Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US to federal workers: If you read WikiLeaks, you're breaking the law
The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 7, 2010 | Howard LaFranchi

Posted on 12/07/2010 1:01:01 PM PST by An Old Man

In the view of the US government, many of the WikiLeaks documents are still classified, and reading classified documents without clearance is illegal. Critics say the warning is censorship

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: circlecity

Hmm. I wonder if it’s also supposed to be illegal for Federal Employees to watch TV news?


21 posted on 12/07/2010 1:59:56 PM PST by MeganC (January 20, 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

It depends how many scruples you have and whether you let those things ‘get to you’ in a test. Sometimes not a problem for the more devious/criminal among us; can be a real problem for the honest and trustworthy.....in any case, it’s not worth jeopardizing your living just for curiosity’s sake.


22 posted on 12/07/2010 2:14:39 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man

You’re right. It’s probably silly, but it’s the kind of silly crap that can keep you from earning a living if you have to deal with classified information. I don’t know about anyone else, but when I signed a document that said I wouldn’t do this or that, I really meant it - regardless of what I thought about it.


23 posted on 12/07/2010 2:16:30 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man

“In the view of the US government, many of the WikiLeaks documents are still classified, and reading classified documents without clearance is illegal”

That’s idiotic. Makes a mockery of what “classified” means when the documents have been made public and are readily available.


24 posted on 12/07/2010 2:18:29 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

“Classified systems are not for nosy people.”

I guess only “nosy people” search the internet, read newspapers, and watch tv news.

Your post’s insane legalism is the very reason Kafka’s “The Trial” exists.


25 posted on 12/07/2010 2:21:29 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Razwan
the whole issue is putting classified material on non-classified systems

Exactly. This is the whole point - since some poor IT person then has to clean the computer system of the still-classified material. There is no policy saying it is illegal to read the news.

26 posted on 12/07/2010 2:33:58 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man
What part of "blown" doesn't the government understand?

As an aside, warning people not to read the documents because they're classified only confirms that they're the real McCoy.

27 posted on 12/07/2010 2:46:54 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I guess only “nosy people” search the internet, read newspapers, and watch tv news.

That's fine, but when you sign on for a security clearance, you agree not to be nosy about classified material. You read what you need to, no more, even if's accessible by you. The rules are quite clear. Those who don't agree with them are free to quit their jobs that require clearances.

28 posted on 12/07/2010 2:49:20 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Grut
As an aside, warning people not to read the documents because they're classified only confirms that they're the real McCoy.

The government is warning its own people to abide by the terms of their security clearances. It's also warning people who may want to get government employment requiring clearances, because to knowingly read classified material where where you have no need-to-know doesn't look good during the clearance investigation if they find out (like you blogged or tweeted about it).

29 posted on 12/07/2010 2:54:32 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; antiRepublicrat

Call it “insane” all you want. That doesn’t change the facts of the antirepublicrat’s post.

It doesn’t matter if the material has been compromised by an outside source using a traitor or if it was printed on the side of a cereal box.

Those with security clearances are briefed that if they don’t have a “need to know”, including that which was compromised, then they can and will be held accountable for viewing the material.

Sorry, that’s just how it is.


30 posted on 12/07/2010 3:03:09 PM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

“It doesn’t matter if the material has been compromised by an outside source using a traitor or if it was printed on the side of a cereal box”

It should.

“Sorry, that’s just how it is.”

Yet further evidence of government incompetence. Not only are they powerless to harm wrongdoers, they are more than willing to weakly threaten harm to the innocent.


31 posted on 12/07/2010 3:32:16 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

“You read what you need to, no more, even if’s accessible by you. The rules are quite clear.”

The rules, then, in this case, are stupid. The very notion that reading the New York Times can get you in trouble is insane, and those who would enforce the rules are mindless robots. They might as well be red light cameras busting cars for rolling one millionth of one millimeter into the crosswalk before stopping.


32 posted on 12/07/2010 3:37:35 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"The very notion that reading the New York Times can get you in trouble is insane, and those who would enforce the rules are mindless robots."

I don't believe the mindless robots posting here are paying any attention to you.

33 posted on 12/07/2010 3:51:33 PM PST by An Old Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Razwan

No, the ‘issue’, as stated in this article, is the legality of READING classified material which has ALREADY been put on “non-classified” systems.


34 posted on 12/08/2010 6:35:17 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

I know the rules sound stupid, but yours is the attitude that leads to security leaks. You follow the rules, period. You are not in such a position of authority to be able to deem a rule “stupid” and thus to be ignored. That helps prevent security leaks.


35 posted on 12/08/2010 7:20:46 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
is the legality of READING classified material which has ALREADY been put on “non-classified” systems.

There should be no legal issue for anyone who does not possess a security clearance and will not seek one in the future. However, those who do have one agreed to not read such material and therefore risk the revocation of their clearance should they be caught reading it. Revocation of clearance usually means losing a job too, since the job likely requires the clearance. Those who will seek a clearance have shown they are willing to disregard regulations for their own curiosity, lowering the likelihood they will be granted one.

That said, I highly doubt reading a headline that says "WikiLeaks released X about Y" will put anyone's clearance in jeopardy. I'm willling to bet that downloading the actual documents will.

36 posted on 12/08/2010 8:14:38 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I'm willling to bet that downloading the actual documents will.

Most definitely.

37 posted on 12/08/2010 10:44:50 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

People with clearances are supposed to know how to stay in the lane for which they are cleared. Just because someone can get on a secure network doesn’t mean that person can troll around looking for whatever they wish. That is what Manning did, and I really hope they stand him up against the wall for that.

Any government or contract employee signs an agreement to stay in their lane, and only look at what they need to in order to accomplish the mission at hand. It doesn’t matter if this stuff has been leaked. The key point is it hasn’t been declassified. Disclosure does not declassify anything, there is a process for doing that.

I will not look at anything WikiLeaks puts out. I can read about it in the papers, but I will not read a paper that prints any of the leaked documents. This is the way it is supposed to be.


38 posted on 12/08/2010 11:03:34 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

I also have a clearance, and I will not be reading any direct classified information not part of the purview of my normal duties. I agreed to the terms, I signed my name to the agreement, and I will follow those terms.


39 posted on 12/08/2010 1:10:59 PM PST by Lazamataz (Lowering Kristinn's IQ since May 21, 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I know the rules sound stupid, but yours is the attitude that leads to security leaks. You follow the rules, period. You are not in such a position of authority to be able to deem a rule “stupid” and thus to be ignored. That helps prevent security leaks.

You are correct. I am not in the position to decide what is 'okay' and what is not 'okay' to read.

40 posted on 12/08/2010 1:13:11 PM PST by Lazamataz (Lowering Kristinn's IQ since May 21, 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson