Reading or supporting Wikileaks could jeopardize gov't career

[VirusType2]

U.S. agencies have warned some employees that reading the classified State Department documents released by WikiLeaks puts them at risk of losing their jobs. But what about students considering jobs with the federal government? Do they jeopardize their chances by reading WikiLeaks?

"The security clearance asks whether or not you're a risk when it comes to sensitive material. This could be one indicator that, when taken together with others, creates a broader pattern that might suggest you're not a person to be hired," said Pepperdine University law professor Gregory McNeal, who specializes in national security law.

Our Dean of Career Development and Public Service thought it prudent to alert our students to the possible ramifications of dealing with classified information, especially in light of the fact that law graduates often apply for jobs that require security clearances

So, can just reading about the leaked documents in the media jeopardize your chances of getting a job with the federal government?

Probably not, said McNeal. But commenting on them online or distributing them might create a pattern of behavior that raises red flags during screening for the highest levels of security clearance, which often require polygraph tests.

"I don't think looking at them alone could hurt anyone. The problem is when you're looking and then supporting and endorsing, then you start running into trouble. That's where you run the risk of jeopardizing the security clearance on character grounds," he said.

It also serves as a reminder to be mindful of your "online and personal profile," your virtual footprint of statements, comments and shared materials stored in the web's collective consciousness, the professor said.

"It's a new situation, and the documents are so ubiquitous right now that it seems weird to worry who on the margin has ever posted a link to them. But at the same time, the initial release was against the law, so I can't begrudge the government, when figuring out who to employ or trust with secrets, to ask if you helped to further spread documents that belonged to the government."

"I can understand how an employer in the federal government would believe that someone who once engaged in that kind of conduct, with the understanding that the information was confidential, how that reflects upon their potential for handling confidential info in the future."

Entire article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/wikileaks.students/

 

[Warped]

But I'm pretty sure you can do coke, pot, acid, and rape boys and still be a politician...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, sure, but you're supposed to lie about it.

Like, sure, you blew a rent boy once...but you didn't swallow.

 

[VirusType2]

But I'm pretty sure you can do coke, pot, acid, and rape boys and still be a politician...

You're supposed to do that shit. That's how they know they can trust you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SutWuza9aDM
Cuz I'm Goin' deep cover, yeaaaah

Couldn't be more applicable.

Well, sure, but you're supposed to lie about it.

Like, sure, you blew a rent boy once...but you didn't swallow.

loll

 

[VirusType2]

Information is the Antidote to Fear: Wikileaks, the Law, and You

Will I break the law if I host or mirror the US diplomatic cables that have been published by Wikileaks? If I view or download them? If I write a news story based on them? These are just a few of the questions we've been getting here at EFF, particularly in light of many US companies' apparent fear to do any business with Wikileaks (with a few notable exceptions).

We unfortunately don't have the capacity to offer individualized legal advice to everyone who contacts us. What we can do, however, is talk about EFF's own policy position: we agree with other legal commentators who have warned that a prosecution of Assange, much less of other readers or publishers of the cables, would face serious First Amendment hurdles ([1], [2]) and would be "extremely dangerous" to free speech rights. Along with our friends at the ACLU, "We're deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea."

More information: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-fear-wikileaks-law-and-you

 

[Dan]

I got a mass email warning not to visit the Wikileaks site at work. I suppose this is understandable at a federal institution. What is funny is the reason that they gave:

a. The site attracts a large volume of traffic. Given the nature of the material, third parties could collect and exploit visitor data or deliver malicious software through downloaded files.

b. Conducting web searches for this information may expose the user’s computer to malicious search engine poisoning attacks.

c. Some information on Wikileaks remains classified and could constitute a breach of security policy if viewed or downloaded

 

[Jerry_111]

Meh, wasn't interested in a government career anyway. /continues to seed

 

[VirusType2]

A careful reading of the Espionage Act makes clear that anyone who obtains and retains classified information -- regardless of whether or not they communicate or publish it -- is committing a crime. No doubt, whoever provided WikiLeaks with the more than 250,000 diplomatic files violated the Espionage Act. But so too did Julian Assange. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Le Monde? Guilty. The Guardian? Guilty. The New York Times? Guilty. You?

The law indicates that it is a felony to share classified documents that you are not authorized to possess with another unauthorized party. That includes classified cables posted by the New York Times. Moreover, it is a crime to retain classified documents, regardless of whether you share them.

Geeze

The government needs to protect its secrets. That's understandable. So is punishing those who purloin classified materials. But the press also needs to be able to disseminate information that is of national importance -- a practice that deserves some Constitutional protection. And in today's Internet age, when documents readily go viral, individual people need guarantees that they aren't committing high crimes against the state by viewing or discussing information that has come well within the public domain.

