Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Dept. Employee Investigated For Linking To WikiLeaks

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-point-at-things-either dept.

New submitter Jimme Blue writes "An employee of the State Department is under investigation and may be fired for 'disclosing classified information.' Or, as others might call it, posting a link to WikiLeaks. 'His crime, he said, was a link he posted on August 25 in a blog post discussing the hypocrisy of recent U.S. actions against Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi. The link went to a 2009 cable about the sale of U.S. military spare parts to Qadaffi through a Portuguese middleman. ... The State Department investigators, he said, demanded to know who had helped him with his blog and told him that every blog post, Facebook post, and tweet by State Department employees had to be pre-cleared by the Department prior to publication."

18 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Drone Attack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    He wants to be careful he may be the next drone attack victim.

    1. Re:Drone Attack! by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "direction we're heading" Already there, no!? All that is needed is a slightly more trigger happy president sitting on the now live "Kill anyone without due process button" (see linked article re:Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann)

    2. Re:Drone Attack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      -chuckle-

      Don't Drone Me Bro !!

  2. What classified information? by WiglyWorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can anyone honestly pretend that information which has been leaked and posted on the internet still qualifies as classified?

    Also, hasn't the Govt. ever heard of the streisand effect?

    1. Re:What classified information? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just because something classified is leaked doesn't mean it automatically loses its classification.

      The requirements for declassification are pretty strict, and few people (relatively) can authorize it. If leaking was all that was necessary, everyone would do it just to avoid the hassle of the classified computer systems.

      The government knows you can't get the genie back into the bottle, the cat into the bag, or the National Geographic back into its paper sleeve. They aren't stupid.

      At the very least, you are looking at losing your security clearance for looking at stuff beyond your scope of work or security clearance level. This could cost him his job.

      As far as criminal prosecution goes, that would be stupid.

      I know you guys like to think all info should be open and free but the REAL world doesn't work like that. Countries have secrets.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    2. Re:What classified information? by drolli · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Moreover, if you are an employee of the state department and you link to it you add credibility to it. AFAIU no official ever commented whether the wikileaks materials are correct and complete. Nobody guarantees that there was no deliberate misinformation introduced.

    3. Re:What classified information? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The label applies to the document in the state department. It does not apply to the identical but different document in Wikileaks. Imagine, for example, the state department gets a copy of a Chinese military document (e.g. specifications of a newly coming fighter plane). The document will be classified by the state department. Now imagine the Chinese publish the document (e.g. because they want to market the plane). If you take the Chinese document and publish it; tell everyone about it and say whatever you want, the state department can do nothing. Although the information is identical to the classified information this copy is not classified. If, on the other hand, a person from the state department says "oh; we already had that document" then they may well have put a secret source at considerable risk because that person was the only person who could have leaked the document earlier. This is true, whatever the current status of the information in the document.

      In other words; the crime is not linking to Wikileaks. There are two potential crimes; the first is transferring information from the government system to Wikileaks. The second and more easily verifiable crime is saying that linking to Wikileaks is a crime because you are thereby admitting that the documents are real State Department documents. The investigators and other people who are claiming to know that this information is classified are the most likely criminals here.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    4. Re:What classified information? by swalve · · Score: 3, Informative

      Classified means the information has been put into a class. Classified doesn't mean "secret", it means "this information is [freely distributable | secret | top secret | 007 eyes only | etc.]". It it literally a work rule that details which information can be disseminated in what manner.

      As for the argument where the State Dept. has to admit the stuff is the same thing, that is wrong too. The US gov't has said very clearly to its employees that the wikileaks stuff may contain material that has been classified as secret or above, and to avoid it if you want to keep your job.

    5. Re:What classified information? by slackbheep · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just going to submit that there is a certain expectation by the public that their government not behave in a manner best described as... fucking silly?

    6. Re:What classified information? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Crucial point from that document:

      This requirement applies to accessing or downloading classified information that occurs using company-owned unclassified computers or employees' personally owned computers that access unclassified government systems, either through remote Outlook access or other remote access capabilities that enable connection to government systems. [my emphasis]

      This is not a ban on accessing the data. This is a ban on accessing the data using systems you use for government work. The reason is that it could mess up an investigation into where data came from. Imagine, for example, someone accessed the data internally to confirm that it really was classified and then, when caught claimed they downloaded the copy from Wikileaks. This clause means that, even they got away with it, they would be guilty of a security breach.

      More important point from that document:

      Cleared contractors should neither confirm nor deny the presence of classified information in articles or websites in the public domain. Doing so may constitute a security violation.

      In other words, the investigators are explicitly in breach of this document for giving a clear signal that the particular chosen link is in fact a classified document.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:What classified information? by thePuck77 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Worse? Or...better?

      --
      "We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
  3. Not Declassified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just because a classified document is made public doesn't mean it automatically becomes declassified. If this person has a security clearance then he should know that. That is the rule. He had security awareness training on it updated yearly. He signed off on the training each time. It was impressed upon him when applying for his clearance. And if State is like the agency where I work we were given specific instructions about this exact scenario. The summary was "if you have a clearance, don't go there, don't link to it, don't read it, don't talk about it, just plain don't".

    Considering he has 23 years in and this is really more of a case of being a sloppy idiot instead of espionage, they should just give him the option of retiring from Federal Service so he can keep his benefits and move on. A deal he can't refuse, so to speak.

  4. Whats the problem by voss · · Score: 3, Informative

    He while working for the state department gave credibility and verified leaked classified information in violation of state department policies. The fact that it was already out there in the public domain is irrelevant it has not been declassified.
    He may get fired...a bit harsh but perfectly legal.

    1. Re:Whats the problem by HBI · · Score: 5, Informative

      Moreover, we were all instructed not to search for, read or refer to the Wikileaks data, as it would be treated as disclosing or misusing classified data. Apparently, this guy can't take a warning seriously.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  5. Prepublication Review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    People may not like it, but anyone with a US security clearance has a requirement for "prepublication review". That usually applies to talking about your job or things you learned during your job. Since this guy worked for State, and he posted information about state, I think they have a good point. For all any of us know he knew about that Cable from seeing it at work. Just because it has been publicly disclosed does *not* mean it is not still classified. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v41i3a01p.htm http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/prepub/index.shtml

    1. Re:Prepublication Review by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So basically he is being punished for shouting that the king is naked.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  6. He violated his clearance agreement. by GTarrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you don't have a security clearance, then posting such a link may not be a big thing. However, this gentleman did, and every time there is a major Wikileaks release we are reminded that the fact that it's released on Wikileaks does not change a clearance holder's contractual responsibility to protect classified information and that even linking to Wikileaks or talking about it at work could lead to our dismissal - and furthermore, that just because it's available on Wikileaks does not mean the information has been declassified.

    Sometimes this is taken to ridiculous extremes - I once went to a public conference where we were informed that all US citizens had to treat a certain presentation as classified information - meanwhile, as a public conference with people attending from all over the world, those other people could do whatever they wanted with the information. It was clearly public knowledge, but US citizens present with clearances had to treat it as classified because the government said it was.

    He may not go to jail, but he definitely violated the agreement he made with the government in exchange for his security clearance and will likely lose it. Unfortunately, that's something that will follow him around, and in many industries simply makes you unemployable.

  7. Re:Do you americans tolerate that? by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He probably means this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-reveals-that-mi_n_793816.html

    This information about what your taxes are spent on was brought to you by Bradley Manning and wikileaks.