Don’t Mention the Cables, Future Diplomats • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t Mention the Cables, Future Diplomats

#11

Post by fooandbarify » Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 12:45 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #3

tptacek wrote: post #2

This isn't some paranoid crazytalk from a government driven mad by Cablegate. It is a fact that classified data isn't declassified by nature of having been published. Apparently, contractors who are cleared for handling classified data (here you learn that Matasano doesn't do government work) are quizzed on this routinely. It's apparently a basic rule of information hygiene that you can't ignore classification just b…

Sure, that's the precedent and official policy for actual employees and contractors. But does that standard make sense applied to private citizens, having conversations about widely-available information, before ever applying for a job? The State Department may get more careful, coldly calculating applicants by eliminating those who discuss leaked cables – but not more curious and well-informed ones.

No kidding - and I can't honestly believe that current employees and contractors would be prevented from reading the leaks for fear of "possessing" said information. Burying their head in the sand. It's asinine.

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear - I am calling the policy asinine, not the employees/contractors.

Re: Don’t Mention the Cables, Future Diplomats

#12

Post by yinmoneyhuang » Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 1:21 AM UTC

The State Department seems to have mistargeted its restrictions concerning the documents disclosed by WikiLeaks. In particular, prohibiting members of the public (such as the SIPA students) from discussing the documents serves no purpose. Insofar as the documents have become generally available, the State Department is now powerless to prevent the spread of any damaging information contained in those materials.

By contrast, restrictions would make sense for current government employees. Because a significant fraction of those employees have access to materials whose secrecy is still intact, it is conceivable that discussion of the already-leaked materials could lead an employee to let slip additional classified information.

Re: Don’t Mention the Cables, Future Diplomats

#13

Post by ams6110 » Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 1:24 AM UTC

bigmac wrote: post #5

When it comes down to it, these cables were leaked most likely due to Bradley Manning handing them over to Wikileaks. Thus, it was fundamentally a failure of the security clearance screening process that made this leak possible; a bad apple got through. From that point of view, it only makes sense to assume that the screening process will be more strict moving forward. No surprise, then, that one metric that may be t…

That a "bad apple" got through was one problem. The other problem was that he appears to have had access to far to much information, and that adequate systems to prevent the download and removal of the information also failed.

Re: Don’t Mention the Cables, Future Diplomats

#14

Post by GHFigs » Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 1:28 AM UTC

tibbon wrote: post #7

Do government employees have an assumption that their work communications are kept private and there is no/little recourse as to what they say in them? I always figure that at work 100% of what I write can be read by the entire company, and that I will be held accountable for anything I say/do even if I have the best intentions in mind. If I say in an email something unfavorable or slanderous about another company's…

If I say in an email something unfavorable or slanderous about another company's CEO, and it gets out, then I must face the consequences.

The key difference here is that making honest assessments about the character of foreign government officials is part of the job description for diplomats.

Re: Don’t Mention the Cables, Future Diplomats

#15

Post by tibbon » Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 1:41 AM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #14

tibbon wrote: post #7

Do government employees have an assumption that their work communications are kept private and there is no/little recourse as to what they say in them? I always figure that at work 100% of what I write can be read by the entire company, and that I will be held accountable for anything I say/do even if I have the best intentions in mind. If I say in an email something unfavorable or slanderous about another company's…

If I say in an email something unfavorable or slanderous about another company's CEO, and it gets out, then I must face the consequences. The key difference here is that making honest assessments about the character of foreign government officials is part of the job description for diplomats.

Agreed- If the assessments are honest and unbiased, then I think few will mind them- although world leaders are known to have overinflated egos and not tolerate any critique well.

Some jobs have risks associated with them. This is one of them. Time and time again our government has told us that we are made safer by having less privacy, but now when it comes to the government having less privacy, they don't like that feeling.

In either case- why wouldn't what is said and done by diplomats carry consequence? Politicians always talk about responsibility and accountability. This seems to be a ripe time for it.