stupid wikileak question

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,477
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Fox McCloud
Obviously, had Mr Assange been a US citizen or in the US during the publishing of those docs he'd be prosecuted for something or the other.

To that effect, does that mean that if a US citizen visits Wikileaks and they have committed some crime? Did these documents cease being classified once they entered "the wild"?

Better yet, if a someone offers show you classified docs and you view them, (no money or passing of info to other 3rd parties) are you then guilty of anything?

(hopes he doesn't have that black helo dream again.)
 
Last edited:
Pi1otguy said:
Obviously, had Mr Assange been a US citizen or in the US during the publishing of those docs he'd be prosecuted for something or the other.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. He received the documents from a USA soldier, Pvt. Bradley Manning. Asage, even if he was a US Citizen is not under legal obligation to keep classified document classified. People who could be prosecuted for leaking those types of documents are the ones who had official access to them and had signed agreements to abide by the classified materials laws. That is why Pvt Manning is sitting in a jail cell right now.

Pi1otguy said:
To that effect, does that mean that if a US citizen visits Wikileaks and they have committed some crime? Did these documents cease being classified once they entered "the wild"?
Click to expand...
The documents are still technically classified. But you as a regular person are under no obligation to not view them, discuss them, wipe your butt with them.

Pi1otguy said:
Better yet, if a someone offers show you classified docs and you view them, (no money or passing of info to other 3rd parties) are you then guilty of anything?

(hopes he doesn't have that black helo dream again.)
Click to expand...
Nope.

You can look at some cases with the Washington Post and NY Times about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsburg.
 
Mr. Assange is the subject of an Interpol "warrant" that has nothing to do with pilfered documents. He is apparently wanted in Sweden for rape and molestation. His notoriety from his website will undoubtedly result in his whereabouts being discovered, and then his extradition to Sweden.
When in Sweden, facing sex crime charges, he will most likely get an interrogation by several national intelligence squads.
 
Telemakhos said:
Mr. Assange is the subject of an Interpol "warrant" that has nothing to do with pilfered documents. He is apparently wanted in Sweden for rape and molestation. His notoriety from his website will undoubtedly result in his whereabouts being discovered, and then his extradition to Sweden.
When in Sweden, facing sex crime charges, he will most likely get an interrogation by several national intelligence squads.
Click to expand...

And Al Capon was convicted on tax evation solely because the IRS wanted its money.
 
ScottM said:
Doubtful. He ALLEGEDLY received the documents from a USA soldier, Pvt. Bradley Manning. .
Click to expand...

There.. fixed it for you. Mr Manning has not had his day in court. He is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Doggtyred said:
He is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...
Beyong a shadow of a doubt is a standard that is not used in legal circles. Beyond a REASONABLE doubt is a standard and I think that is what you meant.

Yes Pvt Manning is innocent until proven guilty, a standard that many are not applying to Mr Assage I have noted. A few people, even ones here on PoA have called for his murder.
 
Strange how you'd quibble over the phrase of a shaodow of a doubt yet somehow not include alleged in your post, a phrase which IS the basis of law.
 
To that effect, does that mean that if a US citizen visits Wikileaks and they have committed some crime? Did these documents cease being classified
Click to expand...

The US Government has spoken to this today, they are still classified and government employees are forbidden to view them! Can we expect an edict upon all citizens next?
This is downright silly.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
The US Government has spoken to this today, they are still classified and government employees are forbidden to view them! Can we expect an edict upon all citizens next?
This is downright silly.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html
Click to expand...

No. It is in fact perfectly reasonable. Just because something is in the clear somewhere doesn't make something unclassified. Therefore viewing this classified information on your computer contaminates it, creating the requirement to declassified the IT equipment. It would be really stupid for a government employee to use government equipment to view this classified information.

If you have a clearance, then you should know that access to classified information requires you have the appropriate clearance and the need to know.
 
Telemakhos said:
Mr. Assange is the subject of an Interpol "warrant" that has nothing to do with pilfered documents. He is apparently wanted in Sweden for rape and molestation. His notoriety from his website will undoubtedly result in his whereabouts being discovered, and then his extradition to Sweden.
When in Sweden, facing sex crime charges, he will most likely get an interrogation by several national intelligence squads.
Click to expand...
Well, no, he isn't the subject of an Interpol warrant. Interpol has issued a request for information about his whereabouts because they want to speak with him. Which is silly, since they are speaking with him already through his lawyer.

The US is running scared. Makes me wonder whatever happened to "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Isn't that what they always tell us?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
The US Government has spoken to this today, they are still classified and government employees are forbidden to view them! Can we expect an edict upon all citizens next?
This is downright silly.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html
Click to expand...
When the book that Puzzle Palace came out in the early 1980s a similiar edict was also issued. That of course resulted in me immediately going out and buying the book. To this day I will not remark on the accuracy of that publication.
 
Bob I am a simple man, and lean on what is clear and obvious. I gotta say that if the government views things that way - then they may be good with words, but clearly miss the facts of what has happened.

Does classified not mean 'confidential'? They can 'classify'
the "Hollywood" sign in L.A. (or the equipment that displays it) all they want, everyone already knows what it says and there are photos of it all over.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Does classified not mean 'confidential'? They can 'classify'
Click to expand...
Technically speaking classified means that the information has been classified according to appropriate access.

The US government classification system has several levels

For Official Us Only is the lowest classification. Access is granted to anyone needing the information.

The next three levels, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret require people who to have some sort of back ground investigation to access the information and if there is a release of information legal charges could be filed.

For secret and top secret information there are sub divided more into special compartments (SCI). Those are code words that themselves are classified that people have to gain additional clearance for. Since the code word itself is classified unless you are cleared for that codeword you may not even be allowed to know what the word is. You will see things marked with a cover sheet 'TOP SECRET SCI" and then another sheet under it with the code word.
 
ScottM said:
When the book that Puzzle Palace came out in the early 1980s a similiar edict was also issued. That of course resulted in me immediately going out and buying the book. To this day I will not remark on the accuracy of that publication.
Click to expand...

It certainly stirred the pot, didn't it? :D

ScottM said:
Technically speaking classified means that the information has been classified according to appropriate access.

The US government classification system has several levels

For Official Us Only is the lowest classification. Access is granted to anyone needing the information.

The next three levels, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret require people who to have some sort of back ground investigation to access the information and if there is a release of information legal charges could be filed.

For secret and top secret information there are sub divided more into special compartments (SCI). Those are code words that themselves are classified that people have to gain additional clearance for. Since the code word itself is classified unless you are cleared for that codeword you may not even be allowed to know what the word is. You will see things marked with a cover sheet 'TOP SECRET SCI" and then another sheet under it with the code word.
Click to expand...

That about covers it. BTDT, years (decades) ago. Interesting world. Don't miss it at all, either.
 
ScottM said:
technical details of the classification scheme
Click to expand...

That all agrees with my preconceived notion of it although of course we wouldn't have the details...

But the issue is, why bother rushing to close the barn door after the horse has bolted.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
That all agrees with my preconceived notion of it although of course we wouldn't have the details...

But the issue is, why bother rushing to close the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it is a game that is played to not let people know if the leaked documents are accurate. Maybe let them wonder if the leak was planned to provoke a response that the leaker wanted to measure.

There is also the premise that one does not want anything more to leak out or has nothing else to leak. So this action would again perhaps confuse those outside of the need to know sphere from really knowing what had happened. It can all make your mind a little dizzy. Games like this are played all the time.
 
Classifiied (National Security Information or NSI) starts at Confidential, technically, and goes up to Top Secret with compartmentalization taking place at TS to further restrict information.

Non-classified-but-still-important information is at several levels
SBU - this is the base level - Sensitive But Unclassified. At one point in the Clinton Administration they basically said ANY information processed by the Gov't was SBU. Don't think that's true any more.
PII - Personally Identifiable Information - this is data that can be positively correlated to specific individual(s) - such as things with your name, SSN, birth date, etc. Your airman medical file would be PII AND SBU.
FOUO - I think this is only still in use in DoD - SBU has replaced it in other areas. Sometimes NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals) further restricts SBU/FOUO data.

