Graduate Students Being Warned Away From Leaked Cables

IamTheRealMike writes "The US State Department has started to warn potential recruits from universities not to read leaked cables, lest it jeopardize their chances of getting a job. They're also showing warnings to troops who access news websites and the Library of Congress and Department of Education have blocked WikiLeaks on their own networks. Quite what happens when these employees go home is an open question." Update: 12/04 17:48 GMT by T : The friendly warning to students specifically cautioned them not to comment online or otherwise indicate that they'd read any of the leaked information; reading them quietly wasn't specifically named as a deal-breaker.

Comments

Guilty much?

[BigSes]

Honestly, if there is nothing to hide, why all the panic? Its like... Well, I'd think of an analogy but I'm hungry.

Re:Guilty much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because governments should be held accountable for their actions by their citizens and not the opposite?

Re:Guilty much?

[MoonBuggy]

Because the government has tried to use it on us many times - throwing it back at them is just a way of helping to show their hypocrisy.

Re:Guilty much?

[icebike]

Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.

Nothing but a scare tactic.

These are the bastards that should be losing their jobs, not for anything in the leaks, (nothing there that I can see except gossip), but rather for being so loose with data they seem to value so highly.

Re:Guilty much?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between an individual's right to privacy and the government's need to be honest and open about its functions.

When there's an equity of power between the State and the Individual, then the government's need for privacy becomes equal. Until then, the government does not deserve privacy as individuals do.

("Government" here means the collective organization as well as the individual agents that comprise that organization.)

Re:Guilty much?

[MoonBuggy]

Even if there is something to hide (and let's face it, there always will be - that's not necessarily a bad thing), it surprises me that the government wants their potential employees to be less informed than the general public. The cat is out of the bag, surely it makes more sense to inform oneself as much as possible rather than looking for the earplugs and humming loudly.

Re:Guilty much?

[fishbowl]

Wikileaks hasn't actually released anything that the New York Times hasn't also released, with precisely the same redactions.

So the message here is that reading the New York Times can potentially cost you a job.

Re:Guilty much?

[GameMaster]

The law is clear regarding illegal search and seizure. The idea of a right to privacy only goes one way. Citizens have a right to privacy from the government. The government has no inherent right to privacy from the citizens. In fact, you could argue that it's impossible to have a truly functional democracy without the citizens having a clear idea of what their government is really doing. If I'm kept in the dark about the details of important actions committed by my government, what hope do I have to ever make a truly informed decision when it comes time to vote?

Re:Guilty much?

[Nadaka]

If you have a security clearance, you are not allowed to talk about classified materials, even if you only know of those materials from an out of channel source (the news). You are also not allowed to seek out classified material that you do not need to know. If a person has had access to classified material without authorization beforehand, it can complicate the process of gaining a security clearance.

Re:Guilty much?

[grcumb]

Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.

Worse, they're warning people away from the only body of information that could tell them anything useful about the practical aspects of their future job.

"We will only hire you if you demonstrate the ability to ignore overwhelming evidence that the world is not as we say it is."

(Actually, given the US Government's performance recently, that statement is starting to make sense....)

Re:Guilty much?

[blair1q]

No, the message here is that nobody reads TFA.

Re:Guilty much?

[Pharmboy]

As someone who has gone through the process of getting a top tier TS clearance, I can say that what you are saying is a nice theory, but that is all. Under normal circumstances, it would have a minimal impact, if any, on getting a security clearance. (You have civilians who are already privy to classified info, etc. and get further clearances...) The primary concerns of the government when granting a clearance are not about what you know, they are "have you ever done anything that you can be blackmailed for in your past" and "can you keep a secret and follow orders to not even tell your spouse". This DSS (was DIS) criteria isn't new or secret. It is all about insuring that future information you would have access to can't be obtained through you by manipulation or threat.

What the government is doing is a form of censorship after the fact. They can't stop the information from flowing, but they can use FUD to scare their loyal employees from reading it, lowering morale, etc. It is despicable and very possibly illegal, all under the guise of "well, we don't want it to prevent you from getting a job, [wink, wink]. It is a thinly veiled threat.

