US to federal workers: If you read WikiLeaks, you're breaking the law

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 7, 2010 | Howard LaFranchi

[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

[An Old Man]

With nothing more than the Constitution as your guide, which way do you vote?

Shall we give him a pass?

or

Should we hang him from a yard arm?

[WayneS]

“federal employees and contractors who believe they may have inadvertently accessed or downloaded classified or sensitive information on computers that access the web via non-classified government systems, or without prior authorization, should contact their information security offices for assistance.”

Translation: If you turn yourself in for thought crimes we will go easier on you than if we catch you ourselves.

[theDentist]

Hmmmm... I guess this applies to reading the NYT as well?

[taxtruth]

The government who created this mess should go to jail.

[circlecity]

So, Federal employees can’t read the NY Times without breaking the law?

[MeganC]

LOL!!!!!

[JimSEA]

By similar logic, shouldn’t I be guilty of receiving stolen documents if I read any of them?

[ThePatriotsFlag]

If they read it they break the law. So? What’s the downside? D’ya think Holder is actually going to do anything?

[Revel]

The federal government does not want their own people questioning what those above them are doing. They just want their peons to obey orders and never question them. That is what this is all about.

[antiRepublicrat]

Those with security clearances know that they are supposed to abide by “need to know.” Even if they have access to classified information, they are not supposed to read it unless they have a legitimate need to know it. Classified systems are not for nosy people. That the information has been published does not remove its status as classified information, thus those with security clearances are expected to not read any of it.

There’s no constitutional issue involved for these people. They volunteered to abide by the security regulations in order to get their jobs. I don’t think hearing a headline containing some of it on the radio would lose somebody his job. However, downloading it from WikiLeaks would probably get someone in trouble. He just knowingly placed classified material onto his home computer, something that is highly frowned upon.

[circlecity]

"LOL!!!!!"

Although it is funny, it is also serious. The Times has printed verbatim much of what was released by Wikileaks. If it's illegal to download the stuff and read it second hand, wouldn't it also be illegal to read it third hand, or fourth hand? When it's the AG making these threats I wouldn't leave the Times on my desk open to a Wikileaks article if I worked for the Federal Government.

[Terabitten]

I don’t think hearing a headline containing some of it on the radio would lose somebody his job. However, downloading it from WikiLeaks would probably get someone in trouble. He just knowingly placed classified material onto his home computer, something that is highly frowned upon.

Exactly. The material is still classified (even though the classification is pointless), and so all the laws regarding handling classified information still apply. That's really all there is to it.

[An Old Man]

OK, that's one vote to "hang them from a yard arm".

Now what about the rest of the people who have access to them?

[r9etb]

Ah, ya party-pooper. What kind of silly person would actually take his or her security clearance seriously?

[Gaffer]

Regardless of the Constitution, there are additional agreements that cleared personnel usually sign that submit them to US Federal penalties, commonly the old 5 years/$250K fine thing, about dealing properly with ‘classified’ information. For those that have access to highly classified information which is usually backed up with a whole barrage of lie detector tests, explaining how you only viewed that classified material on an uncleared home machine is problematic at the very minimum....

[Gaffer]

Try that next time you take a lie detector test for lifestyle, procedures, etc....

[FS11]

You are correct BO and his co-conspirators should be indicted, tried and convicted for Treason

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-to-start-and-lead-citizens-grand.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2638839/posts

[r9etb]

Try that next time you take a lie detector test for lifestyle, procedures, etc....

So I take it you know how those things go .... not fun.

[An Old Man]

"explaining how you only viewed that classified material on an uncleared home machine is problematic at the very minimum"

Hummmm....... Does that mean you cannot read any of the released documents? How about just a tiny peek at the title or even determine if a classification stamp was affixed to the document?

How about if someone attaches one of the documents to a response to this post? Will your job be in jeopardy if someone else sends a message to the FBI telling them what to look for?

This whole thing is quite silly. If ya don't want the neighbors looking at yer dirty laundry, don't hang it on the wash line!

[Razwan]

No, the whole issue is putting classified material on non-classified systems....it’s an issue.