Browsing Wikileaks bad for your CAP health?

[N Harmon]

This may be way paranoid, or maybe not at all. I have been hearing from several people who are in the military, or work in government that they are being told not to browse any of the classified material that is being made public on the internet. That simply because it is out there, does not entitle them access to it.

And given that there are a number of CAP volunteers who either have security clearances or are, at some level, privy to sensitive information through various missions (HLS, CN, intercept, etc), I wonder how it might affect the trust placed in CAP members if they did what the real military and government are being told not to do.

(Let's keep the discussion on how this might affect CAP members, and not on the circumstances surrounding the leaks themselves)

[JayT]

This may be way paranoid, or maybe not at all. I have been hearing from several people who are in the military, or work in government that they are being told not to browse any of the classified material that is being made public on the internet. That simply because it is out there, does not entitle them access to it.

And given that there are a number of CAP volunteers who either have security clearances or are, at some level, privy to sensitive information through various missions (HLS, CN, intercept, etc), I wonder how it might affect the trust placed in CAP members if they did what the real military and government are being told not to do.

(Let's keep the discussion on how this might affect CAP members, and not on the circumstances surrounding the leaks themselves)

This is still America, right? If someone whats to view the material, they have that right. However, of course, they also have to accept the consequences of their choices.

[Hawk200]

Many people believe that because something is on the Internet, then they're cleared to view it. It doesn't work that way.

Security clearances only allow access to documents where you have a need to know. There are people with Top Secret clearances that do not have access to Secret material.

I don't know if the government is actively seeking anyone who accesses Wikileaks, but I don't think it really matters, it shouldn't be accessed anyway if you don't need to see it.

For CAP members, I don't really know what kind of repercussions there might be for viewing the material. Any penalties for accessing the material is up to whatever agency is responsible for the information.

[Spaceman3750]

I refuse to visit wikileaks because I don't want to be implicated in any log analysis that could be done if some government seizes the site. I also respect the fact that leaked classified info is still classified and I'm not cleared.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I don't know about USAF or USMC or USN but the Army definitely has a policy that anyone viewing leaked classified information for any reason other than to report the classified information to authority as leaked or compromised will be held accountable to fullest extent of the UCMJ. I would imagine that that would be policy of all branches.

[Major Lord]

I believe that there is an order for DOD members to not read Wikileak, but it would clearly not apply to most CAP members. Even if by some chance the Federal Government would be crazy enough to clear a CAP member for a new or higher clearance, I think that reading a web page about politics could be pretty easily explained. (As opposed to say, spending time on a Jihadi websites, bomb making websites, or kiddie porn) I don't think Julian Assange is a member of OZ's CAP, and I am glad I am not in his shoes, because I think he has opened a first class can of grade-one whoopass on himself and is likely to join the Vince Foster Association in the near future.

Major Lord

[SARDOC]

The issue isn't so much about reading classified materials...once classified materials have been compromised they are compromised.  Why shouldn't I be able to read them.  Is it so that I may not have information that a general member of the public or even my enemy has?  Reporters have used wikileaks as a source of information to publish in high profile articles in publications as the Guardian or the New York Times.  This doesn't mean that if you come upon sensitive information in a newspaper you should gouge out your eyes in the interest of National Security.

DoD has ordered servicemembers to not go to the actual wikileaks site because of all of the Cyberattacks that are originating and/or terminating in connection with that site.  Your computer and all information on which ever networks you may travel may be at risk including AKO, NKO and the like.

It should be recommended that you not visit wikileaks either...you can just pick up the newspaper and read it there without the headaches involved.  People are making much to do about nothing.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Just because the secrets have been stolen does not mean that they have been officially declassified.  My advice to everyone is to keep your computer's fingerprints off that site.  This battle is just beginning, and this situation has "Overreaction" written all over it.  Eric Holder is pretty stupid, but even a blind squirrell sometimes finds a nut.  If you get caught up in that you might end up in a federal prison, or at least in the poorhouse after paying a lot of attorney fees.

[NIN]

Classified materials that have not been declassified by the appropriate authorities are not automagically declassified just because they've been compromised.

