State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks Social Networks | Hacker News Reader

State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks Social Networks

mashable.com

26 pointstransburgh16 comments

Misleading. The alumn was probably just giving a heads-up on the matter.

From gawker (http://gawker.com/5705639/us-military-in-iraq-tries-to-intim...):

"State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson got back to us. She said that she's unaware of any State employees issuing any "directives" to any schools about what students should and shouldn't write on social networks. But would State look unfavorably upon a prospective employee who had written about the leaked cables on Facebook? "To talk about current events is one thing," she said. "Would talking about it make you ineligible for a job at the State Department? No. But to go into detail, and propagate information that was illegally obtained—I don't think that's a good move for anyone. Not Julian Assange, not Wikileaks, and not any U.S. citizen.""

misleading? maybe. but if you read the diplomatic cables, and if you look at them as an example of the modus operandi of the state dept., you can honestly and rationally wonder if this official (along with others maybe) wasn't ordered to go disseminate this kind of fear in some of the leading academic institutions... as a matter of testing the response or just as a matter of getting youth to reconsider any public support they might choose to give to the wikileaks movement here.

At least, this tells you what a high ranking state dept. official thinks of student political engagement behind the ideas carried by this movement. These ideas are perceived as an indicator of a potential for treason in any individual being considered for government work.

I went to Columbia's SIPA competitor, Georgetown MSFS, and received that mail via a fwd from an MSFS'er's friend at Columbia. All it says is "alumnus" and it's highly possible it's just some recent grad who is now some functionary at State or maybe even some junior FSO. Knowing a lot of new FSOs, they're all totally paranoid about doing anything wrong.I would not suspect right off the bat that it was some high-level plan at intimidation. It's probably someone being proactive, like I originally said.At best, it's still misleading because you didn't have more information to leap to "OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT STATEMENT OR DIRECTIVE".

Dupe. Nut: there is an actual rule, in place for ages, that disclosure of classified info doesn't declassify it; the notion behind this "warning" is that the students would be demonstrating an inability to deal with classification.

It may be a rule, but it's still stupid: calling information that the whole world knows classified.

The rule is probably stupid in this case, probably not stupid in a lot of other cases, and the point may be that the system depends on rigid adherence to it. Either way, that's the basis behind the "warning".

It may be a rule, but it's still stupid

You've never done government work, have you?

And, be fair: there's probably a sensible kernel to this rule; to wit, just because you see something on the news doesn't mean it's OK for you to talk about: (1) by doing so, you could be confirming facts that are mere speculation, (2) you run the risk of disclosing more than was actually disclosed, (3) you inherently disclose "metadata" about how widespread the information was, (4) you make it that much harder for the genie to be put back in the bottle in cases where that's feasible (admittedly, the Internet seems to moot [4]).

Like I said, the rule is probably moot in Wikileaks case, but probably not moot in others. Meanwhile, the classification system does revolve around substituting rigid rules for individual judgement --- and that makes sense, given the sheer number of people who come into contact with CI.

It's enough to make me open Facebook and Twitter accounts just to mention WikiLeaks.

I would imagine that in China if you talk on the internet about news the Chinese government doesn't want discussed, then you'd be limiting your employment prospects with that government. So how is the USA any different from China in this instance?

The "just because they are public does not make them unclassified" argument is definitely a new one to me.

Afaik: Technically it isn't "public" as public is a classification in itself (as in public domain). But that's just nibbling on the details.

Well so much for free speech.

This doesn't have anything to do with free speech -- they're not arresting people for posting discussion on Twitter, etc. -- but rather with reminding people to think about the consequences of their actions.

If you publicly associate your identity with anything socially or politically sensitive, you are potentially modifying your job prospects, including (in this case) potential jobs with the federal government. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences -- there are always social consequences to taking a position on something. (That's part of human nature, and you'd sooner be able to legislate love than to change that.) What this email is basically doing is reminding students that if they post about these kind of things in a way that is google-able, then they'd probably look at you the same way as someone going into a job interview with a shirt that reads "I want to steal your secrets!". (Or, imagine going into a job interview with Shell or BP wearing a Greenpeace t-shirt, for example...) Of course, you are legally free to say that, but good luck getting them to hire you afterward!

And if you never want to work for the Government in any way, shape or form, and in fact feel a desire to tell the likes of Senator Lieberman to go to blazes - and remind him of your First Amendment right to say so to his face?

Too late. May as well keep discussing them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com