Fed employees can NOT read WikiLeaks

[Whet]

even on your own home computer, laptop, or smartphone away from work! :eek:


The recent disclosure of U.S. Government documents by WikiLeaks has resulted in damage to our national security. We have been asked to remind all federal employees and contractors of their obligation to protect classified information pursuant to all applicable laws, and to use government information technology systems in accordance with agency procedures so that the integrity of such systems is not compromised.

Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents (whether in print, on a blog, or on websites) do not alter the documents' classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents. To the contrary, classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority. Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information (December 29, 2009), Section 1.1.(c) states, "Classified Information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."

Federal employees and contractors therefore are reminded of the following obligations with respect to the treatment of classified information and the use of non-classified government information technology systems:
· Except as authorized by their agencies and pursuant to agency procedures, federal employees or contractors shall not, while using computers or other devices (such as Blackberries or Smart Phones) that access the web on non-classified government systems, access documents that are marked classified (including classified documents publicly available on the WikiLeaks and other websites), as doing so risks that material still classified will be placed onto non-classified systems. This requirement applies to access that occurs either through agency or contractor computers, or through employees’ or contractors’ personally owned computers that access non-classified government systems. This requirement does not restrict employee or contractor access to non-classified, publicly available news reports (and other non-classified material) that may in turn discuss classified material, as distinguished from access to underlying documents that themselves are marked classified (including if the underlying classified documents are available on public websites or otherwise in the public domain).
· Federal employees or contractors shall not access classified material unless a favorable determination of the person's eligibility for access has been made by an agency head or the agency head's designee, the person has signed and approved non-disclosure agreement, the person has a need to know the information, and the person has received contemporaneous training on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.
· Classified information shall not be removed from official premises or disclosed without proper authorization.
· Federal employees and contractors who believe they may have inadvertently accessed or downloaded classified or sensitive information on computers that access the web via non-classified government systems, or without prior authorization, should contact their information security offices for assistance.

:gary:

[OULenexaman]

This is not just limited to federal employees....other firms are doing this too.

[olevetonahill]

While on one hand the Info is No longer secret it IS still classified as so. I can see the reasoning behind this to a degree.

The other consideration is that by going to that site they may pick up a Virus worm er something and bring it back to Protected systems

[Sooner_Havok]

lol, whatever happened to "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."

Or does that only apply to citizens, not the government itself?

[dwarthog]

Wal-Mart is watching.....

[AlboSooner]

lol, whatever happened to "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."

Or does that only apply to citizens, not the government itself?

The govt knows "if you don't have anything to hide..." is a false dilemma.

[The]

Czoww2l1xdw

[AlboSooner]

http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/walmart-energ.png

hmmm, suspeeshes

[The]

http://i.imgur.com/V7ZzV.jpg

[Jammin']

Czoww2l1xdw

Sweet. so I only have to report suspicious activity if I see it in the WalMart parking lot or the store itself. I assume the truckers have the rest covered then?

[picasso]

That Wiki guy needs to be split from head to toe with a dull deer antler.

[Penguin]

I consider wikileaks an illegal website, just like an underage sex website and a snuff film website. I would consider anyone a fool who doesn't think that somebody is logging IP/MAC addresses of every computer that connects to the website.

Whether the FBI knocks on your door tomorrow or knocks on your door two years from now, you might have to answer some tough questions if you visit the website a little too often. Yes, a logged IP address is good enough for some judges to sign a search warrant.

[The]

I consider wikileaks an illegal website, just like an underage sex website and a snuff film website. I would consider anyone a fool who doesn't think that somebody is logging IP/MAC addresses of every computer that connects to the website.

Whether the FBI knocks on your door tomorrow or knocks on your door two years from now, you might have to answer some tough questions if you visit the website a little too often. Yes, a logged IP address is good enough for some judges to sign a search warrant.

Information is illegal.
Knowledge is a crime.
Welcome to the Land of the Free.

[DIB]

Qalso, what's wrong with some snuff porn now and again?

[The]

http://asset.soup.io/asset/1296/6069_60ed_500.png

[yermom]

the info is out there. might as well respond accordingly.

hiding your head in the sand isn't going to make it go away.

you can't block the whole internet.

