View Full Version : The State department, wikileaks, and the blackmailed students.
Land if the free....
State Dept. Bars Staffers from WikiLeaks, Warns Students
The U.S. State Department has imposed an order barring employees from reading the leaked WikiLeaks cables. State Department staffers have been told not to read cables because they were classified and subject to security clearances. The State Department’s WikiLeaks censorship has even been extended to university students. An email to students at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs says: "The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government."
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9680815
NightTrain
12-04-2010, 04:12 AM
Land if the free....
democraticunderground.com
There's your problem right there. :poke:
SassyLady
12-04-2010, 04:12 AM
Land if the free....
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9680815
In the land of the free, those who have access to confidential material are unethical if they disperse the material to the general public.
PS ... Noir, why is your sig box so large....it's overwhelming.
There's your problem right there. :poke:
Posion and waterwell come to mind.
Are you suggesting that no email was sent?
In the land of the free, those who have access to confidential material are unethical if they disperse the material to the general public.
PS ... Noir, why is your sig box so large....it's overwhelming.
And if the general public are the ones with the information? It's hardly confidential when anyone who knows how to use google can see it.
I assume you also consider myself 'unethical' for discussing the leaks in forums and irl. Yeah?
As in too much text? I confess I can't really see the size of things as I'm on my phone, but it certainly looks no bigger than say kathiannes through my phone.
SassyLady
12-04-2010, 05:41 AM
And if the general public are the ones with the information? It's hardly confidential when anyone who knows how to use google can see it.
I assumed from the article you posted that they were not to disseminate the information any further by posting links or copy/paste and forward.
I assume you also consider myself 'unethical' for discussing the leaks in forums and irl. Yeah?
If you are not a government employee you can disseminate all you want.
As in too much text? I confess I can't really see the size of things as I'm on my phone, but it certainly looks no bigger than say kathiannes through my phone.
Yes, much larger font (not number of words) than anyone...thought you might have changed your font size.
I assumed from the article you posted that they were not to disseminate the information any further by posting links or copy/paste and forward.
And what's wrong with sharing something you know?
More to the point, what is right about threatening someones carrier prospects as was clearly made in the email?
If you are not a government employee you can disseminate all you want.
Are the students who received this email government employees?
Yes, much larger font (not number of words) than anyone...thought you might have changed your font size.
Okay, it set to size two font, but I have no idea what that looks like on a computer screen, for the time being I'll shorten it anyway.
fj1200
12-04-2010, 08:01 AM
Land if the free....
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9680815
They're free to comment, forward, etc. but they're also free to NOT work for the Federal Government.
revelarts
12-04-2010, 08:41 AM
Anyone considering working at the state dept or in other foreign policy positions would have to be stupid not to read a lot of that stuff. If only to get a sense of how things really work at one level. Also to get a better understanding of the people and gov't you might be working for. Don't you think students in foreign countries are going to read this stuff? Our students will meet these people at some disadvantage if they honor that "request". IMO They should read it, talk about it, compare it to news reports, official state dept public statements and published info. But do it "CONFIDENTIALLY" away from Gov't scrutiny to get practice hiding info from foreigners later. The information is practically public domain now. A request now not to spread it around? psssfft c'mon.
Noirs right, it just goes to show how controlling the Feds want to be. Everyone around the world can know what our gov't's doing but the people in our own country and even working inside the gov't should stay ignorant of and not inform other citizens of what our appointed representatives are doing? I don't think so. The state depts best bet is the "clarify" statements where they can because the info is public now, deal with it.
Kathianne
12-04-2010, 09:16 AM
In the land of the free, those who have access to confidential material are unethical if they disperse the material to the general public.
PS ... Noir, why is your sig box so large....it's overwhelming.
His and yours appear the same to me-size wise?
His and yours appear the same to me-size wise?
I removed a few lines from mine by taking away a Dawkins quote so it's shorted now
jimnyc
12-04-2010, 11:21 AM
Land if the free....
What the fuck does land of the free have to do with this? Sounds like you just took a small opportunity to take a jab at one of our long held phrases and America...
