
State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks Social Networks - transburgh
http://mashable.com/2010/12/05/wikileaks-columbia-university-state-department/
======
Volscio
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...](http://gawker.com/5705639/us-military-in-iraq-tries-to-intimidate-
soldiers-into-not-reading-wikileaks)):

"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.""

~~~
danielnicollet
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.

~~~
Volscio
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".

------
tptacek
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.

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

~~~
steveplace
_It may be a rule, but it's still stupid_

You've never done government work, have you?

~~~
tptacek
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.

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

------
cabalamat
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?

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

~~~
skheme
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.

------
DjDarkman
Well so much for free speech.

~~~
Figs
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!

~~~
CallMeV
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?

------
ohashi
Too late. May as well keep discussing them.