[Ike]

the info is out there. might as well respond accordingly.

hiding your head in the sand isn't going to make it go away.

you can't block the whole internet.

Unless you are china.

[olevetonahill]

Peeps Its not that the Info is not readily availible , Its the fact that If you are a G employee you have a certain Security Classification . If you read that stuff that is STILL rated ABOVE yer Clearance level or come thru official channels then you are breaking the Law its that ****in simple .:rolleyes:

[The]

From The American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12/09/the-conservative-case-for-wikileaks/):

Lovers necessarily keep or share secrets. Being in a healthy relationship means achieving a certain level of intimacy, where shared knowledge of each others’ weaknesses and insecurities is protected by a bond of mutual trust. Sometimes lovers might do devilish things that outsiders wouldn’t understand, or shouldn’t be privy to, and this is fine. But by and large, what they do is simply no one else’s business.


But imagine that the man in the relationship kept it a secret that he had other women on the side, kids, a criminal record, venereal disease, and basically betrayed his lover in every way imaginable, unbeknownst to her?
Now imagine a third party felt it was their moral duty to reveal it?


No one questions that governments must maintain a certain level of secrecy, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who told Time that “Secrecy is important for many things … [but it] shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.” The entire premise of Assange’s whistleblower organization is this: To what degree is government secrecy justified? And when particular secrets could be damaging to the other partner in the United States government’s relationship — the American people — should these secrets be revealed in the name of protecting the public?


How often does our government use “national security” simply as an excuse to cover up questionable dealings? Reports Time: “in the past few years, governments have designated so much information secret that you wonder whether they intend the time of day to be classified. The number of new secrets designated as such by the U.S. government has risen 75% … . At the same time, the number of documents and other communications created using those secrets has skyrocketed nearly 10 times…”
To say that government must keep secrets is not to say that all government secrets must be kept.


As admitted even by Pentagon officials and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, none of WikiLeaks’ revelations do anything to compromise national security or endanger American lives — but they have wreaked havoc on political life in Washington, D.C. Americans are not supposed to know, for example, that their government bullied and threatened individuals and other governments that might have undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. The federal government attempting to squelch anyone who might undermine global-warming dogma? Do WikiLeaks’ conservative critics believe revealing this is a “national security” risk?



Americans are not supposed to know, apparently, that behind the scenes Saudi Arabia has been encouraging the U.S. to take military action against Iran. But if we end up going to war with Iran shouldn’t it be in America’s national interest, and not simply as a subcontractor for another country? Asks Fox News’ Judith Miller: “Why should Americans not know that Arab states, often at the top level, have been urging Washington to take military or other drastic action against Iran, while they publicly oppose such action?”


And when did conservatives become so protective of Hillary Clinton? What happened to the days of the “Stop Hillary Express,” when right-wing talk radio portrayed the former first lady as Satan and theorized about all the devious ways in which, if in power, she might conspire to bring down the country? When WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Clinton tried to obtain DNA, fingerprints, credit-card numbers, and other private information belonging to United Nations officials, we learned that Clinton’s style was every bit as mafia-esque as her conservative critics once warned. Yet conservatives now attack WikiLeaks for revealing what they once feared. It should also be remembered that the same conservatives now calling for Assange’s head either ignored or were sympathetic to Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame allegedly at the Bush administration’s behest — a revelation arguably far riskier to our national security than anything ever released by WikiLeaks.


But the worst hypocrisy throughout this controversy has been in conservatives reflexively defending the government and attacking WikiLeaks. Since when have conservatives believed that Washington should be able to shroud any action it likes in secrecy and that revealing government’s nefarious deeds is tantamount to treason? Isn’t it government officials who might secretly work for corporate, ideological or transnational interests — and against the national interest — who are betraying their country?


Interestingly, Wikileaks’ founder espouses the traditionally conservative, Jeffersonian view that America’s constitutional structure limits and lessens government corruption. Reported Time: “Assange appears to believe that the U.S. has not become ‘a much-worse-behaved superpower’ because its federalism, ‘this strength of the states,’ has been a drag on the combination of the burgeoning power of the central government and a presidency that can expand its influence only by way of foreign affairs.”
Decentralizing government power, limiting it, and challenging it was the Founders’ intent and these have always been core conservative principles. Conservatives should prefer an explosion of whistleblower groups like WikiLeaks to a federal government powerful enough to take them down. Government officials who now attack WikLleaks don’t fear national endangerment, they fear personal embarrassment. And while scores of conservatives have long promised to undermine or challenge the current monstrosity in Washington, D.C., it is now an organization not recognizably conservative that best undermines the political establishment and challenges its very foundations.

