't talk about it/them despite being on wikipedia. So don't ask me for a cite or I'll just give you a :rolleyes:

Don't you think that a policy like that is little idiotic?

[Ferret Herder]

Don't you think that a policy like that is little idiotic?
Not necessarily. It prevents people from leaking even more information, wrongly assuming that since X is being talked about, Y is as well. It also keeps down the number of 'so-and-so at the _________ Dept. confirmed the veracity of the reports, according to a friend' statements popping up in the press.

[gonzomax]

The trend has been toward over classification. At Assange's first dump, most politicians, after getting over their faux anger, admitted the vast majority of the stuff was in the public already or not worth arguing about. The shock subsided and we went along with no harm.
I am not sure this is a big deal at all. Ron Paul thinks we need more info dumps because a government working in the dark tends to work for itself. The idea that the people are too stupid to handle the truth is insulting.
I expected the board Libertarians to back the dump. I am surprised they are not. I think very little should be hidden. The government does work for us after all.

[XT]

I expected the board Libertarians to back the dump. I am surprised they are not.

Considering that most 'board Libertarians' aren't all that rabidly libertarian, I'm not surprised.

I think very little should be hidden. The government does work for us after all.

Which is why we have a representational government system. The elected politicians work for us, and act as our proxies with regard to information that is sensitive or secret. I disagree that 'very little should be hidden'...I don't believe that the vast majority of what was released was information the public needed to know, not in light of the fact that our representatives surly knew it all.

Ron Paul thinks we need more info dumps because a government working in the dark tends to work for itself.

Yeah, but Ron Paul is a nutter. It's interesting that you seem to agree with him on this, however. I wouldn't have pegged that.

The idea that the people are too stupid to handle the truth is insulting.

It has nothing to do with people being too stupid to handle the information, so your taking insult boils down to being insulted by your own strawman.

-XT

[cwthree]

*deleted, blithering*

[gurujulp]

Um- People are too stupid to handle the truth, sometimes.

I have fallen victim (and I have seen most of us here on this thread also fall victim) to the WTF am I gonna do mentality every so often.

I, as a mostly rabid libertarian with extremely leftist leanings (figure that one out)- just don't trust my 'rep' to do anything I wouldn't do. But I don't always trust what I would do, as I am willing to be honest with myself...

[Wile E]

Considering how much we owe them we should be fucking China.

[Grumman]

Which is why we have a representational government system. The elected politicians work for us, and act as our proxies with regard to information that is sensitive or secret.
And when they prove themeselves undeserving of that trust, what then?

I disagree that 'very little should be hidden'...I don't believe that the vast majority of what was released was information the public needed to know, not in light of the fact that our representatives surly knew it all.
If they knew it all then why haven't they acted on it? Why hasn't Hillary been taken to task for ordering the theft of credit card details and other information from UN officials?

[XT]

And when they prove themeselves undeserving of that trust, what then?

Fire them? If their actions are criminal then put them in jail or impeach them? Is this a trick question (I'm not being sarcastic...I don't get it)?

If they knew it all then why haven't they acted on it?

What was there to act on? What information has Wikileaks released that has not been acted on, or constitutes an attempt by our representative government to trick or fool us?

Why hasn't Hillary been taken to task for ordering the theft of credit card details and other information from UN officials?

I don't know the details. My guess would be because whatever it is she did doesn't constitute a breach in what she is allowed to do given her position. If what she did was unauthorized or in some way illegal then I'm sure she will be 'taken to task'...even if her own party would block such a thing (which I doubt), the opposition party would have a field day.

-XT

[John Mace]

This Pitting would be much better if it actually involved sex with China. 1/10.

Agreed. Typical knee-jerk of someone here who doesn't understand how classified procedures work. Yawn. Wake me up when the Chinese come in for their fucking!

[Grumman]

Fire them? If their actions are criminal then put them in jail or impeach them? Is this a trick question (I'm not being sarcastic...I don't get it)?
I'm saying that they have proven that they will not police themselves, and so do not deserve the privilege of acting on our behalf without our oversight. Otherwise there is no reason to believe they won't go back to their old habits the moment our backs are turned.

