[kgroll]

Regardless of your favored method of distribution, make sure you consider the consequences of sharing classified documents.

Those consequences are probably negligible for the overwhelming majority here, but for anybody anticipating getting a US security clearance within the next seven years, you're likely shooting yourself in the foot. You'll either have to reveal the fact that you've disclosed classified material, or else lie under oath. Neither of those being ideal if you're trying to get that job.

It also conflicts with your clearance if you're already holding one.

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't support Wikileaks. Just make sure you give it adequate thought before jumping on a torrent.

[fooandbarify]

Interesting point. I currently do some work for a different federal government which involves some security clearance. I may need US security clearance in the future, and the conflict is something I hadn't considered until now. However (and I usually try to avoid ideological soapboxes, but), I believe that government should exist for the people, and not the other way around. I'll take my chances.

Sincerely though, thanks for pointing that out. It may have more immediate/drastic consequences for others and should certainly be taken into consideration.

[jackolas]

It's absurd. It's public knowledge now. They're trying to threaten the bourgeois intellectuals. DOn't give into this baseless (Baseless in precedent I don't know how much they get to discriminate based on politics) threat. Also if State et al. don't hire anyone interested by the cables I think we might be slightly screwed later.

[kgroll]

Rather than get into the ethics of it, I was simply hoping that people would pause, even if just for a second, to make sure they were comfortable being involved. I'm not trying to sway people either way.

I agree with you - you can't put Pandora back in the box. I don't, however, think that changes the classification of the leaked documents. When judging an individual's fitness for a security clearance, I imagine that they're looking more at character traits than specific instances of undesirable behavior. Sharing these documents that are already "public knowledge" is only noteworthy because it may indicate that you're not uncomfortable with the idea of releasing classified documents if it's for a cause you believe in. (Just speculating here)

>>Also if State et al. don't hire anyone interested by the cables I think we might be slightly screwed later

I disagree with this. I can think of a handful of reasons somebody lacking interest in these cables would still want to work for the government. Example: To do engineering work for a defense contractor, you'll undoubtedly need a secret+ clearance. You might seek such positions for the job security they provide. Or maybe you're interested in working with cutting edge technology that isn't necessarily available at more budget constrained (IE commercial) companies. Many of the engineers working at a high technical level are drawn to the technology, not the politics.

To reveal any bias, I should note that I do contract work for the US government.

[rprasad]

It's not a baseless threat. Security clearances do not just disappear because classified information has been made public. Security classification is a government process/label, and applies until it is removed.

The key issue is that a person with a security clearance cannot knowingly distribute information that he knows carries a security classification. It's not a matter of "being interested."

You can rant all you want, but that does not change the fact that if you have/want a security clearance and you redistribute the Wikileaks content (the American stuff; the foreign stuff is okay), you will lose or be denied a security clearance.