[Midtowner]

I consider wikileaks an illegal website, just like an underage sex website and a snuff film website. I would consider anyone a fool who doesn't think that somebody is logging IP/MAC addresses of every computer that connects to the website.

Whether the FBI knocks on your door tomorrow or knocks on your door two years from now, you might have to answer some tough questions if you visit the website a little too often. Yes, a logged IP address is good enough for some judges to sign a search warrant.

My God.. you are a fictional construct straight out of 1984, aren't you?

[yermom]

Peeps Its not that the Info is not readily availible , Its the fact that If you are a G employee you have a certain Security Classification . If you read that stuff that is STILL rated ABOVE yer Clearance level or come thru official channels then you are breaking the Law its that ****in simple .:rolleyes:

the cat's out of the bag. the focus should be more on cleaning up the mess than on pretending there is no cat

[olevetonahill]

the cat's out of the bag. the focus should be more on cleaning up the mess than on pretending there is no cat

Hey Bro, I didnt say it made any sense, Just stated A fed caint have access to anything above their Clearance level .;)

[Penguin]

My God.. you are a fictional construct straight out of 1984, aren't you?

Not sure what you find unbelievable. You believe that ISP's do not record IP addresses? You believe that it's incredibly difficult for a federal investigator to obtain a search warrant?


Believe what you want. A federal investigator can get a search warrant in 30 minutes if he wants to. Can't find a federal judge to sign a search warrant? No problem. Just go find a state judge willing to play ball. There is no shortage of activist judges at the state level, left-wing or right-wing.

[SicEmBaylor]

lol, whatever happened to "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."

Or does that only apply to citizens, not the government itself?

Exactly right.

[Midtowner]

Hey Bro, I didnt say it made any sense, Just stated A fed caint have access to anything above their Clearance level .;)

So if a federal employee reads the New York Times and it reprints information they obtained from an undisclosed source leaking otherwise classified information, should they be fired?

[Midtowner]

Not sure what you find unbelievable. You believe that ISP's do not record IP addresses? You believe that it's incredibly difficult for a federal investigator to obtain a search warrant?

Actually, yes. You have to actually be able to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. What crime is committed if I read a wikileaks report or even republish it? And even if they obtain such a warrant and they get the information they're after, what crime are they going to charge me with?

Can you cite a statute?

If Eric Holder can't, you sure as hell can't.

Food for thought:

http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/

[olevetonahill]

So if a federal employee reads the New York Times and it reprints information they obtained from an undisclosed source leaking otherwise classified information, should they be fired?

Yer a Leroid troll aint ya.:rolleyes:

[Penguin]

Can you cite a statute?


I'll get right on that. There are laws that stop the average American from getting their hands on secret, classified, top secret, and double secret probation documents. I'm sorry that I don't have the exact statutes at my fingertips. The point is "But, it was so damn easy to download" is not a valid excuse to grab secret documents. "It was so damn easy" is not an excuse for any crime.

Of course, I seriously doubt that the FBI will keep their eye on somebody who clicks once or twice out of curiosity. But, you have to know that the feds will investigate people who make a point of downloading every page on wikileaks. Will the FBI be kicking down front doors in the suburbs? Probably not, but the option is always there.

[usaosooner]

Huh whats that I'm just reading my copy of 1984.. Whats going on in this thread guys?

[bigfatjerk]

I have no problem if people reveal secrets online. If our government were smaller and more efficient it probably wouldn't have any major secrets to worry about. Wasn't one of Obama's promises to be more transparent. Why does our government have any secrets that have to be revealed at all?

[pphilfran]

Their main site appears to be shut down but they also have this one...

I visited it 27 times over the last twenty four hours...

I found it a quite interesting read....hold on, someone is banging on my door...

http://213.251.145.96/

[The]

http://i.imgur.com/y5SrO.gif

Is the problem the site or the dox?

'Cuz they're about to be everywhere.

