State Dept Warns Students: Don't Discuss WikiLeaks on Social Media

[Evo]

I know I've said it before, be careful what you do and say online.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101205/tc_mashable/state_department_warns_students_against_discussing_wikileaks_on_facebook_twitter

State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook, Twitter

A State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects.

The official, a former student of the school, called the career services office of his alma mater to advise students not to post links to WikiLeaks documents, nor to make comments on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as "engaging in these activities would call into question [a student's] ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government," he was quoted as saying in an e-mail sent to students by the career services office on Tuesday.

It's good advice. A lot of you may end up needing some sort of clearance or background check when you finish school. I did, and I know a lot of others here that did. Why take the chance?

 

[Pinu7]

Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation? Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation. Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.


Expect me in the gulags for this post.

 

[Evo]

Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation? Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation. Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.


Expect me in the gulags for this post.

We're talking about security clearances. A lot of jobs in physics require them.

 

[chingkui]

Classified information is still classified even if it is leaked.

 

[Topher925]

Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation? Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation. Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.


Expect me in the gulags for this post.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the government but more do with with potential employers. Just about any job that involves the research or development of new technologies, whether it be in industry or government, involves security clearance. Try getting a job as a researcher at Lockheed-Martin when you've been spouting anarchist rants about confidential documents all over the internet.

 

[Mathnomalous]

We're talking about security clearances. A lot of jobs in physics require them.

Correct.

This is more about making sure the employee being hired is an obedient, docile cog, or at the very least will conform to the system. Since I have no interest in making weapons systems for the government, I do not care.

But yeah, to those interested in working in physics, by all means, do not read, discuss, anything those documents.

 

[fss]

Ugh, this is absolutely discussing. An incompetent government must compromise their failures by attempting to stop dissenting conversation?

If the rest of the governments in the world were as incompetent as the United States', it would be a very different world indeed.

Last time I checked, people cannot be withheld from (most) jobs based on political affiliation.

That's (mostly) true. Too bad the concern in the OP has nothing to do with this.

Of course, it is not like the results of wiki leaks can be found in all realms of the media.

Again, not the point. Re-read.

State Department Warns Students Against Discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook, Twitter

A State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects.

The official, a former student of the school, called the career services office of his alma mater to advise students not to post links to WikiLeaks documents, nor to make comments on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as "engaging in these activities would call into question [a student's] ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government," he was quoted as saying in an e-mail sent to students by the career services office on Tuesday.

 

[G037H3]

It's good advice. A lot of you may end up needing some sort of clearance or background check when you finish school. I did, and I know a lot of others here that did. Why take the chance?

Cowardly.

 

[russ_watters]

Correct.

This is more about making sure the employee being hired is an obedient, docile cog, or at the very least will conform to the system. Since I have no interest in making weapons systems for the government, I do not care.

But yeah, to those interested in working in physics, by all means, do not read, discuss, anything those documents.

I'm not sure how old you are, but there are an awful lot of jobs, not just in physics, that require security checks. I'm a heating and air conditioning engineer and I work for pharmacueticals - they require background checks (of varying seriousness) too.

Kids reject conforming and obeying rules. That seems nice when you're a kid, but that's not a good way to be a functional member of society.

Evo, I'm thinking this should probably be in P&WA...

 

[russ_watters]

Cowardly.

In your journey, you'll need to learn realism, responsibility and maturity. You cannot break the rules and then blame those who make the rules for not letting you play the game anymore.

This issue is blindingly simple: if you are a person who doesn't respect the ability of the government to have secrets, an employer has every reason to believe you won't respect their ability to have secrets.

 

[lisab]

From this thread and the ones in the Politics forum, I can see there's a definite split between those who think Wikileaks is doing good vs. doing evil. Interestingly, I don't think the split is down the usual left/right lines. Instead, I think it's age.

Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here.

 

[CRGreathouse]

From this thread and the ones in the Politics forum, I can see there's a definite split between those who think Wikileaks is doing good vs. doing evil. Interestingly, I don't think the split is down the usual left/right lines. Instead, I think it's age.

Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here.

In light of the first paragraph, can I interpret the second paragraph as suggesting that you do not consider yourself one of the "younger folks here"?

 

[lisab]

In light of the first paragraph, can I interpret the second paragraph as suggesting that you do not consider yourself one of the "younger folks here"?

You're just one click away from discovering that for yourself !

 

[ThomasT]

I know I've said it before, be careful what you do and say online.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101205/tc_mashable/state_department_warns_students_against_discussing_wikileaks_on_facebook_twitter

It's good advice. A lot of you may end up needing some sort of clearance or background check when you finish school. I did, and I know a lot of others here that did. Why take the chance?

So, the young people who are identified as discussing these disclosures in public forums probably won't be doing government work (at least a high level), or getting government grants and subsidies. I agree that they should be made aware of this. But not necessarily advised against participating in such discussions. What message do we want to give to our young people? That they should trust those in power? That would seem to me to be opposed to our form of government which is based on the idea that governments and the governed are, necessarily, adversaries.

 

[lisab]

So, the young people who are identified as discussing these disclosures in public forums probably won't be doing government work (at least a high level), or getting government grants and subsidies. I agree that they should be made aware of this. But not necessarily advised against participating in such discussions. What message do we want to give to our young people? That they should trust those in power? That would seem to me to be opposed to our form of government which is based on the idea that governments and the governed are, necessarily, adversaries.

I think that's a fair point, except I see nothing wrong with offering advice - you can take it, or not. Of course, the judgement you have at 20 will be quite different from the judgement you'll have at 40.

 

[humanino]

I think it's age.

Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here.

Maybe, maybe not. For instance, why is this not naive :

This issue is blindingly simple: if you are a person who doesn't respect the ability of the government to have secrets, an employer has every reason to believe you won't respect their ability to have secrets.

This is a mere analogy. The two are not necessarily related. Assange is not even a US citizen, he has no reason to support the US government. If I work for somebody, I made the choice to work with them. I see every reason to behave differently.

While I am saying that, I do not wish to support Assange anymore either. I am just not willing to buy any argument.

 

[Mathnomalous]

In my case it has little to do with age and more to do with the disgust and contempt I hold towards my society. Namely, the little value human life has in our modern, global society. Actually, let me correct that, your value to society is proportional to the amount of money you command.

Yes, I enjoy liberty here in my country, but we are largely insulated from the cost of that liberty, and most of that cost is covered by foreign nationals.

 

[ThomasT]

This issue is blindingly simple: if you are a person who doesn't respect the ability of the government to have secrets, an employer has every reason to believe you won't respect their ability to have secrets.

I agree, the issue is simple. How much secrecy do you want your government or employer, or your friends for that matter, to hide behind? If you say, well, nobody can be trusted. Then I agree. Isn't that why our system, with it's codified rights, and freedoms, and requirements for openness and disclosure, and separation (and, supposed, balancing) of powers has evolved?

 

[lisab]

Maybe, maybe not. For instance, why is this not naive :

This is a mere analogy. The two are not necessarily related. Assange is not even a US citizen, he has no reason to support the US government. If I work for somebody, I made the choice to work with them. I see every reason to behave differently.

But would an employer see it as a simple analogy, or evidence of a "Stick it to the man" attitude?

(For non-native speakers: "Stick it to the man" refers to an attitude of defiance and resistance to authority - government, big business, your boss, etc.)

 

[Mathnomalous]

But that is only because the employer-employee relationship is seen as adversarial, when it does not need to be that way. Besides, I always thought going to college meant acquiring skills that would permit one to analyze sources, develop one's independent thinking, and form one's own opinions. Why waste years of my life developing that just to end up accepting whatever "The Man" wants me to accept?

 

[ThomasT]

I think that's a fair point, except I see nothing wrong with offering advice - you can take it, or not.

I agree, as long as the 'advice' is sufficiently qualified, ie., that the considerations and entailments are sufficiently elaborated.

Of course, the judgement you have at 20 will be quite different from the judgement you'll have at 40.