I don't know the details. My guess would be because whatever it is she did doesn't constitute a breach in what she is allowed to do given her position. If what she did was unauthorized or in some way illegal then I'm sure she will be 'taken to task'...even if her own party would block such a thing (which I doubt), the opposition party would have a field day.
If she will be taken to task, it will only be because men like Assange removed the government's ability to continue covering it up. The same can be said of Frago 242 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam). If you do not support your government turning a blind eye to rape and torture being committed by the organisation it created, you should be thanking Assange for removing the government's ability to hide its failure.

[shiftless]

We (I'm a government employee) did get emails with guidelines about the wikileaks site. I don't remember anything threatening me with evil if I look at the data there. Heck, we get emails with guidelines all the time.

A couple of things in play here I think:

1) Government employees work under some different rules from others. In general we aren't supposed to be working for parties or campaigning, for example. In the case of the wikileaks I would say that we, as employees of this government, shouldn't be working against the stated goals of the gov.

2) I don't think I am prevented from viewing wikileaks in my own home, on my own time but I have, as part of my job, agreed to restrictions on the way I use certain data. If I have sworn to not reveal certain data then that limitation is not lifted just because someone else revealed it first. Also, my employer has a lot of restrictions on the websites I can visit during work. I am supposed to be doing work here, not browsing wikileaks for information I can use against my boss.

[Peremensoe]

It is still therefore a crime to release or discuss classified information even if it's on the front page of the paper.

But is it a crime to read the paper?

[sqweels]

Fun with misplaced commas.

[Chessic Sense]

But is it a crime to read the paper?

In the technical, legal sense? I don't know. You'd have to ask a lawyer. In a practical sense? No, probably not. I don't think anyone would actually have a problem with it. But just because it's not a crime doesn't mean it's a good idea. I wouldn't look at it on my work computer, that's for sure. if I looked it up at home, I wouldn't discuss what I saw there, even with my coworkers. I wouldn't want to have to cop to it on a polygraph either. That's why I'm not going to look at the site.

And as was said earlier, if it's against gov't policy and you work for the gov't, then you have to do as they say or you can get fired. It's not much different than Best Buy demanding that you wear khakis. That's hardly out of line, I think.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Fire them? If their actions are criminal then put them in jail or impeach them? Is this a trick question (I'm not being sarcastic...I don't get it)?


How do you find out the abuse in order to fire/prosecute the malfactor in the first place, if not through leaks? Further, suppose you've suffered at the hands of agents of the state (or another). You pursue your grievance through the court system, only to find your case is stopped in its tracks due to "national security concerns" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051802107.html). What then?

(The case of the German grocer kidnapped, tortured and held incommunicado by the CIA is especially relevant, as one of the latest leaks directly implicates the US in pressuring the German government to cancel the arrest warrants for the thirteen CIA agents involved.)

[The Tao's Revenge]

This Pitting would be much better if it actually involved sex with China. 1/10.

What the hell do you call an orgy 1.5 billion strong? a 109.17609126some? I agree that would be an incredible thread though.

[D_Odds]

In addition, classified information tends to be compartmentalized. The reason for this is so that a single person acting alone cannot reveal too much. Government employees, especially those with a security clearance, should not knowingly break the compartmentalization.

Secondly, government employees who know the accuracy and veracity of the data should neither confirm nor refute any information. I help top secret codeword clearance while in the Air Force, and spent the bulk of my one tour in England. We were told to answer seemingly innocent questions about our jobs with "I cannot confirm nor deny that". Also popular was "I just work in the kitchens. I don't know anything going on there."

We would watch a TV movie, whose name I've long forgot, in our secure facility. The movie focused on our specific job, except was based in a Japanese air base. We liked to laugh at the mistakes. I'll give you one big reveal...the movie showed geisha roaming the secure, compartmentalized work area delivering tea. Those who had done time at the Japanese base readily confirmed what we all already knew - no geisha in secure areas (or on the base at all). Besides, our coffee urn ran 24/7, 365. It had so much caffeine baked into it that it could deliver the coffee itself. We didn't need whatever the English equivalent would have been.

[Chefguy]

In United States, China fucking YOU!

