Very good information. It’s because of that duty that I don’t go to wikileaks or sites like that, to avoid downloading classified information to my personal computer.
I’m not sure if it’s still true, but I know that many State Department employees were not supposed to read the articles about the Wikileaks diplomatic cable thefts because they didn’t have the clearance to know the information that any ordinary citizen could have.
Francis Vaughan’s point is similar, I think–that someone with a security clearance is more restricted than an ordinary citizen. Jane Ordinary can hand those top secret papers to a journalist and the journalist won’t reveal her name. Nor is the journalist likely to be prosecuted (though in the U.S. there is an ancient law which might possibly allow for it).
Probably true. It sounds absurd, but the fact is that Classified information is still Classified even if it has been leaked and becomes public knowledge–even common knowledge. Accessing unauthorized Classified information is unlawful for those with a security clearance. In the military, it is illegal.
Plus, if the article is read online, which it is likely to be, then the person reading it has now caused the transmission of Classified material across an unsecured network. This is a much bigger deal than just reading an article containing “information that any ordinary citizen could have”. It was this aspect of the whole Wikileaks fiasco that we in the military were specifically warned about. I hold a security clearance in the military. I was specifically reminded that by accessing Wikileaks, I could potentially open Classified information, and this act (even if unintentional) would be considered a cross domain violation and punishable by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. It isn’t just about knowing or learning of the information. Even if the cable was something that I personally entered into a database 10 years ago, I would not be allowed to read that leaked cable on Wikileaks because the act of receiving the information on my personal computer is a violation. Allowing Classified information to be stored, opened, accessed, etc, on a non-secured server is a violation. Opening a leaked article or cable on my personal computer would violate several rules.
“2IC”?
eta: 2nd in command.
if so, that’s a normal milspeak word? How pronounced out loud?
IME, it is a pretty firm “Don’t talk about it. Period”
Many years ago, in an Army security course we learned about the title and acronym for the ultimate civilian head of our branch - whose name we had no need to know. We were told never to even mention either term.
That same month Ramparts magazine spilled the beans on the entire agency and the acronym. We were told, “It doesn’t matter, we don’t talk about it outside this building.”
I knew a guy who worked for the “State Department”. He spent a lot of time down in Cuba during the early 2000’s.
It’s from the British tradition. For the UK and many commonwealth countries, it’s normal usage. ISTR hearing it used by other NATO allies that weren’t commonwealth or native English speakers. US usage tends towards executive officer or deputy commander. There’s also some duty position specific titles like Assistant Division Commander (ADC) in US Army divisions.
The only pronunciation I ever heard was to treat it as an initialism and say “two eye see.”
Seems clear we need new rules for a new age. Luckily, the military is quick to adapt 
Why would we need new rules? The old ones work quite well.
Because secrets need to be taken seriously. If people are forced to keep publicly-known information “secret”, they’ll develop a certain degree of contempt towards the entire secrecy process, treating it as a disciplinary exercise rather than as a dire necessity. In other words, people aren’t machines. They need to know that what they’re doing actually counts.
In all my years of security clearance having, I’ve yet to hear anyone lament the fact that they can’t talk about classified information, that was leaked to the Internet, to uncleared people in uncleared areas.
I knew one. He liked to drop hints to girls about how many secrets he knew. Shameful.
Your position is that it makes perfect sense for Bear_Nenno, State Department employees, and others with security clearances to deliberately keep themselves in the dark about material that is now available to every member of the world public as well as to foreign intelligence services?
To bring this back to the OP, imagine Bear going home to dinner with family, all of whom have access to the information in formerly secret documents, and BEAR has to tell THEM not to talk about classified info.
That is not my position at all, not sure why you would think that.
I can talk about information that I read in the newspaper or see in the news. I can’t download documents stamped “Top Secret” to my home computer, and then talk about the information contained in those documents with uncleared people.
In all my years of following orders, I’ve learned tuat stupid orders are bad for discipline.
I might suggest people likely to have such a spiteful constitution are unlikely to get a clearance in the first place. The apparatus is functional enough. The only major flaws I see involve giving clearances to holders of political offices who otherwise might not be trusted to work the till at 7-11.
Actually, I believe the best response would be to not acknowledge whether or not he knows what they’re talking about. One does one’s part to not validate leaks and good guesses.
IME what often makes an order “stupid” is not understanding why it’s being given. And the “why” may not be your business. If an order appears unlawful, you can question those, just not “stupid” ones.
Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
In my experience, the reaction among clearanceholders to the news carrying classified information tends to be somewhere between disdain for the leaker/news that covered it, and a “I signed up the follow the rules, okay, gotcha” when told not to talk about leaked classified info. IME, I haven’t witnessed any reactions like, “I’m going to ignore the rules because they are stupid.”
Because that is the discussion you were responding to.
Here is what I was responding to:
I can see nothing in what I’ve written in this topic that shows that my position is that “others with security clearances [need] to deliberately keep themselves in the dark about material that is now available to every member of the world public”.
Nor can I see anything in what I’ve written that states that people with clearances have to tell people without clearances that they (the people without clearances) shouldn’t talk about classified info.