Not necessarily. However, while I'd have to agree with you that this seems to me also to be the case, I don't want to see people being any less driven by ideas of courage, honor, equality of justice, honesty, etc. at 40 than they are at 20.

 

[humanino]

But would an employer see it as a simple analogy, or evidence of a "Stick it to the man" attitude?

It may be that if an employer is incapable of understanding the difference, I would personally not be interested in working with them. It is not about defiance. If I am an employer, I expect more respect from my employee to our business than an elected official can expect respect from a foreign national, who happens to be in disagreement with the politics the official is leading. An employer is entitled to expect a lot of respect from the employees. An elected official may expect the very minimal amount of respect from a foreign national in disagreement with their politics. Even just by law, there is quite a difference.

Example : I do not believe I would breach any US official documents' confidentiality. I moved from abroad here, and I think I respect highly this country. It would take quite a cataclysm revealed in the document for me to change my mind and challenge my entire life on it. On the other hand, I would be very likely to breach North Korea or China official documents' confidentiality if I believed they reveal human rights violation for instance. I would send them to a journalist. There is a reason : I would never have made the choice to move to North Korea or China. I do not owe them anything.

 

[Proton Soup]

well, if all the government wants is conformists, i think they will be missing out on some of the best and brightest

 

[Gokul43201]

I know I've said it before, be careful what you do and say online.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101205/tc_mashable/state_department_warns_students_against_discussing_wikileaks_on_facebook_twitter

...nor to make comments on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as "engaging in these activities would call into question [a student's] ability to deal with confidential information...

I guess this ought to apply just as well to all of us here that have been discussing this issue on this particular social network! Shouldn't all discussion on this matter be forbidden at PF, since it involves "making comments" about "confidential information"?

 

[Topher925]

I guess this ought to apply just as well to all of us here that have been discussing this issue on this particular social network! Shouldn't all discussion on this matter be forbidden at PF, since it involves "making comments" about "confidential information"?

Nah, I don't think so. The topic of this thread is about ethics and freedom of speech, not the documents Wikileaks dumped.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Example : I do not believe I would breach any US official documents' confidentiality. I moved from abroad here, and I think I respect highly this country. It would take quite a cataclysm revealed in the document for me to change my mind and challenge my entire life on it. On the other hand, I would be very likely to breach North Korea or China official documents' confidentiality if I believed they reveal human rights violation for instance. I would send them to a journalist. There is a reason : I would never have made the choice to move to North Korea or China. I do not owe them anything.

This is where you lost me.

If you discover documents detailing human rights violations by the US, you would not disclose them? But you apparently would disclose the same if it was China and NK. It would take "quite a cataclysm" for you to release those US documents. Do you not see a problem here?

Whether it is done by the US, China, or NK, you owe those who suffered a chance for justice.

I mean, seriously...

"I saw my dad steal a bike, but I will not report him to the authorities because he is my dad; on the other hand, I saw my neighbor do the same thing, so let me go ahead and call the police on his butt."

The crime is the same regardless of who committed it.

 

[Gokul43201]

The article linked in the OP warns people "that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects". We have at least three threads that are active, and at least two earlier threads on the matter, that involve discussion of specific leaks and their implications.

 

[fss]

well, if all the government wants is conformists, i think they will be missing out on some of the best and brightest

Working in the government really isn't unlike working in private industry. There are slightly different goals and pay scales, but government employees "conform" to their employer's wishes just as much as a worker in private industry conforms to theirs.

 

[Evo]

The article linked in the OP warns people "that discussing WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger their employment prospects". We have at least three threads that are active, and at least two earlier threads on the matter, that involve discussion of specific leaks and their implications.

That's why I am posting this for those that are smart enough to figure out that they need to be careful of what they say online. I already deleted an admission of illegal activity by one kid, but I might not be around to catch everything before it gets cached.

 

[ThomasT]

But would an employer see it as a simple analogy, or evidence of a "Stick it to the man" attitude?