We ARE the land of the free - but that freedom comes with responsibility. Not allowing citizens/government employees access to confidential information, or the dissemination of this information, is certainly NOT against our "Land of the Free".
EVERY employer you will ever work for in the USA will have job restrictions and expectations to go along with your job. Expecting government employees, or any employee for that fact, to not "access" secret/confidential information or pass it around, sounds to me like proper "business" sense. Just because a couple of guys got together and illegally stole the information and disseminated it out of the country, does not mean that now it's "Hey, the information is out already, lets capitalize on it and make matters worse, and ensure every person in the world has unfettered access to secret/confidential documents.
It's called responsibility and "secret" - and I'll guaranfuckingtee you that your country holds government secret documents in the same manner.
NightTrain
12-04-2010, 12:08 PM
Posion and waterwell come to mind.
Are you suggesting that no email was sent?
It was just a joke, Noir, calm down man.
SassyLady
12-04-2010, 01:47 PM
And what's wrong with sharing something you know?
Shows that you have no restraint or long-term thoughts about the effects/affect of sharing the information.
More to the point, what is right about threatening someones carrier prospects as was clearly made in the email? What were they threatened with ... a possibility that they might not be hired to work in the State Department ... I'm OK with that. Still goes towards proving if you can be trusted to gather, analyze and retain information without regurgitating it to the public in a reckless fashion.
Are the students who received this email government employees? The class they are taking leads me to believe they want to be.
Okay, it set to size two font, but I have no idea what that looks like on a computer screen, for the time being I'll shorten it anyway.
Well the box is smaller but the font still looks large .... but it looks the same size as Jim's, and mine looks the same size as NT's....so we must just have a different font.
jimnyc
12-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Well the box is smaller but the font still looks large .... but it looks the same size as Jim's, and mine looks the same size as NT's....so we must just have a different font.
Probably different fonts as I remember screwing with mine went I put the sig there, and it all probably looks a little different now by switching to Chrome, which might make the font look different in appearance or size.
They're free to comment, forward, etc. but they're also free to NOT work for the Federal Government.
Lol, that's some answer, are they free to both comment AND work for the fed?
What the fuck does land of the free have to do with this? Sounds like you just took a small opportunity to take a jab at one of our long held phrases and America...
I took a jab at the state department, you aren't 'free' to read and share documents for fear of having your name smeared (which, btw, I have no worries about) I am FREE to read and discuss without fear. Y'all in the land of the free aren't.
We ARE the land of the free - but that freedom comes with responsibility. Not allowing citizens/government employees access to confidential information, or the dissemination of this information, is certainly NOT against our "Land of the Free".
So you think we have a responsibility on this forum not to discuss any wikileaks (or for that matter any information that is obtained by a leak)?
EVERY employer you will ever work for in the USA will have job restrictions and expectations to go along with your job. Expecting government employees, or any employee for that fact, to not "access" secret/confidential information or pass it around, sounds to me like proper "business" sense. Just because a couple of guys got together and illegally stole the information and disseminated it out of the country, does not mean that now it's "Hey, the information is out already, lets capitalize on it and make matters worse, and ensure every person in the world has unfettered access to secret/confidential documents.
Same point as above.
It's called responsibility and "secret" - and I'll guaranfuckingtee you that your country holds government secret documents in the same manner.
so why have you not done the *responsible* thing and deleted every and any reference to the leaks on your forum? Isbt that part if your responsibility to make sure such information isn't shared? But ofcourse you won't, why? Because ofcourse, you believe in freedom.
It was just a joke, Noir, calm down man.
No worries, my bad.
jimnyc
12-04-2010, 06:25 PM
I took a jab at the state department, you aren't 'free' to read and share documents for fear of having your name smeared (which, btw, I have no worries about) I am FREE to read and discuss without fear. Y'all in the land of the free aren't.
So you think we have a responsibility on this forum not to discuss any wikileaks (or for that matter any information that is obtained by a leak)?
Same point as above.
so why have you not done the *responsible* thing and deleted every and any reference to the leaks on your forum? Isbt that part if your responsibility to make sure such information isn't shared? But ofcourse you won't, why? Because ofcourse, you believe in freedom.