The Espionage Act needs to catch up with the times. For starters, the statutes should re-written to require proof of mens rea -- evidence that an individual knew what he or she was doing was wrong and still purposely chose to violate the law. This will protect those who inadvertently or naively come into possession of classified materials as well as those who willfully retain materials they do not realize are classified.

But arguably the most important reform would be a public domain exemption. Once classified documents are publicly exposed, anyone who comes into subsequent contact with them -- physically or virtually -- should be shielded from prosecution. This simple reform will go a long way toward bringing this legal relic into the information age.

I would be proud to see the the Espionage act updated for the information age. I like the idea of it being declassified once it is in the public domain. But you know, I doubt it will happen. They will just continue to pick and choose who to prosecute, rather than make any concessions and give up some of their power.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-the-need-to-rethink-the-espionage-act/67664/

 

[CptStern]

the problem with declassification (ie freedom of information act) is that you have to know the classified document exists in the first place and even then you have to go through considerable loopholes to get it released and even then it can be redacted at whim

 

[Kaptain H]

Having gone through the process of getting a security clearance for the for the military, this seems obvious and completely understandable. I assume the process is exactly the same for other jobs in the federal government.

But commenting on them online or distributing them might create a pattern of behavior that raises red flags during screening for the highest levels of security clearance, which often require polygraph tests.

"I don't think looking at them alone could hurt anyone. The problem is when you're looking and then supporting and endorsing, then you start running into trouble. That's where you run the risk of jeopardizing the security clearance on character grounds," he said.

They ask hundreds of questions, some of which seem crazy and ridiculous, but they're evaluating whether you can be trusted and whether you have questionable contacts. Someone who's looking into a career in this field needs to be aware of how their online presence affects their reputation and chances of getting a job. It's no different than students studying education knowing better than to post pictures of them partying on their Facebook pages, or artists in the small game industry not wanting to burn bridges by talking shit about their colleagues or behaving like assholes on public forums.

 

[Xevrex]

I used to be all for this Wikileaks thing, but the fact that it adversely ruins our country's diplomatic relations with other countries and puts the country's alliances along with the country itself at risk, it justifes the label of "treason." I understand the release of documents that reveal wrongs committed by America during wars should be revealed to show war atrocities, or information regarding subverted rights or overt deception to the American people should be revealed so that the government is held accountable for its violations of human and American rights, but nothing that endangers US covert operations should be revealed because that puts the US in diplomatic hot water. Freedom of information should be used to keep the government in check for the governing of its own people and its ethical treatment of war, not to show secretive plans of espionage because it's a deception in general. If it doesn't affect the American people, or if it puts diplomatic relations in danger, it shouldn't be released. Anything else is treasonous.

 

[CptStern]

I used to be all for this Wikileaks thing, but the fact that it adversely ruins our country's diplomatic relations with other countries and puts the country's alliances along with the country itself at risk, it justifes the label of "treason."

I dont understand why people keep saying this about WIkileaks. Assange is not american and he didnt leak the documents. the people who did are facing criminal charges in the US because they're american citizens. assange may be guilty of posting sensitive info but unless he reveals military secrets about Australia where he's from, it's not treason

 

[kineaesth]

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation.

What wikileaks is doing isn't necessarily treasonous.

edit: you god damned Stern

 

[Sparta]

I understand the release of documents that reveal wrongs committed by America during wars should be revealed to show war atrocities, or information regarding subverted rights or overt deception to the American people should be revealed so that the government is held accountable for its violations of human and American rights, but nothing that endangers US covert operations should be revealed because that puts the US in diplomatic hot water.

To reveal war atrocities, subverted rights or overt deception to the American people (and thus the world) would endanger US covert operations and put the US in diplomatic hot water. Your argument doesn't make sense.

I know what you're trying to say, but if government whistle-blowers always followed that logic, there would be no whistle-blowing. Sometimes it's worth endangering your nation's covert operatives to expose the truth, especially if it means the difference between crack cocaine swamping your own country or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_(United_States)#CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking

I understand that not everyone is going to agree with that. That's where we differ, I guess.

 

[Krynn72]

To reveal war atrocities, subverted rights or overt deception to the American people (and thus the world) would endanger US covert operations and put the US in diplomatic hot water. Your argument doesn't make sense.

What are you talking about? It makes perfect sense to want the government to be held responsible for its crimes without needing to receive any of the consequences.

or artists in the small game industry not wanting to burn bridges by talking shit about their colleagues or behaving like assholes on public forums.

Oh... Shit.