Military personnel who hold a security clearance understand the requirements of their clearance and the concept of "need to know."   Just because you have classified material sitting in front of you does not mean that you get to read it, even if you hold, say, a SECRET clearance and the material is marked SECRET.

Bradley Manning must have been absent from class the day they taught that in AIT.  Perhaps while he's a guest of the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth he can be provided with some remedial training in the proper handling and dissemination of classified materials.

Consequently, military personnel who read WikiLeaks are reading classified materials that they have no legitimate authority to read (and thus, likely not a clear"need to know" under the restrictions of their clearance).

I got in a heap of trouble about 22 years ago for being signed for SECRET equipment while, at the time, I was only in possession of a CONFIDENTIAL clearance.  Thankfully, it was ascertained that: a) I'd been required to sign for the equipment, and the helicopter it was attached to, to ensure continued custody and security of the aircraft; and b) the unit security manager had ZERO controls in place to ensure that uncleared personnel didn't have responsibility for equipment above their clearance level.  Oops.

I was a little worried as an E-4 to get a phone call "Can you report to the Battalion Commander's office?"  (Hint: The word "no" is not really an option, even though it was phrased in the form of a question...<GRIN>)  Good thing the  Bn CDR and CSM knew me from my duties on the Bn color guard.  One of those times when my CAP background helped.

[cap235629]

Classified materials that have not been declassified by the appropriate authorities are not automagically declassified just because they've been compromised.

Military personnel who hold a security clearance understand the requirements of their clearance and the concept of "need to know."   Just because you have classified material sitting in front of you does not mean that you get to read it, even if you hold, say, a SECRET clearance and the material is marked SECRET.

Bradley Manning must have been absent from class the day they taught that in AIT.  Perhaps while he's a guest of the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth he can be provided with some remedial training in the proper handling and dissemination of classified materials.

Consequently, military personnel who read WikiLeaks are reading classified materials that they have no legitimate authority to read (and thus, likely not a clear"need to know" under the restrictions of their clearance).

I got in a heap of trouble about 22 years ago for being signed for SECRET equipment while, at the time, I was only in possession of a CONFIDENTIAL clearance.  Thankfully, it was ascertained that: a) I'd been required to sign for the equipment, and the helicopter it was attached to, to ensure continued custody and security of the aircraft; and b) the unit security manager had ZERO controls in place to ensure that uncleared personnel didn't have responsibility for equipment above their clearance level.  Oops.

I was a little worried as an E-4 to get a phone call "Can you report to the Battalion Commander's office?"  (Hint: The word "no" is not really an option, even though it was phrased in the form of a question...<GRIN>)  Good thing the  Bn CDR and CSM knew me from my duties on the Bn color guard.  One of those times when my CAP background helped.

Let me guess, the VINSON system? That time line places your incident AFTER Mr. Walker sold out to the Russians. Kinda makes you wonder what the big deal was huh?

[Rotorhead]

CAP members are not DoD employees.

Therefore, even if DoD employees were "ordered" not to visit the site (totally impractical to enforce), that would have no effect on CAP members. Civilians can't be ordered to do anything by the chain of command, nor does the UCMJ apply.

The idea that you could be prosecuted for viewing the material is laughable.

[tarheel gumby]

CAP members are not DoD employees.

Therefore, even if DoD employees were "ordered" not to visit the site (totally impractical to enforce), that would have no effect on CAP members. Civilians can't be ordered to do anything by the chain of command, nor does the UCMJ apply.

The idea that you could be prosecuted for viewing the material is laughable.

True, but it could affect your ability to renew if the FBI or Mr. Holder deem you to be questionable.

[Rotorhead]

CAP members are not DoD employees.

Therefore, even if DoD employees were "ordered" not to visit the site (totally impractical to enforce), that would have no effect on CAP members. Civilians can't be ordered to do anything by the chain of command, nor does the UCMJ apply.

The idea that you could be prosecuted for viewing the material is laughable.

True, but it could affect your ability to renew if the FBI or Mr. Holder deem you to be questionable.

If you want to worry about silliness like that, go ahead.

[JohnKachenmeister]

So... go there if you want.  Frankly, whether or not you get in trouble is YOUR decision, not mine.  Blab all the secrets you want, and tell Holder he can't do squat about it.