[Paul in Qatar]

I have not read whatever the State Department said, but I sort of understood it to be something like, "Want a job with us after graduation? You know we check FaceBook and stuff. It would be better is you were not distributing that WikiLeak stuff, we take security seriously."

[Darth Nader]

What the hell do you call an orgy 1.5 billion strong? Messy. Bring your own towel.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

My take on the announcement is that the government is speaking as a government, but as employers and executives. The executive class pretty much runs the country, as demonstrated by today's news on the Bush tax cuts. Both public and private employers apparently have considerable leeway to act against current or would-be employees for things they've said or done online. I don't mean to suggest that the US is alone in this, but it does happen.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The various state bar character and fitness boards sure as hell look at your social media pages to see what you've been jabbering about, and to the best of my knowledge none of them are being pitted.

[Rand Rover]

I'm so fucking pissed off right now, I take back my early misgivings about Assange's activities and now fully support him.

They can both be wrong, you know (which is what I think, at least).

[mhendo]

We were told to answer seemingly innocent questions about our jobs with "I cannot confirm nor deny that".Wow, you guys must have been a ball of fun at parties! Also popular was "I just work in the kitchens. I don't know anything going on there."At least that shows a glimpse of human feeling and a certain self-awareness. "I cannot confirm nor deny that" just sounds moronic.

[suranyi]

Wow, you guys must have been a ball of fun at parties! At least that shows a glimpse of human feeling and a certain self-awareness. "I cannot confirm nor deny that" just sounds moronic.

I used to have top secret security clearance and that's what I was supposed to say too, if anybody ever asked about anything.

Not that anybody ever asked, and I haven't had the clearance since I left that position about 15 years ago.

[BigT]

Okay, Ridley beat me, but I like the way I said it, so I'll leave this.

Fire them? If their actions are criminal then put them in jail or impeach them? Is this a trick question (I'm not being sarcastic...I don't get it)?

We can't. If they're doing all this in secret, we have no way of policing them. We have no way of saying "Elect this guy because he handles secret information well."

You might argue that we'd know if someone leaked, at least by the response of the others calling it a leak. Barring a wide conspiracy, hat's true, but that's not the only way to betray our trust. They could be keeping things secret that shouldn't be secret*. Illegal, immoral things. And we will just keep on electing them, because we don't know anything.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the real reason so many people are upset.

*as judged by us, obviously.

[Koxinga]

I used to have top secret security clearance . . .

Now, you know you can't just leave us hanging like that -- c'mon, dish!

[suranyi]

Now, you know you can't just leave us hanging like that -- c'mon, dish!

I used to work -- well, I was a student employee, I was a graduate student -- at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had the clearance so I could go into the secure area of the lab. My actual work was not classified, and indeed I pretty much never came across actual classified information. But because I was in the area where classified info was created and discussed I had the whole briefing.

It was a long process to get the clearance. I think they interviewed everyone I ever knew well, plus lots of my neighbors, etc.

Only a few weeks after I left the lab I got a very stern letter telling me that I risked all kinds of punishment if I didn't return my badge IMMEDIATELY.

[Steve MB]

The trend has been toward over classification. At Assange's first dump, most politicians, after getting over their faux anger, admitted the vast majority of the stuff was in the public already or not worth arguing about. The shock subsided and we went along with no harm.
Well, yes, but the first dump didn't have a lot of dirt that showed politicians and diplomats backbiting and sniping at each other like cliquish high school students.

[Steve MB]

This Pitting would be much better if it actually involved sex with China.
"An hour later, I was horny again...."

[Mama Zappa]

Even the message to the Federal Employees is a warning that the documents themselves are still classified and the leak has not changed that so if you do not have the proper clearance to view them in the government network you do not have the security to view them on Wikileaks and the leak will not be a defense against violating your security clearance to view classified documents.

Not that strange. The leak did not change the security classification of the docuements and Federal workers are still bound by those classifications.
Yep - we (not government employees, but government contractors) got similar emails because going to Wiki Leaks would result in classified stuff winding up on our computers. As my computer, for example. is probably NOT "hardened" enough to be considered permissible to carry classified docs, it makes sense to avoid getting anything classified on it.