Dude, in this instance the damage has been done. The information is probably splattered on hundreds of thousands of sites already. The citizens obviously have a right to read them now without fear of any trouble or backlash. If you're a government employee, then of course they can still hold you accountable as per the rules/regulations of your job, which I'm confident will always have clauses about confidential information and what cannot be done with such information.
What private citizens do at this point, and what the government can do with its employees are 2 different things. And this isn't anything new, I'll guarantee you they signed documents as to what and how they should do with confidential information, so not the government is just enforcing its rules. Probably pretty stupid anyway as these employees will have 900 other ways to read the information anyway.
So 99% of the nation is free to do as they wish and a bunch in the government will be asked to refrain from reading what they know to be confidential information. Those 99% will not be prosecuted or harmed in any way (and that includes us of course) - so I think it's safe to assume are "land of the free" stands out very much so even in this instance.
Dude, in this instance the damage has been done. The information is probably splattered on hundreds of thousands of sites already. The citizens obviously have a right to read them now without fear of any trouble or backlash. If you're a government employee, then of course they can still hold you accountable as per the rules/regulations of your job, which I'm confident will always have clauses about confidential information and what cannot be done with such information.
What private citizens do at this point, and what the government can do with its employees are 2 different things. And this isn't anything new, I'll guarantee you they signed documents as to what and how they should do with confidential information, so not the government is just enforcing its rules. Probably pretty stupid anyway as these employees will have 900 other ways to read the information anyway.
So 99% of the nation is free to do as they wish and a bunch in the government will be asked to refrain from reading what they know to be confidential information. Those 99% will not be prosecuted or harmed in any way (and that includes us of course) - so I think it's safe to assume are "land of the free" stands out very much so even in this instance.
So given all that do you think it was right for the state department to send that email to students to try and stop them discussing the wikileaks on their social sites?
jimnyc
12-04-2010, 06:45 PM
So given all that do you think it was right for the state department to send that email to students to try and stop them discussing the wikileaks on their social sites?
Keep in mind "perception". It should be the job of ALL of government right now to fight this as much as possible. Companies all over the nation already fire people for what they write on facebook/myspace, and that's private employers, so knowing that the government wouldn't want their employees further disseminating/discussing confidential information isn't shocking news.
I might agree with you in principle about what you're getting at - but look at it differently - these people are 100% free to do as they wish with the info, but their respective "employers" have the right to terminate their relationship if they so choose.
Kathianne
12-04-2010, 08:46 PM
Keep in mind "perception". It should be the job of ALL of government right now to fight this as much as possible. Companies all over the nation already fire people for what they write on facebook/myspace, and that's private employers, so knowing that the government wouldn't want their employees further disseminating/discussing confidential information isn't shocking news.
I might agree with you in principle about what you're getting at - but look at it differently - these people are 100% free to do as they wish with the info, but their respective "employers" have the right to terminate their relationship if they so choose.
and employers have been using social sites to vet possible employees for longer than wikileaks. Schools have been warning students to clean up their sites or to close them, period.
SassyLady
12-05-2010, 03:19 AM
Keep in mind "perception". It should be the job of ALL of government right now to fight this as much as possible. Companies all over the nation already fire people for what they write on facebook/myspace, and that's private employers, so knowing that the government wouldn't want their employees further disseminating/discussing confidential information isn't shocking news.
I might agree with you in principle about what you're getting at - but look at it differently - these people are 100% free to do as they wish with the info, but their respective "employers" have the right to terminate their relationship if they so choose.
In the land of the free you can do what you want....if you are willing to suffer the results of your actions.
You can choose to not pay taxes ... if you are willing to go to jail for breaking the law.
Same with disseminating confidential information ... you are "free" to do that ... if you want to live with the consequences of your actions. Your choice to decide if it's really worth it ... and at this point, everyone has access to the information so why bother forwarding it or posting it ... silly and redundant at this point.