[Midtowner]

I'll get right on that. There are laws that stop the average American from getting their hands on secret, classified, top secret, and double secret probation documents. I'm sorry that I don't have the exact statutes at my fingertips. The point is "But, it was so damn easy to download" is not a valid excuse to grab secret documents. "It was so damn easy" is not an excuse for any crime.

No top secret documents were disclosed.

As to secret, classified, etc., no, there are no such laws. Tough break for the authoritarians who want the government to lie and do bad things and not be held accountable. We have a Constitution which still counts for something.

WikiLeaks is protected by the First Amendment.


Of course, I seriously doubt that the FBI will keep their eye on somebody who clicks once or twice out of curiosity. But, you have to know that the feds will investigate people who make a point of downloading every page on wikileaks. Will the FBI be kicking down front doors in the suburbs? Probably not, but the option is always there.

Wrong. The option is not there. There is nothing illegal about downloading and republishing this information. You seem awfully sure of yourself for someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Be sure to read New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

And there is no law whatsoever that forbids me to read the published content.

[pphilfran]

Watch out for Midtowner...he doesn't take a case unless he knows he is going to win...

[Frozen Sooner]

Do me a solid: please don't post links to Wikileaks mirrors or information from Wikileaks until I can get something from Phil on whether he wants it posted here or not.

[pphilfran]

Do me a solid: please don't post links to Wikileaks mirrors or information from Wikileaks until I can get something from Phil on whether he wants it posted here or not.

No problem...though I was having fun!

[Penguin]

Wrong. The option is not there. There is nothing illegal about downloading and republishing this information.


Sure thing, boss. We can surf for anything we want, consequence-free. Got it.


Since we can know government secrets now, let's go for a drive, hand in hand, down to Area 51 and demand to know what they're doing. We'll have the American public's best interests on our side. That will keep us out of court.

[The]

Do me a solid: please don't post links to Wikileaks mirrors or information from Wikileaks until I can get something from Phil on whether he wants it posted here or not.

I'm finally pooping solids again. I'll dedicate my next one to you, if you'd like.

[pphilfran]

I'm finally pooping solids again. I'll dedicate my next one to you, if you'd like.

:D

[The]

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld7y05zYyD1qanb21o1_500.png

[Midtowner]

Sure thing, boss. We can surf for anything we want, consequence-free. Got it.

Certain things are not free speech. Child porn, for example. This, however, isn't child porn.

Justice Douglas, in the aforementioned case, wrote: "These disclosures [the revelation of the contents of the Pentagon Papers] may have a serious impact. But that is no basis for sanctioning a previous restraint on the press. . . . The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information. A debate of large proportions goes on in the Nation over our posture in Vietnam. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health."

What Assange has done is precisely why we have the First Amendment. The military, nor anyone else can point to actual harm which has flowed from these disclosures, except that they have been very embarrassing for the government. As to that, good for wikileaks.


Since we can know government secrets now, let's go for a drive, hand in hand, down to Area 51 and demand to know what they're doing. We'll have the American public's best interests on our side. That will keep us out of court.

And if we happen to find out what's going on at Area 51, unless it involves nuclear secrets, ciphers, or a very narrow set of categories strongly related to national security, we're in the clear.

[SicEmBaylor]

Just to recap what I've argued elsewhere...

Take notice that foreign governments, along with our own, are not throwing a fit about what the United States said in the released diplomatic cables. They're throwing a fit about that information becoming public. There's a big big difference.

This has ZERO impact on our foreign relations. It has had ZERO impact on the "war on terror." It has not caused one single US soldier to lose his or her life. It has done NOTHING to put our country at risk.

What it has done is allow the American public the opportunity to see how its government truly operates when it thinks nobody is looking. The Government is scared ****less of the public knowing how its own government supposedly represents its interests abroad. The fact that our government is so upset over the leaks is a clear indication that they have a lot to be ashamed of and to answer for.

If the American people had a clear and transparent view of how the government operates on our behalf then there would be nothing to fear from these cables.

[olevetonahill]

MT, This is not about You or My rights to look at this carp, its pertaining to FED, Employee's
pay tention :rolleyes:

[Midtowner]

MT, This is not about You or My rights to look at this carp, its pertaining to FED, Employee's
pay tention :rolleyes:

And the feds can't do what they're doing either. You don't lose your Constitutional rights when you work for the federal government (unless you are military). Disclosing illegally obtained secret information is certainly illegal and PFC Manning, for example, is going to the pokey.

