Or you could just have a dedicated laptop that is only used with proxies and in internet cafes. Also, encrypt the OS. An ereader also works.

Of course, jumping through such hoops should not be required.

and I received two emails today warning me about accessing wikileaks from a government computer.

No, it's not. Unless by 'America,' you mean a place Joseph McCarthy would thrive in. Meet the new 'commie' hunters. Same as the old commie hunters.

I think the important thing to recognize is that the response to WikiLeaks has been exactly like our response to 9/11: totally ineffective.

Folks are trying to demonize Assange, which ignores the larger picture: the truth of the materials.

Weren't we all being told, "If you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide" by the Bush Administration as they savaged FISA and the 4th Amendment? Didn't security geeks and calmer minds point out that weakening protections works both ways?

The real issue is SECURITY. If such a broad swath of information is available and collectible, it's all very nice to blame either Chinese hackers or a suspect in a previous leak who is currently in jail (therefore, WikiLeaks would have actually been sitting on this material for months).

Noting the panicked response of certain people is one thing, but it needs factual context.

Columbia University career services got a recommendation from an alumnus that if you want a job with the State Dept, he recommends
"you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government."

So,
(1) This is NOT official policy; it is an alumnus giving personal advice to an undergrad at his alma mater.
(2) It has nothing to do with reading/not reading wikileaks.

Redarding the other memo, (USAID) if you have a security clearance, you are not allowed to talk about classified materials, even if you only know of those materials from an out of channel source (the news). This is not new. You are also not allowed to seek out classified material that you do not need to know. If a person has had access to classified material without authorization beforehand, it can complicate the process of gaining a security clearance.

Nothing has ever made me want to read something more than being told by some government entity not to.

So far, news accounts of the content of the documents tell me it was mostly drivel. Embarrassing drivel, but drivel nonetheless.

If a lowly PFC in the Army, while pretending to be watching Lady Gaga videos, can download several hundred thousand classified documents, that speaks volumes about what a joke our "security" precautions for classified material are.

And his being allowed to watch Lady Gaga videos openly while on duty speaks volumes about the workplace environment, no? Maybe, just maybe, it tells us the Army is too big, has too many computers, too many network connections, and too many people without real jobs to do.

Dear Teabaggers: while you're busy trying to shrink government, how about shrinking the DoD?

for a security firm that gets gov't contracts and employs people in Afghanistan...they too have been ordered not to look at wikileaks.

"Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government."

Breach of security does not consist of receiving classified information, but in disseminating it. If you read it and don't discuss it, what is the breach?

It Can't Happen Here right?

"Texas Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t think the government should charge WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with treason, arguing that the Australian who facilitated the unprecedented document dump should be considered part of the free press. ...
Paul, a libertarian-minded Republican who ran for president in 2008, differs from many in his party.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has called Assange a “terrorist,” for example, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Assange “an enemy combatant” who “should be in jail for the rest of his life.” "

Separately, if they want to prosecute, come up with a law violation.
"We checked in with a couple First Amendment specialists on the topic, each of whom cast doubt on the government’s ability to prosecute or sue anyone involved with publishing the leaks."

America: makes war on countries that did not attack it, imprisons it's citizens witout charge, tortures people, imprisons children, orders the assassinates it's citizens.
The threats to Wiki-leaks are small potatoes. Anyone recall what the FBI did to Steven Hatfill? Without one shred of evidence they named him a "person of interest" in the antrax attack then set about ruining life even denying him a chance for employment. When they couldn't pin the crime on Hatfill they then proceeded to hound another scientist until the man comitted suicide.

and if one is going to apply to a job that has backround checks...one should be very careful about what one does in ones personal life

this thread is stupid

i'm a federal employee. i got a notice on my agency's website home page saying i shouldn't attempt to access the documents from my work computer. it said nothing about accessing them from my personal pc.

I appreciate the argument made that one should have as much freedom as possible.

On the one hand, nothing in the documents I've seen is particularly exciting. If you notice, most of them are classified Secret, which sounds sexy but is really duller-than-dirt. If you read the header information on the cables, most of them are classified in accordance with Sections 1.4(b) or 1.4(d) of Executive Order 12958, which cover "foreign government information" and "foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources," respectively.