Of course. Look, those who aren't 'the man' are going to have a 'stick it to the man' attitude. And, 'the man', is going to tend to 'stick it to' those who aren't 'the man'. These are, necessarily, adversarial situations we're talking about. Wrt the OP 'the man' has a vested interest in not having 'his' dirty laundry exposed and discussed openly. And those who aren't 'the man' have a vested interest in exposing and discussing it. Period.

Unless of course one wants to just 'trust' ones governmental officials and employers. In which case I would have to say that one is not a true American -- or a true freedom loving human being and 'citizen of the world'.

Maybe the time will come, hopefully soon enough, that all of us humans will have to choose between more or less transitory nationalistic and ethnic divisions and harmonic survival. Maybe not of course. Who knows.

 

[russ_watters]

From this thread and the ones in the Politics forum, I can see there's a definite split between those who think Wikileaks is doing good vs. doing evil. Interestingly, I don't think the split is down the usual left/right lines. Instead, I think it's age.

Frankly, I think there's a significant amount of naivety amongst the younger folks here.

Whether or not one thinks Wikileaks is doing good doesn't have anything to do with the fact that lack of respect for authority can harm one's prospects at employment. One is an opinion and the other is a practical reality and they are two completely separate issues.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a mere analogy. The two are not necessarily related. Assange is not even a US citizen, he has no reason to support the US government. If I work for somebody, I made the choice to work with them. I see every reason to behave differently.

While I am saying that, I do not wish to support Assange anymore either. I am just not willing to buy any argument.

You misread my post: This isn't about whether Assange did anything right or wrong, but about whether those who show support for him are doing anything wrong. The "you" in that quote isn't Assange, it is the kids posting support for him on facebook.

 

[Evo]

Of course. Look, those who aren't 'the man' are going to have a 'stick it to the man' attitude. And, 'the man', is going to tend to 'stick it to' those who aren't 'the man'. These are, necessarily, adversarial situations we're talking about. Wrt the OP 'the man' has a vested interest in not having 'his' dirty laundry exposed and discussed openly. And those who aren't 'the man' have a vested interest in exposing and discussing it. Period.

Unless of course one wants to just 'trust' ones governmental officials and employers. In which case I would have to say that one is not a true American -- or a true freedom loving human being and 'citizen of the world'.

Maybe the time will come, hopefully soon enough, that all of us humans will have to choose between more or less transitory nationalistic and ethnic divisions and harmonic survival. Maybe not of course. Who knows.

You do realize that in private industry that trade secrets are everywhere. If you were dumb enough to state online that you are a blabbermouth and your prospective employer sees that (you are aware that employers now hire companies that specialize in searching for posts by applicants?), you will be passed over. You'll never even know why you didn't get the job, or why you didn't even get an interview.

Ignorance is bliss, but I'd rather have a job.

 

[humanino]

"I saw my dad steal a bike, but I will not report him to the authorities because he is my dad; on the other hand, I saw my neighbor do the same thing, so let me go ahead and call the police on his butt."

Except if I know and trust my dad, I would be less inclined to believe he stole the bike. Maybe the car is out of service and he is trying to help someone. So I would definitely cross-check and make sure he really stole the bike. If on the other hand the neighbor is known for being a bike stealer, I would report them much more easily, yes. That is normal human behavior. In this sense, it is not obvious at all that the argument raised by russ is valid. In particular, Assange who is so defiant of the US government is very faithful to wikileaks.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree, the issue is simple. How much secrecy do you want your government or employer, or your friends for that matter, to hide behind? If you say, well, nobody can be trusted. Then I agree. Isn't that why our system, with it's codified rights, and freedoms, and requirements for openness and disclosure, and separation (and, supposed, balancing) of powers has evolved?

That's fractured and naive. Let's turn it around: how much privacy do you think you are entitled to? Why is a government or a company not entitled to any?...

It is also - again - completely irrelevant to the practical reality of the warning. The issue isn't whether you think secrecy is good or bad, the issue is to make people aware that saying anti-government things on the internet can be bad for your job prospects. So the question isn't whether you think secrecy is good or bad, but whether you are willing to risk your future job prospects by promoting that belief on the internet.