[JWilson]

I think that this is a interesting question and I have to agree with the sentiment that classified informationdoes not become declassified once it has been leaked. Information is classified for a reason.
However, while there is no standing order to avoid wikileaks I believe that it is a good idea to stay away from the website, a seizure of the logs by the government could yield the names of people who visited the website. Which could likely cause problems for a CAP member. But the likelihood of this happening is very small

And to julian assange: I hope you realize that the more elusive you make yourself, the more tempting of a target you make to black ops

[N Harmon]

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120806796.html

Under the Adjudication Desk Reference, a guide published by the Defense Human Resources Activity that serves as a resource to personnel security adjudicators, investigators and managers, it notes in the "Handling Protected Information" section that deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified information, or for protecting other sensitive information (such as for official use only, proprietary, export-controlled or privacy information), raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information and is a serious security concern.

(emphasis mine)

Here is the thing. Civil Air Patrol's reputation as being trustworthy is incumbent upon the trustworthiness and judgment of its individual members. And a lapse in judgment by any one member can have wider implications than just that person's membership. We have seen as much before, and there is no reason to believe it not to be the case now. So while neither CAP, nor the government can order you to not read stuff on that website, I think members do a great disservice by not showing a little discretion there. Sure, the chances of getting caught might be very low, but is that really an excuse for conduct that can affect the entire organization?

If we want CAP to continue to be entrusted with the things we do for the Air Force and other departments, and if we want that trust to continue to grow, then we should take a proactive stance in informing our membership, who may not have considered at all, the implications of accessing classified information on the internet related to national security. I am my unit's IT officer, and was considering reminding the squadron's membership of this. Given the replies here, I feel better about that being the right thing to do.

[Flying Pig]

I think that this is a interesting question and I have to agree with the sentiment that classified informationdoes not become declassified once it has been leaked. Information is classified for a reason.
However, while there is no standing order to avoid wikileaks I believe that it is a good idea to stay away from the website, a seizure of the logs by the government could yield the names of people who visited the website. Which could likely cause problems for a CAP member. But the likelihood of this happening is very small

And to julian assange: I hope you realize that the more elusive you make yourself, the more tempting of a target you make to black ops

Ummmm, yeah, OK.  He's in jail.  Dont get much more "elusive" than that I guess.

[RADIOMAN015]

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120806796.html


(emphasis mine)

Here is the thing. Civil Air Patrol's reputation as being trustworthy is incumbent upon the trustworthiness and judgment of its individual members. And a lapse in judgment by any one member can have wider implications than just that person's membership. We have seen as much before, and there is no reason to believe it not to be the case now. So while neither CAP, nor the government can order you to not read stuff on that website, I think members do a great disservice by not showing a little discretion there. Sure, the chances of getting caught might be very low, but is that really an excuse for conduct that can affect the entire organization?

If we want CAP to continue to be entrusted with the things we do for the Air Force and other departments, and if we want that trust to continue to grow, then we should take a proactive stance in informing our membership, who may not have considered at all, the implications of accessing classified information on the internet related to national security. I am my unit's IT officer, and was considering reminding the squadron's membership of this. Given the replies here, I feel better about that being the right thing to do.

Wow you are just off the grid.  We are CIVIL Air Patrol, what an individual CIVILIAN member does legally WHILE not involved in a CAP sanctioned activity isn't ANYONE in CAP or the government's business .   I will give you this -- I wouldn't expect the members attending a CAP meeting to be tying up the squadron wireless LAN or using a CAP computer for these "searches" :angel:
RM

[DakRadz]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Says the man on a government pension.

[RADIOMAN015]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Says the man on a government pension.

Once the cats out of the bag, that's the way it is.   I'm being realistic about this, CAP has NO authority over the membership except at CAP meetings or other sanctioned CAP activities.  We don't need "anyone" overreaching these bounds.

Now as far as the alleged military member that released this information, yes he is likely in serious trouble that could get him a good 10 years in a military prison.  As far the individual who posted this information, I'm not sure what the law will prescribe for him, since it is likely the website will be considered a freedom of the press type issue.

I served in the military to protect America, BUT I also served to protect ALL our freedoms.  I really don't need some CAP mis guided military "wanna bees" telling me what I should or shouldn't be doing
RM