Keep in mind "perception". It should be the job of ALL of government right now to fight this as much as possible. Companies all over the nation already fire people for what they write on facebook/myspace, and that's private employers, so knowing that the government wouldn't want their employees further disseminating/discussing confidential information isn't shocking news.
But it's not confidential, heck if you bother to watch the evening news, post on any sort of message board, read a newspaper, or talk to anyone that does any of those things you will know about these. What of anything is confidential about them?
I might agree with you in principle about what you're getting at - but look at it differently - these people are 100% free to do as they wish with the info, but their respective "employers" have the right to terminate their relationship if they so choose.
and where do you draw the line? Employer - 'I saw from you're Facebook you are a Budhist/Vegan/Libatarian/Feminist/like the music of Elton John' etc so I haw the right to terminate our professional relationship. That's a bad enough argument to follow from a personal employer, but from the federal government!
SassyLady
12-05-2010, 06:02 AM
But it's not confidential, heck if you bother to watch the evening news, post on any sort of message board, read a newspaper, or talk to anyone that does any of those things you will know about these. What of anything is confidential about them?
and where do you draw the line? Employer - 'I saw from you're Facebook you are a Budhist/Vegan/Libatarian/Feminist/like the music of Elton John' etc so I haw the right to terminate our professional relationship. That's a bad enough argument to follow from a personal employer, but from the federal government!
Noir, ever heard of "at will employment"?
jimnyc
12-05-2010, 06:55 AM
But it's not confidential, heck if you bother to watch the evening news, post on any sort of message board, read a newspaper, or talk to anyone that does any of those things you will know about these. What of anything is confidential about them?
They're still listed as confidential, just not being treated as such by anyone.
and where do you draw the line? Employer - 'I saw from you're Facebook you are a Budhist/Vegan/Libatarian/Feminist/like the music of Elton John' etc so I haw the right to terminate our professional relationship. That's a bad enough argument to follow from a personal employer, but from the federal government!
Here in the US, which MRSKP refers to, we have "at will employment" - which means an employer can fire you for any reason whatsoever, even if they just don't like the way you look. The only way they "cannot" fire you is if you have a proper contract, or if it is discrimination which falls under the Title VII Act. It's always been that way to protect both employer and employee - we are free to leave whenever we want and they are free to run their business the way they want.
logroller
12-06-2010, 07:40 AM
I might agree with you in principle about what you're getting at - but look at it differently - these people are 100% free to do as they wish with the info, but their respective "employers" have the right to terminate their relationship if they so choose.
Freedoms have consequence; rights, a responsibilty!
logroller
12-06-2010, 07:46 AM
PS ... Noir, why is your sig box so large....it's overwhelming.
sounds like a complement to me.
logroller
12-06-2010, 08:05 AM
His and yours appear the same to me-size wise?
It's a good size!
revelarts
12-06-2010, 09:11 AM
I still say it's riduculous postion.
every other diplomacy wonk in every other country is going to know what the U.S. has said about it's country. Those people they will know more about the "real" intentions and history of the U.S. than those representing us and our folks will will look naive and controlled. Not Free, In our free country. free not to read Public documents.
Should they be hired if they are Maliciously willie Nillie posting items to make the Gov't look bad? NO, Probably not, i agree.
But If they are critically examining the docs with teachers, friends, parents and mentors? To me that shows a person who's interested in the work of the Country.
But what am i talking about?
I guess the U.S. gov't only wants YES men and women that just do as they are told no matter what it is. American Apparatchik. Just follow orders.
As Far as responsibly vs freedom
and free not to work or hire.
There some truth to that BUT
That kind of talk has gotten us where we are today in many areas.
like with Guns. Open carry was the norm, but we are not "free" to do it in many areas without a permit or even own 1 at all in some cities unless we want to "face the consequences". Restaurants won't be free to serve fatty food, Unless the want to "face the consequences". It's not freedom if the gov't tells you not to do it or else. We betray our freedom to some degree when we give the gov't authority in any area.
jimnyc
12-06-2010, 09:38 AM
It's not freedom if the gov't tells you not to do it or else. We betray our freedom to some degree when we give the gov't authority in any area.