But reading about the cables on Time.com? Or from other places available to the general public? I have a hard time seeing a federal judge upholding a termination based on that.

[AlboSooner]

The Newspapers can publish this stuff and it would be perfectly legal. There is no way the juicy stuff is not going to get out. As long as the soldiers are not put in danger, and the immediate security of our country is not in danger, I don't mind teh leaks.

[Midtowner]

The Newspapers can publish this stuff and it would be perfectly legal. There is no way the juicy stuff is not going to get out. As long as the soldiers are not put in danger, and the immediate security of our country is not in danger, I don't mind teh leaks.

And the military has actually confirmed that there have been zero casualties as a result of any leak.

[Sooner5030]

Folks,

Although it APPEARs that no military related data was leaked or publicized during this whole ordeal, at the time that PVT Manning had access to the SIPR net it was all available. You might find it funny or enlightening that some Department of State memos were released but that is not all that happened.

A person sworn to protect that information, signed multiple agreements to do so and was provided legal orders under Article 92 of the UCMJ broke that promise and leaked a shiatload of data to a foreign entity for either anti-gubment, political or financial motivation.

Although many internal controls are in place, and even more since this happened, we rely very heavily on someone’s word or promise. Whether proprietary or governmental, protected information is essential in the rule of law…..just ask Lars Ulrich!

I have a little more respect for PVT Manning than some of the childish posters on this board that can cheer him on but are too chicken**** to accept some risks and steal the data themselves or abet those that steal data. If you were so brave in your cause of transparency, and it that cause is so righteous…..what the f’k are you scared of? After all, if the “hiding” of secret military operational orders, RPG vulnerability analysis on new MRAPs, flight times and location data of UAVs, etc. was so important to your freedom why are you not taking up the cause?


The Wikileaks project seems to be, more than anything else, an assault on secrecy. If Wikileaks were most concerned about whistleblowing, it would focus on revealing corruption. If it were concerned with historical truth, it would emphasize the discovery of verifiably true facts. If it were anti-war, it would safeguard, not disrupt, the conduct of diplomatic communications. But instead, what Wikileaks has done is to publish a vast potpourri of records — dazzling, revelatory, true, questionable, embarrassing, or routine — whose only common feature is that they are classified or otherwise restricted.

This may be understood as a reaction to a real problem, namely the fact that by all accounts, the scope of government secrecy in the U.S. (not to mention other countries) has exceeded rational boundaries. Disabling secrecy in the name of transparency would be a sensible goal — if it were true that all secrecy is wrong. But if there is a legitimate role for secrecy in military operations, in intelligence gathering or in diplomatic negotiations, as seems self-evident, then a different approach is called for.

[Midtowner]

What Manning did was wrong.

The result, however? I'm just fine with it. The government wants to pry into our lives using the justification that technology has changed the world.

It sure has--and it's a two-way street.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'll reiterate what I just stickied:

Per Phil, please don't link to Wikileaks mirrors or any information gleaned from Wikileaks on SoonerFans. I don't know that Phil has any particular position on the issues, but let's try not to do anything that might bring any kind of heat on him. If he wants that, let him do it himself.

[olevetonahill]

And the military has actually confirmed that there have been zero casualties as a result of any leak.

may i have a link to proof of what ya just said :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

What Manning did was wrong.

The result, however? I'm just fine with it. The government wants to pry into our lives using the justification that technology has changed the world.

It sure has--and it's a two-way street.

Then Start yer OWN wiki leaks bullshat
And I will LOL as ya are carried off to Pound me in the *** Fed pen .:rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

I'll reiterate what I just stickied:

Per Phil, please don't link to Wikileaks mirrors or any information gleaned from Wikileaks on SoonerFans. I don't know that Phil has any particular position on the issues, but let's try not to do anything that might bring any kind of heat on him. If he wants that, let him do it himself.

Yup Cause Phil is The HMFIC :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Nobody is going to get carted off to jail except for Manning, and honestly he should accept the consequences of his actions.