The non-NSI systems in the government all are generally supposed to meet standards set by NIST and further refined by the agencies - so NIST specifies the minimum and agencies can raise the bar as needed.

The classified systems work in a similar fashion but generally the NSA sets the baseline standards.

Veering back to the original topic - in the agency I support we got a memo directing us not to look at any of the WikiLeaks stuff on the government desktops - because legally it's still classified and those systems aren't permitted to process classified data. Technically every time someone looked at the WikiLeaks stuff using a non-classified Gov't computer it was a classified materials security incident and there is supposed to be an investigation, the computer needs to be seized, imaged and wiped before returning to service. Somewhere I expect Obama or somebody high up to issue something declassifying the stuff.

The rules say that a breach doesn't declassify material, but they had something in mind like a guy telling his wife, or a case where there's a breach but the breacher has an interest in making sure the information stays secret. I don't think they ever imagined something like WikiLeaks.
 
ScottM said:
Games like this are played all the time.
Click to expand...

The only outcome I can see is that now we might have a government worker in the 'secure information department', who knows less than the man on the street because they are denied access to what the rest of the world can get with the click of a mouse!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
The only outcome I can see is that now we might have a government worker in the 'secure information department', who knows less than the man on the street because they are denied access to what the rest of the world can get with the click of a mouse!
Click to expand...

The dirty little secret is how insanely dull so much "highly sensitive" information is.

Few Hemingways among bureaucrats.
 
TMetzinger said:
Veering back to the original topic - in the agency I support we got a memo directing us not to look at any of the WikiLeaks stuff on the government desktops - because legally it's still classified and those systems aren't permitted to process classified data. Technically every time someone looked at the WikiLeaks stuff using a non-classified Gov't computer it was a classified materials security incident and there is supposed to be an investigation, the computer needs to be seized, imaged and wiped before returning to service.
Click to expand...
Completely makes sense from that aspect

TMetzinger said:
Somewhere I expect Obama or somebody high up to issue something declassifying the stuff.
Click to expand...
Would that not confirm the information as accurate? I think they may not declassify it nor make much in the way of any public comment.
 
ScottM said:
Completely makes sense from that aspect

Would that not confirm the information as accurate? I think they may not declassify it nor make much in the way of any public comment.
Click to expand...

Well if it ISN'T accurate - there's no point in forbidding people to use gov't computers to read it, is there? The fact that these instructions were given pretty much confirms it, as has all the other gov't response to date.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
The US Government has spoken to this today, they are still classified and government employees are forbidden to view them! Can we expect an edict upon all citizens next?
This is downright silly.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html
Click to expand...

The State Department is telling Columbia University students not mention Wikleaks at all if they want a government job.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html

It looks like other parts of the government are adopting the TSA's "take immediate action to prevent the incident that just happened" technique.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
The US Government has spoken to this today, they are still classified and government employees are forbidden to view them! Can we expect an edict upon all citizens next?
This is downright silly.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html
Click to expand...

Bob Noel said:
No. It is in fact perfectly reasonable. Just because something is in the clear somewhere doesn't make something unclassified. Therefore viewing this classified information on your computer contaminates it, creating the requirement to declassified the IT equipment. It would be really stupid for a government employee to use government equipment to view this classified information.

If you have a clearance, then you should know that access to classified information requires you have the appropriate clearance and the need to know.
Click to expand...

mikea said:
The State Department is telling Columbia University students not mention Wikleaks at all if they want government job.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html

It looks like other parts of the government are adopting the TSA's "take immediate action to prevent the incident that just happened" technique.
Click to expand...

Similar thing with our company. Wikileaks is blocked at work. Can't risk contaminating work computers (which is rationale). They also strongly recommended that we not even look at the site at home because "it may risk the security clearance of anyone who looks". There was even the hint that any classified material published in, say, the NYT would cause a similar problem.
 