Keep in mind, and speaking only to my comments, the entire working industry can handle things in this manner, not just the government. If you work at Sears, and they find out you are reading or distributing the "leaks:, even on your own time - they can legally fire you and there isn't anything that can be done about it.
So to reiterate - we ALL have the freedom to completely discuss or share the information from wikileaks - and employers are completely free to handle the matter with their respective employees. This is nothing new and has been this way since at the very least the 60's.
logroller
12-06-2010, 02:39 PM
That kind of talk has gotten us where we are today in many areas.
like with Guns. Open carry was the norm, but we are not "free" to do it in many areas without a permit or even own 1 at all in some cities unless we want to "face the consequences". Restaurants won't be free to serve fatty food, Unless the want to "face the consequences". It's not freedom if the gov't tells you not to do it or else. We betray our freedom to some degree when we give the gov't authority in any area.
I live in CA, don't me started on gun control. GRRRR
.50 BMG hasn't, to my knowledge, ever been used domestically in an act of terror or to kill someone; yet theyre maligned because they're scary.
Hmmm, what else could this logic be used for...
They're still listed as confidential, just not being treated as such by anyone.
Exactly, if everyone knows a secret it's not a secret.
Here in the US, which MRSKP refers to, we have "at will employment" - which means an employer can fire you for any reason whatsoever, even if they just don't like the way you look. The only way they "cannot" fire you is if you have a proper contract, or if it is discrimination which falls under the Title VII Act. It's always been that way to protect both employer and employee - we are free to leave whenever we want and they are free to run their business the way they want.
lol really? Well that just sounds stupid, how does that not lead to discrimination? ie. an employer decides he's not goig to hire any Christians. So he looks up prospective employees FBs and discards the applications of anyone Christian. That's the employers 'right'?
SassyLady
12-06-2010, 03:20 PM
lol really? Well that just sounds stupid, how does that not lead to discrimination? ie. an employer decides he's not goig to hire any Christians. So he looks up prospective employees FBs and discards the applications of anyone Christian. That's the employers 'right'?
Pretty much.
Pretty much.
So its fine to discriminate for any and all personal choices? That is *really* messed up.
jimnyc
12-06-2010, 03:50 PM
So its fine to discriminate for any and all personal choices? That is *really* messed up.
No, as I mentioned earlier, they can fire for any reason or no reason at all - so long as it is not breaking "Title VII" Act" - and that would forbid from discriminating based on religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_VII#Title_VII
revelarts
12-06-2010, 03:53 PM
And in this particular case it would be for "no reason at all".
Pagan
12-06-2010, 03:53 PM
So its fine to discriminate for any and all personal choices? That is *really* messed up.
That's reality, no matter how many laws are enacted there's always ways around it. All that needs to be done is watch what you say or document as to why they weren't hired.
Yeah it's screwed up but that's reality.
For the record, anything online I use a pseudonym, how loose people are with privacy along with they're complete disregard for it is scary.
Kathianne
12-06-2010, 04:45 PM
So its fine to discriminate for any and all personal choices? That is *really* messed up.
Ah but some are supposedly 'protected' classes, though anyone that thinks so is delusional. Not supposed to discriminate on sex, race, religion, age. However, applications ask your 'race', you can choose not to answer, but what will happen? They aren't to ask your age, but ask the year you graduated high school, whether or not you have a PhD. They aren't going back for your high school transcripts. Religion, well that gets trickier since many O'Leary's are now agnostic, Jewish, or Episcopalians, though I'll bet some still do discriminate by name.
SassyLady
12-06-2010, 05:02 PM
Ah but some are supposedly 'protected' classes, though anyone that thinks so is delusional. Not supposed to discriminate on sex, race, religion, age. However, applications ask your 'race', you can choose not to answer, but what will happen? They aren't to ask your age, but ask the year you graduated high school, whether or not you have a PhD. They aren't going back for your high school transcripts. Religion, well that gets trickier since many O'Leary's are now agnostic, Jewish, or Episcopalians, though I'll bet some still do discriminate by name.
Heck, Kathianne, nowadays they discriminate based on your address around here ....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.