Re:Guilty much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm retired military, now working as a government contractor with a security clearance. We were specifically told not to read the documents and not to visit the Wikileaks site, even from our home computer.

Re:Guilty much?

[kiwimate]

I'm not sure quite why this got marked insightful.

Isn't the whole point that the government is contending there is something to hide, hence the big fuss? Look at it for a moment from the government's point of view:

• there is something to hide
• therefore the exposure of these cables into a public arena is a big problem
• therefore from their point of view if you want to get a job with them (possibly being exposed to secrets) and it gets turned up that you deliberately went about accessing these documents then it's going to look unwise on your part.

From that point of view, it seems a fairly judicious warning to float to someone who may be interested in such a sensitive position.

Re:Guilty much?

[Main Gauche]

it surprises me that the government wants their potential employees to be less informed than the general public.

And as it turns out, that is not the case at all. Imagine that, a completely misleading summary on slashdot.

Summary says: :The US State Dept has started to warn potential recruits from universities not to read leaked cables,"

TFA says: Columbia University career services got a recommendation from an alumnus that if you want a job with the State Dept, he recommends
"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."

So,
(1) This is not official policy; it is an alumnus giving personal advice to undergrads at his alma mater.
(2) It has nothing to do with reading/not reading wikileaks.

I really have to spend less time reading /. summaries.

Re:Guilty much?

[Stargoat]

Bravo sir. There was a time in our Republic's history that the State Department and War Department were required to explain their actions and budget to the people and the several states. The people elected the Representatives and the states, jealous of their right to govern, elected Senators.

But today we have a Department of Defense and direct election of Senators. No one serves the interests of the local governments, but instead all elected officials have exclusively the short term interests of their constituents in mind. There is no concern for preserving the long term interests of the Republic, but rather voting the people demand bread and circuses. (Long term unemployment benefits?)

The impotent fury, bordering on paroxysm, of the United States' response to the released cables is astounding and concerning. It has become evident that in the 21st century, the people serve the government.

Re:Guilty much?

[jayveekay]

So the message here is that reading the New York Times can potentially cost you a job.

Sarah Palin seems to be ahead of the curve on this. Her plan to avoid reading to remain employable is paying off. You bet'cha!

Re:Guilty much?

[ffreeloader]

Bravo sir. There was a time in our Republic's history that the State Department and War Department were required to explain their actions and budget to the people and the several states. The people elected the Representatives and the states, jealous of their right to govern, elected Senators.

But today we have a Department of Defense and direct election of Senators. No one serves the interests of the local governments, but instead all elected officials have exclusively the short term interests of their constituents in mind. There is no concern for preserving the long term interests of the Republic, but rather voting the people demand bread and circuses. (Long term unemployment benefits?)

The impotent fury, bordering on paroxysm, of the United States' response to the released cables is astounding and concerning. It has become evident that in the 21st century, the people serve the government.

You make an interesting point about the voting of bread and circuses by our government.

Here is what de Toqueville said would be the end of our republic:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

. It's a fitting description of what is going on with increasing frequency and scope in our government for a long time. The Romans also fell into the same trap.

Here's a very interesting read on what the Romans did: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

Re:Guilty much?

[PyroMosh]

Where do you get your info? Unemployment pay is tied as a percentage of your prior income. IIRC (and the particulars probably vary from state to state) in NJ it's 60% of the highest 12 consecutive months of the last 18 months before you initially filed. I know in NJ and PA the cap is just over $500 / wk. In Delaware, it's something like $300 / wk.

I made just shy of $60K before I lost my job a couple years ago. When I collected unemployment, it went down to about a rate of $25K /yr. I was able to live off of that, and pay my bills, sure. But what if I wasn't making that much before I lost my job? If I was making $30K (which lots of people get by on, and I know I could if I had to), then unemployment would have been $350 / wk. That wouldn't pay my rent and electric. Let alone, cable, phone, car payment, etc. Some of those things I could cut back on, but it's not easy even to cut back. How do you back out of a lease? How do you back out of a car payment? How do you get rid of internet and do an effective job search today? If you do back out of a car payment, how do you get to interviews, or land a job that you'd have to commute to? These are all solvable problems, but every one makes the problem more difficult.