The only other people that should be carted off to jail are those responsible for crafting such a shameful foreign policy that's contrary to everything our Republic was supposed to stand for. I find it totally sickening.

I've been sifting through this stuff for several days, and some of you have a lot of misplaced outrage. Like I've said...our government would have nothing to be embarrassed or mad about if they were conducting themselves abroad in a manner fitting of who we are and our principles.

[Penguin]

Certain things are not free speech. Child porn, for example. This, however, isn't child porn.


I tell you, the term "child porn" has shown up many times lately on the South Oval and the football forum. Soonerfans is probably popping up on a lot of pedophiles' Google alerts. :D

[olevetonahill]

Nobody is going to get carted off to jail except for Manning, and honestly he should accept the consequences of his actions.

The only other people that should be carted off to jail are those responsible for crafting such a shameful foreign policy that's contrary to everything our Republic was supposed to stand for. I find it totally sickening.

I've been sifting through this stuff for several days, and some of you have a lot of misplaced outrage. Like I've said...our government would have nothing to be embarrassed or mad about if they were conducting themselves abroad in a manner fitting of who we are and our principles.

Sic, This is what Im sayin
We can and Prolly should DISCUSS this . But NO way in hell should we Post the carp .

Do I love our Gov.? Prolly not . But I do LOVE the USA and I will hurt any one who Hurts her .;)

[olevetonahill]

I tell you, the term "child porn" has shown up many times lately on the South Oval and the football forum. Soonerfans is probably popping up on a lot of pedophiles' Google alerts. :D

The Feds Prolly gettin a Warrant fer MTs puter as
we type :eek:

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic, This is what Im sayin
We can and Prolly should DISCUSS this . But NO way in hell should we Post the carp .

Do I love our Gov.? Prolly not . But I do LOVE the USA and I will hurt any one who Hurts her .;)

Fair enough. But realize that from my perspective, the people hurting the USA are the people upset about this information being leaked. They are the ones hurting America not the people who exposed the information.

[SoonerStormchaser]

may i have a link to proof of what ya just said :rolleyes:

No, cause he's talking out of his ***. Trust me on this one, there are folks on the ground getting attacked by folks who are using this as an excuse and "justifiable reason" to harm our men and women in uniform. Can't tell you much, but there have been verifiable incidents already.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I guess this guy has dirty on everybody.

So do you have very high impact corporate stuff to release then?
Yes, but maybe not as high impact…I mean, it could take down a bank or two.
That sounds like high impact.
But not as big an impact as the history of a whole war. But it depends on how you measure these things.
These megaleaks, as you call them, we haven’t seen any of those from the private sector.
No, not at the same scale as for the military.
Will we?
Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.
Is it a U.S. bank?
Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.
One that still exists?
Yes, a big U.S. bank.
The biggest U.S. bank?
No comment.
When will it happen?
Early next year. I won’t say more.
What do you want to be the result of this release?
[Pauses] I’m not sure. (http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/)


"At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives," Assange said. (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139180/Wikileaks_plans_to_make_the_Web_a_leakier_place)


WikiLeaks is under close surveillance by the Russian FSB, that country’s domestic spy network, out of fear in Moscow that WikiLeaks is prepared to release damaging personal information about Kremlin leaders.
“We may not have been able to stop WikiLeaks so far, and it’s been frustrating,” a U.S. law-enforcement official tells The Daily Beast. “The Russians play by different rules.” He said that if WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, follow through on threats to post highly embarrassing information about the Russian government and what is assumed to be massive corruption among its leaders, “the Russians will be ruthless in stopping WikiLeaks.”
A U.S. military official said the U.S. assumed that WikiLeaks had access to sources who could supply the site with detailed, damaging information about Russian leaders; those sources would likely include wealthy Russian expatriates who have had the resources over the years to conduct far-ranging private investigations of graft among Kremlin leaders, including their movement of assets outside Russia. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-30/moscows-bid-to-blow-up-wikileaks-russians-play-by-different-rules/?cid=hp:mainpromo1)


Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted “poison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay. (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/)


As always he hits the nail on the head.

