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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.