Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp:

When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law.

I don't think there's any political shadiness going on here, I think Google is just trying to be on the correct side of the system. Whether or not that system is on the right side of some moral or ethical line is a different conversation entirely.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#7

Post by dmoy » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 11:56 PM UTC

dljsjr wrote: post #6

I'm not sure that this is completely tin-foil hat worthy. I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp: When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being le…

Yea I was at a defense contractor at the time, I remember an email going around telling people not to go look at this stuff for that exact reason.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#8

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 11:59 PM UTC

dljsjr wrote: post #6

I'm not sure that this is completely tin-foil hat worthy. I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp: When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being le…

> When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong: regular citizens are not prohibited from viewing classified material without clearance.

OTOH, if you are in particular government or government-contract jobs (including, at least, all jobs that involve a security clearance), you are prohibited from any viewing classified material you aren't cleared for (and, I believe, also have all kinds of required reporting processes if you discover you have unintentionally been exposed to such information.)

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#9

Post by dljsjr » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 12:02 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #8

dljsjr wrote: post #6

I'm not sure that this is completely tin-foil hat worthy. I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp: When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being le…

> When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law. I'm pretty sure this is wrong:…

There's a good chance this is true: I'm going off what I was told, which being that I was at a government contractor was probably largely FUD because they didn't want me doing anything that would jeopardize their business (I may not have ended up in jail but I would have cost them a lot of money and probably would have been fired).

Somebody much more knowledgeable than me can chime in on this.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#10

Post by cesarbs » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 12:09 AM UTC

If you refresh the page multiple times, it switches between "Not dangerous" and "Dangerous downloads".