People that say the modest safety net keeps people from working are disillusion. Maybe there are some people out there, but a few oddballs that are happy living off of $10K a year are hardly the norm. Unless there are some states with RADICALLY different unemployment rules. But I hardly think many states would be more liberal than NJ. Can anyone point to a state where the benefits are so radically better that it would be *desirable* to be on unemployment?

Re:Guilty much?

[dkf]

Incidentally, there's a fine Russian word for a hierarchical system of representation, in which smaller governmental bodies choose representatives to the national government: "Soviet." Yeah, that sure helped protect the liberties of the people and the long-term interests of the republic, didn't it?

Null argument. The official name of East Germany was (after translation) The German Democratic Republic. Does that mean that there's a problem with democracy? Or republics? Or just that names chosen for propaganda reasons are bunk and what matters is what happens on the ground? Hmm...

Re:Guilty much?

[t2t10]

In the US, unemployment benefits are based on what you used to earn???

They are in most of the world.

What the Hell is the rationale for that?

One rationale is that it is unemployment insurance that you paid for, and you pay for it proportionally to what you earn. Benefits beyond your unemployment insurance are then generally just a fixed amount.

A second rationale is that unemployment is supposedly something short term and you don't want to force people to dismantle their lives, in particular while you want them to go out looking for a new job. Selling your home, moving to a new place, even just selling off your investments itself takes time and if you're forced to do it on short notice, costs a lot of money.

In the UK, you are means tested. If you have savings over a large amount, (around £16,000), then you're expected to start using that.

Well, the UK is just full of bad ideas when it comes to social policies, isn't it?

Next step..

[dcl]

Seems like the cables might be a good excuse to implement full legal media censorship.

Stupid summary - warned not to *post* about them.

[EnglishTim]

The mail doesn't say anything about not reading them, just not posting about them.

I guess they're saying "Don't leave any evidence that you read them"...

Re:I'm trying to understand

[lewko]

Why don't you think about who that "potential employer" is and the kind of access to information that they have.

Will ringing sex lines stop you getting a job at Walmart? No. Would it leave you open to compromise in a highly senstiive government position? Yes.

This sorta makes sense...

[Swanktastic]

The email (from an alum acting in a non-official role) warns not to make posts about this on Facebook, Twitter, etc. It didn't say "Don't read them." It's really nowhere near as crazy or interesting as the submitter wishes it were.

Re:This sorta makes sense...

[betterunixthanunix]

if you go posting these (still considered classified) documents all over your friends' walls, what does that say about your ability to handle classified information?

Nothing at all, actually:

1. Graduate students are not under orders to keep government secrets secret.
2. The information was already released by someone else, there is no secret to keep.

Re:To Quote Star Wars

[Starteck81]

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. "

Seriously treat the problem, don't go shooting the messenger.

That's not even shooting the messenger. That's shooting the recipient.

Well, kind of

[Amorymeltzer]

Before we all blow up, the warning was from one alum to their alma mater, and was suggesting not to post links to cables and WL on facebook, twitter, etc. because "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" which, honestly, is pretty reasonable. If the State Department is deciding between equally-qualified five candidates, and three have indicated they sympathize with WL, well then the choice is down to two. Just like companies looking at your pictures on facebook before hiring. It sucks but it's true - be responsible with what you say about yourself.

Well, that about wraps it up for the US

[David Gerard]

They are deliberately seeking out uncurious and deliberately ignorant people to work for them, as being uncurious and maintaining deliberate ignorance is considered a sign of loyalty.

When you deliberately avoid the best and brightest because you don't trust them to be loyal to you, and deliberately make your institutions stupid, you are a dead country walking.

Re:Yay. Let's all bash America.

[garcia]

Isn't it great, that threads like this can turn into open season on America and everyone can bash the shit out of the USA.

I don't live in other countries nor do I really care what they do to their people. I do, however, live in the US and believe that we are a free nation which based in our past history should be held to a much higher standard than Arab countries and North Korea (per your chosen examples).

The people of this country have the power and we should be the ones standing up to the government when they do things that are NOT aligned with what this country is supposed to stand for. Honestly the documents provided by WikiLeaks are nothing exciting to me. All countries do shady shit behind closed doors but what is shocking is the bullshit response to it.