Here's an idea: Since all the people at Wiki-leak think it's okay to post illegal documents all over the internet, then somebody needs to secure the personal records of wiki-leaks employees (social security numbers, medical records, credit card numbers, home address) and post that information all over the world wide web.

Seems fair to me--personal information is classified, protected information that no one really needs to have access to and serves to do nothing but disrupt lives if leaked to the general public. What's good for the goose.....
 
Viceroy said:
Here's an idea: Since all the people at Wiki-leak think it's okay to post illegal documents all over the internet, then somebody needs to secure the personal records of wiki-leaks employees (social security numbers, medical records, credit card numbers, home address) and post that information all over the world wide web.

Seems fair to me--personal information is classified, protected information that no one really needs to have access to and serves to do nothing but disrupt lives if leaked to the general public. What's good for the goose.....
Click to expand...
Lots of questions abound about your very post to PoA.

Lets start with a basic one. What do you mean by posting "illegal documents?" What is illegal about them? Wikileaks did not leak the documents, they merely reported on documents that have been leaked by someone else who had access to them. Wikileaks did not break into the US government document repository and steal them. The illegal dissemination of the classified documents has been attributed to US Army Pvt Bradley Manning. He is currently in jail facing charges for that crime.

With that fact explain please tell us what sort of crime you think the employees of WikiLeaks have committed and why they deserve to be the focus of vigilante justice?
 
I'm in agreement with Scott. The person who committed the crime is the person who gave the info to WikiLeaks. I'd like to think that they might refrain from publishing information that could devastate the world (maybe like how to bring back smallpox, for example) but they've signed no loyalty oaths to the USA or any other countries. So even though I wish that this whole thing didn't happen, I'd rather have the world the way it is with WikiLeaks in it than a world where something like WikiLeaks couldn't exist.
 
ScottM said:
Technically speaking classified means that the information has been classified according to appropriate access.

The US government classification system has several levels

For Official Us Only is the lowest classification. Access is granted to anyone needing the information.

The next three levels, Confidential, Secret and Top Secret require people who to have some sort of back ground investigation to access the information and if there is a release of information legal charges could be filed.

For secret and top secret information there are sub divided more into special compartments (SCI). Those are code words that themselves are classified that people have to gain additional clearance for. Since the code word itself is classified unless you are cleared for that codeword you may not even be allowed to know what the word is. You will see things marked with a cover sheet 'TOP SECRET SCI" and then another sheet under it with the code word.
Click to expand...

What you've described here is primarily Dept of Defense. DHS has it's own classification program as does Dept of Energy. As a rule, the clearances are not accepted across Departments.
 
Has been quite awhile since I was in the military. But "back in the day" as is said, every military person had a "confidential" classification just by being accepted and graduating boot camp.
SO, this Pvt. may have had "legal" access to the documents, I personally have not looked at what they were classified as.
Once you hit the "secret" classification, the back ground check became a little more thorough.
Once you hit "top secret", ALL of those documents etc.. were only given to you on a "need to know basis" which means, you may have the "top secret" classification, but if it didin't directly involve you, you couldn't get to them.

Also, every US military personnel "back in the day" was required to sign a non disclosure statement over information. I assume they still do that.
If they do and this Pvt. DID do it, he will be in violation of the UCMJ and will go to jail.
 
murphey said:
What you've described here is primarily Dept of Defense. DHS has it's own classification program as does Dept of Energy. As a rule, the clearances are not accepted across Departments.
Click to expand...
Actually the Executive branch of government, of which the DHS and DoD are in, has a unified classification program.

I concede that there may be some customizations per department. My access to DoD classified SCI material was suspended years ago when I left that job function. I do have some limited access to DHS classified materials. Although rare and mostly LE related, the systems appears the same to me.
 

Attachments

Let'sgoflying! said:
The US Government has spoken to this today, they are still classified and government employees are forbidden to view them! Can we expect an edict upon all citizens next?
This is downright silly.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html
Click to expand...