In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it. - Ron Paul (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/ron-paul-what-wikileaks/)

[Whet]

It doesn't matter if sicem, midtowner, or anyone else believes these documents should be released and read, does not change the classification of the documents! This was stated in my original post:
Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents (whether in print, on a blog, or on websites) do not alter the documents' classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents. To the contrary, classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority. Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information (December 29, 2009), Section 1.1.(c) states, "Classified Information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."

It is also stated that:
This requirement does not restrict employee or contractor access to non-classified, publicly available news reports (and other non-classified material) that may in turn discuss classified material, as distinguished from access to underlying documents that themselves are marked classified (including if the underlying classified documents are available on public websites or otherwise in the public domain). So, reading about the leaks in the NY Times would be allowed.

Regardless of your opinion of the information, you do have the authority to declassify or reclassify any document that has been classified by the Federal Government.

[afs]

Fair enough. But realize that from my perspective, the people hurting the USA are the people upset about this information being leaked. They are the ones hurting America not the people who exposed the information.

you have no ****ing idea to what level of data was released and how it impacts national security. Please continue to jack off to your fantasies of a Southern victory in the Civil War and white supremacy. The world is a better place with you living out your dreams.

[MR2-Sooner86]

you have no ****ing idea to what level of data was released and how it impacts national security. Please continue to jack off to your fantasies of a Southern victory in the Civil War and white supremacy. The world is a better place with you living out your dreams.

WikiLeaks appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released. Although the U.S. -- again -- refused to give such guidance (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html)

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

you have no ****ing idea to what level of data was released and how it impacts national security. Please continue to jack off to your fantasies of a Southern victory in the Civil War and white supremacy. The world is a better place with you living out your dreams.
No, but I bet NATO does.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6276805,00.html

[yermom]

differentiating between nytimes.com and wiki leaks.c0m seems a bit odd

it sure feels like policy makers are a bit behind technology

[afs]

WikiLeaks appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released. Although the U.S. -- again -- refused to give such guidance (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html)

I will say again, you have no ****ing idea what was released. And the fact that you have quoted these links will make me sleep better tonight.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

No, but I bet NATO does.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6276805,00.html


I will say again, you have no ****ing idea what was released. And the fact that you have quoted these links will make me sleep better tonight.
Honestly, nothing leaked was above secret was even leaked. A 12 year old Russian hacker could have gotten that stuff if he wanted, so I'm pretty sure the FSB didn't learn anything new from these cables.

[Midtowner]

It doesn't matter if sicem, midtowner, or anyone else believes these documents should be released and read, does not change the classification of the documents! This was stated in my original post:

It is also stated that: So, reading about the leaks in the NY Times would be allowed.

Regardless of your opinion of the information, you do have the authority to declassify or reclassify any document that has been classified by the Federal Government.

So what distinguishes them from widely available news reports then? They are both widely available and they are news reports if there ever was such a thing.

Or are you simply balking at the fact that the source is primarily online?

[Midtowner]

may i have a link to proof of what ya just said :rolleyes:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/26/pentagon-says-wikileaks-war-logs-do-not-harm-national-security-neocons-disagree/

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6276805,00.html

[yermom]

they sure seem to be freaked the hell out if it's not that harmful

i need to go offline with SicEm and see what he's so freaked about :D

[Ike]

So is this against the rules?


: Saturday, 12 December 1998, 16:13 S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 LONDON 000368 NOFORN SIPDIS DOE FOR GPERSON, CHAYLOCK EO 12958 DECL: 12/12/2018 TAGS EPET, ENRG, PGOV, RS">RS, NI SUBJECT: ENGLAND: RELIABILITY AND LONGEVITY OF UK-US RELATIONSHIP CONFIRMED REF: A. LONDON 365 B. LONDON 366 Classified By: Consul General Robbie Honerkamp for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D )

1.(S/NF) Summary: We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I.
A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy.
I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand.

2.(C/NF) Chorus: Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

3.(S/NF) We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see

4.(C/NF) Chorus: Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

5.(C/NF) Chorus: Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you. Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

6.(C/NF) Background Singers: (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give
(Give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give (Give you up)

7.(S/NF) We've know each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it
I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand

8.(C/NF) Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

9.(C/NF) Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

10.(C/NF) Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you. ASTLEY



PS. If you can't tell, thats a fake.

[The]

This thread has produced some very moronic spek comments.

[SicEmBaylor]

This thread has produced some very moronic comments.

Fify.