I'm sorry but the reaction is not acceptable and all congressmen and senators who are condemning this by suggesting death should be put to death themselves.

Not why...

[Penguinisto]

They said to not post about it in Facebook and the like. The reason why is more self-protection for the students who may want or need a security clearance later on.

If you've ever had to get a higher-end security clearance (I've had them both in the military and as a civilian), you would know just how anal and frustratingly detailed the FBI and DSA can get when it comes to investigating your background (interesting tidbit - if you have a debt that's more than 180 days past due - for any reason, even if you didn't know about it, you get denied. I had a former co-worker get his clearance initially rejected because he never saw the $20.odd account closing fee sent by an old cell phone company to his old address).

As crazy as the investigations can get, coupled with the government's ability to dredge through your online presence over the years, it's common-sense to not go around spouting off about things that the government is obviously going to be sensitive about if you ever expect to work for them in a sensitive role at some point in the future.

That's just messed up

[Dr. Spork]

If I studied political science, international relations or even history, I would definitely be all over these leaks. I can't think of a better source of lessons on how international politics really functions. It may be harder to read than a textbook, but it's real and raw and recent. In fact, if I were a professor of international politics, I'd consider throwing together a graduate seminar where the wikileaks are the primary assigned reading. The government warning would give me pause, and it would be a dealbreaker for my university. But that wouldn't make such a seminar any less good. Why deny American graduate students this understanding, and leave that treasure trove of information to foreign graduate students?

To Quote "1984"

[TravisHein]

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face...; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime..." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

Welcome to Elementary School Civics w/ Mr. Kelvin

[Zero__Kelvin]

Probably because the US Government, of the people, for the people, and by the people, has no reasonable expectation of privacy. The 4th Amendment protects us from the government, not the government from us.

Start the countdown clock

[Zero__Kelvin]

""As crazy as the investigations can get, coupled with the government's ability to dredge through your online presence over the years, it's common-sense to not go around spouting off about things that the government is obviously going to be sensitive about if you ever expect to work for them in a sensitive role at some point in the future."

It sound like to CIA, FBI and friends won't be around for much longer, since there is probably not a potential young adult in the US who hasn't been tweeting and posting plenty of stuff they themselves will be embarrassed by in a few years. (obviously I am being facetious; they aren't going to go away, but they will have to evolve and change their criteria to survive)

Re:Yay. Let's all bash America.

[vadim_t]

There are a lot of fucked up places in the world. Your might not be the worst of them, but as of lately it's far from ideal.

People used to be very proud of that America is the "Land of the Free", not that "It's better than North Korea". If that's what it's supposed to be, why do you keep trying to divert the attention by pointing to some hole like North Korea? Shouldn't you be working tirelessly to uphold that ideal, no matter how much shittier some other place might be?

You're in the US (I assume from your message), and you're in the position to make it less fucked up. So your dirty laundry suddenly got exposed. Don't whine about people noticing the stains, don't point to your neighbour's, but do the proper thing and clean it up.

Re:Yay. Let's all bash America.

[FrostedWheat]

... by suggesting death should be put to death themselves.

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

I work as a DoD contractor

[Anonymous Coward]

and I have been specifically told by our gov't security folks that if I access Wikileaks (either via my work computer or my home computer) I will lose my security clearance. I can understand them making a rule not to view it at work and taking away someone's clearance if they do it anyway, but I really don't see how they can legally take away someone's clearance for looking at a website on their home computer that basically ever major news outlet has shown screenshots of.

A page from the CoS

[bmearns]

Sounds a lot like the Church of Scientology's warnings against it's low level parishoners against listening to leaked CoS documents, lest it corrupt their unconditioned minds.

Re:Issue is Privacy from Other Countries

[Darkness404]

Your analogies don't work with this situation. Wikileaks isn't posting war plans, they aren't posting technical details of bombs and jet planes. They are simply posting details about past things that the mainstream press conveniently "forgot" to tell us. This isn't about disclosing D-Day information, this is about the government lying to us. It is about putting the information in the hands of citizens about the war so we can make informed votes over if it is worth it to continue.