Plus, I don't have a clearance at present and even if I did, I'm only supposed to look at stuff that is pertinent to my job: say I have a Top Secret clearance because I'm on a project making X-ray widgets. My buddy across the hall has a Top Secret because he's developing gamma-ray doohickeys. If he leaves a schematic on my desk by accident, I'm not supposed to look at it, I'm supposed to make sure it gets locked down appropriate, and I'm supposed to report the breach to a security officer somewhere. I'm certainly not supposed to go rifling through his desk for those schematics. I have no Need To Know. My boss might well want to warn me that as Buddy has been found to leave his documents on his desk from time to time, I should maybe not visit him in his cubicle.

All this is really barn door / horse gone stuff, because even if I don't look at the schematics, Boris and Natasha have most likely already snapped pix.

[Mama Zappa]

Now, you know you can't just leave us hanging like that -- c'mon, dish!
I'm not Suranyi but I too held such a clearance at one point (my employer was clearing people for a potential job). They're, well, not a dime a dozen around here but they're fairly common as well and for the most part don't mean the person is doing anything more interesting than shuffling papers - just in a secured facility. And "not having one any more" is also no big deal, usually means your contract ended, you changed jobs, or whatever (mine died of old age, unused and unloved).

Now, had Suranyi said "I had one, then they yanked it" there might be an interesting story!

[D_Odds]

I used to have top secret security clearance and that's what I was supposed to say too, if anybody ever asked about anything.

Not that anybody ever asked, and I haven't had the clearance since I left that position about 15 years ago.We'd get questions sometimes, especially when out pub hopping.

Them: "Do you work at the base?" [Only one base, and the haircut/American accent duo was a dead giveaway].
Us: "Yeah"
Them: "Do you really keep elephants in there?"*
Us: "I cannot confirm nor deny that." or something else that doesn't answer the question.

*The huge fenced in area, easily visible from all around, was nicknamed "Elephant Cage", and no, I will still neither confirm nor deny whether or not elephants were kept there, but I will confirm that this was a real question. Picture (http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/reference.aspx?uid=113517&index=720&mainQuery=&searchType=all&form=home)

[SteveG1]

In the technical, legal sense? I don't know. You'd have to ask a lawyer. In a practical sense? No, probably not. I don't think anyone would actually have a problem with it. But just because it's not a crime doesn't mean it's a good idea. I wouldn't look at it on my work computer, that's for sure. if I looked it up at home, I wouldn't discuss what I saw there, even with my coworkers. I wouldn't want to have to cop to it on a polygraph either. That's why I'm not going to look at the site.

And as was said earlier, if it's against gov't policy and you work for the gov't, then you have to do as they say or you can get fired. It's not much different than Best Buy demanding that you wear khakis. That's hardly out of line, I think.

I'm of the same mind. I won't go to the site because I just don't want to deal with the "what ifs" and the 'what abouts". I also don't want some stupid GS1 clerk who doesn't know shit starting a mess over it. If it's in the news paper, fine. If it's on television, fine. At least then I don't have some dumb ass busybody asshole demanding an explanation about why I went to some website.

I figuyre, if I did, odds are I'd get away with it, but I don't want to deal with it.

[Blaster Master]

I work as a military contractor and have a security clearance, and like others have said, I too have been instructed not to visit the site from work and that I shouldn't talk about any information that has been released. I haven't visited it at home or elsewhere also for similar reasons as others listed, because I don't want to risk accidentally confirming information that is still classified.

That said, I do think that information is often over-classified and I do wish more information was readily available. Classification is absolutely necessary for some things to work, for instance, we don't want any potential enemies being able to precisely pinpoint important military units. In other cases, particularly with the state department, it seems like a lot of it is more just to save face. In the worst cases, it allows some parts of government to operate without the oversight of the public.

So, to a certain extent, I think some info leaks are actually an interesting sort of check against the abuse of classified information. If a government official is sure he can do some repugnant things because the public will never know so he'll still get elected, he has no reason not to do it; but if there's a chance the public will found out, maybe he won't. At the same time, that's precisely the type of information that Wikileaks is after because it's interesting to the public.