Nothing in those categories is necessarily "secret" -- if it was the work of spies, for example, it would be given classifications of Top Secret/codeword -- levels of classification well above Top Secret (for a predictably charming story on this point, see Daniel Ellsberg's anecdote about his conversation with Henry Kissinger on Above-Top-Secret information in Ellsberg's memoir ).

And it's not as if it's news that diplomats gossip. What makes them worthy of protection is the fact that they might name names and, more to the point, that they often paint unflattering pictures of foreign heads-of-state.

On the other hand, rules are rules. And that's not "fascist." If there's a rule at work that you don't play online poker or watch streaming porn videos, and you break the rule, you suffer the consequences.

The "SF-312" is a Nondisclosure Agreement, no different in scope than any other NDA signed by any other American worker. @ronhohn makes a good point about disclosure, but the SF-312 speaks to this by including "unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information."

When you sign the SF-312 -- and I say this as someone who signed it dozens of times -- you agree to the terms, including (emphasis added): "I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law."

So the guy broke the rules. And whether we progressives want to believe it or not, Wikileaks has already caused harm. I have personal knowledge of this -- one Middle East government that was the subject of a considerable number of negative evaluations has started a round-up of any personnel who would have had contact with American diplomats from 2005 to 2009. It has also barred any sub-ministerial personnel from speaking to diplomats.

In addition, there are reports that the American ambassador was asked to leave Berlin by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

There's nothing in the 250-odd accessible cables that seems to directly threaten US security -- that much is true. But their release does make it very, very hard to get other governments to trust American officials. And that's one reason why I voted for the president -- I was tired of other governments rejecting U.S. policy initiatives out-of-hand simply because our government was dumber than dirt.

Thanks to PFC Manning, we're right back where we started under BushCo in that regard.

After reading all the comments, I'm astounded how many are keen to cave in to authority and support the US government's fascist control of their lives.

How would anyone know you've read any of the Wikileaks stuff, or talking about it, unless they are SPYING on you to begin with. Yes, SPYING on you, in America, land of the free.

People who work for the government do have rules to obey for their employment. Fair enough. I think this is going way beyond that.

Fuck the criminal ass clowns in your government.

... didn't Mr. Obama campaigned on a platform of increased "transparency" for the federal government?

PRAVDA has criticized The Americans that they are shutting down Free Speech.
PRAVDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Looks like it's time for people to learn to proxy. What a BS that you have to proxy when doing nothing even close to illegal.

Here in Iraq we have been getting DoD reports warning us not to access any web pages with wikilinks info or if we do not to comment on them. as Federal employees our commenting could be seen as approval of the leaking of documents that are still considered classified (none of the wikileaks documents were unclassified so this is considered a terrible breach of security).
I would suggest that people look up the term OPSEC as the wikileaks thing fall under that.
I like my security position and do not want to lose my clearance for commenting on classified, critical or sensitive information. The DoD has a point, none of the documents were officially declassified and are still viewed as classified informaion (just because it's not marked top secret does not mean that it's not sensitive information, intelligence doesn't work that way).

Yes. We still have complete paranoids and total pranksters who are able to send out stupid memos. The difference is they are now transmitted electronically, leaked and linked, and written up by blogs who interpret them in all sorts of ways to their readers
who in turn comment and e-mail others. In this wonderful world valid, invalid, and inconsequntial information passes quickly and many are unable to discern the difference.

How can this information still be regarded as fully classified? I get that technically it hasn't been declassified, but for god's sake, it's everywhere! Newsflash: this info is no longer secret.

F@ck NO this sh@t is not America, indeed it's AmeriKKKa

Surely there is at least as high a probability that these documents were deliberately leaked by the state dept. as that they were not.

Consider that to the extent that Hillary's state dept. looks duplicitous in its dealings with other countries that only lends credence to her capabilities.

Have a problem with a leftover Bush appointee? Leak his cables and adios.

Have a problem with a foreign minister? Leak cables about him and embarrass him and weaken his credibility in his own country.

This leak has a least as many strategic diplomatic uses that benefit the administration and the U.S. as it may have potential harms.

Far more interesting than the question of what was leaked is what wasn't.

George Will says a government's job is to keep secrets.

Perhaps. But why, and keep secrets from whom?

The American public? Yes.
Goverment employees? Yes.
Foreign governments? Doubtful - they very likely already know what we're up to.