| > you must still treat it as classified to avoid leaking any other related data by accident (for example). That is not quite the reason. The real reason is that those who have clearance can be prosecuted for a willful security violation if they: * store, process, or view classified data on an un unauthorized machine (home laptop) * grant others access to the classified data * discuss classified information where others who are not authorized would overhear or see it. * prying into or accessing classified info for which they don't have a need-to-know * creating unauthorized copies of classified info The warning not to access this info is basically a helpful tip or reminder so those who hold or will hold clearance could be subject to harsh penalties. This is just as much about protecting the classified info as it is the protect those who have a clearance. These rules and laws have been deliberately written to be broad and wide so that a potential spy can be easily prosecuted as they are usually found in possession of classified info in their house or on their laptop for which they have no authorization to have. There is simply no exception for the case when thousands and thousands of classified docs have been spread over the internet and are just as easily accessed as driving directions to a restaurant. EDIT: This is actually a great example of how a broad and overreaching law (by virtue of not being updated to specifically exclude leaked info) can be used to selectively prosecute certain individuals at will. Chances are some of those who have a clearance have read excerpts from Cablegate on the web just by reading the news. An overzealous prosecutor can turn that into a "willful security violation" if they really want to. This is in the same category as "obstruction of business", "obstruction of justice", "disruptive behavior" charges. |