So, I completely understand the government response, and it is the appropriate response, it is imperative that people with clearances are trustable, because some stuff may seem innocuous but only because you don't have all the parts. At the same time, I'm only really upset by the actions of Assange by that it seems he is not much more than that little boy who snoops through his sister's room and then shares her diary with everyone for some laughs. If he were an American and patriotically trying to keep the government in check by possibly filtering through and only releasing information that perhaps revealed corruption or whatever, it might even be an admirable act.

[even sven]

It's kind of obnoxious as a student of international affairs, because I'm supposed to be spending my time learning and discussing. I'm told there is some information that is directly relevant to my area of interest, and I'd love to be able to enter the public discourse that is going on around it. But instead, I have to avoid the serious debates happening right now. It's kind of contradictory to what being a student is about, you know?

[Irishman]

I, too, am a contractor working for a government agency, and received a similar notice. It instructed me that

a) Just because something is leaked in the media does not declassify it. It remains classified.

b) We should not use government equipment and networks for reviewing the classified information. It is a violation of government and company policies to reveal classified information to those who don't have the need and clearance - including ourselves. Since IT regularly snoops our machines, be warned.

I was not given any instructions to not look at it on my own at home.

From what I read in the linked articles, some of the concern was for people who have the inside knowledge to accidentally confirm or verify some of the information. If you don't look at it, you can't reply to what is in it. This includes offhand comments to close friends and family that leaks out through word of mouth.

Acid Lamp said:
Don't you think that a policy like that is little idiotic?

The theory is that when it is leaked, it is still essentially a rumor. Someone having direct knowledge that confirms that rumor is violating their clearance. Besides, as Ferret Herder said, it helps prevent accidental additional leakage.

[athelas]

Relevant: (http://cmp.hku.hk/2010/12/10/8918/)A translation of the Beijing Daily editorial follows:

Why not give the peace prize to Julian Assange?
(北京日报)
December 10, 2010

Assange’s misfortunes tell us that the freedom of speech that America advocates is not an absolute freedom, that it is a matter of kind and degree, and that it has its limits. Ordinarily, if you say vicious things about the American government, talk about its problems, or even openly critical the American government, this is nothing very remarkable. But this time Assange has dared expose the truth, airing out before the world a number of things and remarks that the American government wouldn’t dare make public, make transparent or share with others — and this has stepped over the line of America’s freedom of expression. And the worldwide manhunt [for Assange] is no surprise.

And this brings us back to the Nobel Peace Prize. According to the decision by the Nobel Committee and the remarks of a number of other Westerners [concerning Liu Xiaobo (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=582384)], considering the acts of free speech in which this Assange has personally participated, opposing all on his own the “government violence” of several Western nations, could he not be regarded as a “fighter for freedom of expression”? Why don’t the noble members of the Nobel Committee claim that the Peace Prize is given “in the defense of freedom of expression,” and then give it to this Assange who has been persecuted, chained and jailed by the West?

Everyone knows, of course, that this is impossible. . . . Assange wears the placard of “freedom of expression,” and this placard itself is something the West habitually uses to flaunt itself and intimidate others. But his actions [Assange's] have actually jabbed at the American government and made Americans very unhappy. There is little hope, therefore, that he will be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. If Mr. Nobel knew just how his Nobel Prize was being so spoiled, I wonder what he would think!

[even sven]

I just love using my "freedom of expression" to flaunt about and intimidate others. Ohhhhhh look at me I can taaaaalk. Scared yet? :rolleyes:

[Darth Nader]

Wow, I have a Klein bottle covering my brain and I still can't untwist that enough to make sense.

[athelas]

Not complicated. We criticize China for banning free speech and jailing various dissidents. Meanwhile, we're using extrajudicial means to do the same to Assange, now that "free speech" is inconvenient for us.

This is why "going after Assange" by any means necessary is a stupid idea. If we can't follow legal procedures when it's inconvenient for us, then our principles of liberty and justice look pretty hollow to the rest of the world.

[gonzomax]

Well, yes, but the first dump didn't have a lot of dirt that showed politicians and diplomats backbiting and sniping at each other like cliquish high school students.

You didn't think they did that? You must also think it matters. I don't. `They also know that happens, it is the outsiders who are surprised.