I got my memo today. At least our Department made it clear that reading news reports of the content of the documents was not verboten.

And it softpedals the thought that off-duty, from home, we might read Wikileaks on our own computers. In other words they insinuated it might not be kosher but didn't go any further. Of course the vast majority of USDOI employees have no security clearance. Those of us who are SSBI or higher know better.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
Lots of questions abound about your very post to PoA.

Lets start with a basic one. What do you mean by posting "illegal documents?" What is illegal about them? Wikileaks did not leak the documents, they merely reported on documents that have been leaked by someone else who had access to them. Wikileaks did not break into the US government document repository and steal them. The illegal dissemination of the classified documents has been attributed to US Army Pvt Bradley Manning. He is currently in jail facing charges for that crime.

With that fact explain please tell us what sort of crime you think the employees of WikiLeaks have committed and why they deserve to be the focus of vigilante justice?
Click to expand...

Okay.

So, what you're saying is if a rogue doctor leaks tons of medical records laden with various patients' detailed medical histories to an ambiguous web-based entity that it should be okay as long as the doctor is imprisoned?

So, what you're saying is if a rogue police officer releases sensitive documents and evidence to some website that jeopardizes court cases past and present as well as causing criminals that are a threat to society to be released from prison that it's okay as long as the cop is jailed?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's time to re-write the espionage laws.
 
Viceroy said:
Okay.

So, what you're saying is if a rogue doctor leaks tons of medical records laden with various patients' detailed medical histories to an ambiguous web-based entity that it should be okay as long as the doctor is imprisoned?

So, what you're saying is if a rogue police officer releases sensitive documents and evidence to some website that jeopardizes court cases past and present as well as causing criminals that are a threat to society to be released from prison that it's okay as long as the cop is jailed?
Click to expand...
I am saying the that the only illegal act was the stealing of the documents and they person alleged to have committed that crime is in jail awaiting trial. Wikileaks broke no law that I am aware of. If you know of one please tell us all.

Pvt Bradley Manning is the one accused of releasing these documents and is being investigated for some other releases of classified information. He is the one that broke his oath and the law if these charges are true. Wikileaks was not bound by any oath or law that I know of to not report on the documents or release the ones that they have. As journalists they are ethically obliged to report a news story and to support it with the information they received. That should be pretty clear. Why anyone would want to punish the press on this is confusing to me. The simple fact that if a government does not want to be embarrassed by what it is says, then it should make sure it does not say embarrassing things. Pretty simple.
 
ScottM said:
I am saying the that the only illegal act was the stealing of the documents and they person alleged to have committed that crime is in jail awaiting trial. Wikileaks broke no law that I am aware of. If you know of one please tell us all.

Pvt Bradley Manning is the one accused of releasing these documents and is being investigated for some other releases of classified information. He is the one that broke his oath and the law if these charges are true. Wikileaks was not bound by any oath or law that I know of to not report on the documents or release the ones that they have. As journalists they are ethically obliged to report a news story and to support it with the information they received. That should be pretty clear. Why anyone would want to punish the press on this is confusing to me. The simple fact that if a government does not want to be embarrassed by what it is says, then it should make sure it does not say embarrassing things. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing this back to the real problem. I do think they need to be moving more quickly on this.
 
markb5900 said:
Has been quite awhile since I was in the military. But "back in the day" as is said, every military person had a "confidential" classification just by being accepted and graduating boot camp.
SO, this Pvt. may have had "legal" access to the documents, I personally have not looked at what they were classified as.
Once you hit the "secret" classification, the back ground check became a little more thorough.
Once you hit "top secret", ALL of those documents etc.. were only given to you on a "need to know basis" which means, you may have the "top secret" classification, but if it didin't directly involve you, you couldn't get to them.

Also, every US military personnel "back in the day" was required to sign a non disclosure statement over information. I assume they still do that.
If they do and this Pvt. DID do it, he will be in violation of the UCMJ and will go to jail.
Click to expand...

Clarification: Access to any classified material requires need to know. It doesn't matter if it's confidential, Secret, or higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top