There's always been military censorship but this is quite mad
"U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites— on unclassified networks -- get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.
The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job.
The feds have clearly lost it. Many of those soldiers receiving the warnings have security clearances that would have granted them access to the State Department cables before they were leaked.
Source
This shows quite offensive disrespect for the men and women of the military
8 comments:
Many of those soldiers receiving the warnings have security clearances that would have granted them access to the State Department cables before they were leaked.
And all of them who DO have such security clearance understand the basic tenets of "need to know" and "classification." Just because you are "cleared" does not mean you have unfettered access to classified material. If any of these soldiers went to a state department installation and demanded to see all their classified cables, the Security Officer would demand justification. Why do they NEED TO KNOW?
The truth of the matter is that the cables are still "classified" no matter how ridiculous this sounds. For those who have clearance to maintain their clearance, they must prove that they are trustworthy enough to know how to handle classified material, whether they come across it on a colleague's desk or on the Internet. The scale of the leak does not change their responsibilities under the agreements they signed to gain and maintain access.
Is it silly that someone with clearance is technically breaking the law by viewing leaked classified material on the internet? Maybe. However, silly was never one of those adjectives that kept the government from persecuting people....
You make a good point Stan, but the system is such a mess that it really doesn't matter. Things like privacy and secrecy no longer apply in the 21st century, because most young people put no value in either. Why would they care about their country's privacy when they don't even care about their own. (facebook, utube, etc.) They have been raised and educated in America's PC'ized environment, which is to say, they have no solid connection to reality. And being detatched from reality, or not caring about it, comes with a very heavy price that (will) be paid by someone at some point.
"Privacy is nothing more than an illusion, and anyone who believes they truly have it is a fool." .... George Soros
It's hard to tell what is worthy of secrecy and what is not, when some unworthy people hide behind secrets.
Taking posession of documents you know are not meant to be in your posession may indeed constitute a crime.
It's part of espionage...
And anyone knowingly reading the documents on wikileaks would be doing just that.
Next: making the heavenly constellations classified because they can be used for the logistical function of navigation.
If you don't need to know what's up there, don't look!
The smoke screen here is pretty thick. The problem with the Wikileaks cabels isn't that he's releasing them, it's that he could read them in the first place. Someone want to explain to me why the State Dept. and DoD can't use something as simple as PGP or a similar encryption program to secure sensitive information?
Nobody?
That's because there is no good reason. This is another case of Federal incompetance. And they are basically scapegoating Wikileaks to Cover their asses.
P.S.- So when will we see congress screaming for the blood of the mainstream media outlets that also ran the information in the cabels? Don't hold your breath...
Since the word GI stands for "Government Issue," I'm not really surprised. Soldiers are limited in their rights.
Anon 1:07 said,
"Someone want to explain to me why the State Dept. and DoD can't use something as simple as PGP or a similar encryption program to secure sensitive information?"
It doesn't matter what kind of encryption system is used when there are traitors within. You can protect your home with the best lock in the world on your door, but it won't do you much good if someone on the inside is willing to open it.
Post a Comment