This, honestly, makes very little sense to me. I understand that they don’t want to allow rogue actors to effect classification changes, but the information is clearly well out of control now.
I had not heard about (as referenced in the article) the intelligence/military folks informing their staff not to read the newspaper, because it might contain classified information. It’s a special kind of mind that can make that sort of assertion with a straight face; an extreme detachment from the practical reality.
The part that I think surprises people (at least, academics) is the interaction of the “normal” part of a university with the defense-contracting part, and how the latter seems to now be imposing regulations on the former part, even people who aren’t involved in defense contracting. Classification can’t normally control the behavior of third parties, which is why the New York Times can publish leaked classified information (and does). But a university that has access to classified information as part of a defense contract has to follow certain regulations in handling it.
The intersection here is that the particular talk in question had nothing to do with any defense contracts, and the speaker didn’t receive any information as part of Purdue’s defense projects, which would be governed by their contract. But the video was interpreted as falling under that contract anyway, because it physically took place at a site (Purdue University) that has a defense contract, committing them (apparently) to certain procedures for handling classified information, including information that was not received as part of the contract. That starts to raise the question of whether having a defense contract anywhere on your university campus restricts the academic freedom of other faculty members, even those uninvolved in the contract.
They’ve acknowledged that they overreacted, though, right? A situation occurred that the rules didn’t explicitly cover and somebody erred (as they see it) on the side of caution. Presumably we’ll get better guidance on the application of the rules now.
It’s like the time the TSA confiscated Ron Paul’s campaign cash. After that they clarified it’s not their concern what people carry on planes outside of weapons, and have purportedly instructed all agents to ignore things like that.
I don’t see this as particularly surprising or unreasonable. Despite the leaked nature of the information, it is still considered classified.
This, honestly, makes very little sense to me. I understand that they don’t want to allow rogue actors to effect classification changes, but the information is clearly well out of control now.
I had not heard about (as referenced in the article) the intelligence/military folks informing their staff not to read the newspaper, because it might contain classified information. It’s a special kind of mind that can make that sort of assertion with a straight face; an extreme detachment from the practical reality.
Consider that the leaked data may be faked. It would not be good to confirm what’s true or not.
That’s true. I’m more astonished at the “don’t read the newspaper!” bit, which I maintain is still pretty ridiculous.
One does not defy the laws of nature.
The part that I think surprises people (at least, academics) is the interaction of the “normal” part of a university with the defense-contracting part, and how the latter seems to now be imposing regulations on the former part, even people who aren’t involved in defense contracting. Classification can’t normally control the behavior of third parties, which is why the New York Times can publish leaked classified information (and does). But a university that has access to classified information as part of a defense contract has to follow certain regulations in handling it.
The intersection here is that the particular talk in question had nothing to do with any defense contracts, and the speaker didn’t receive any information as part of Purdue’s defense projects, which would be governed by their contract. But the video was interpreted as falling under that contract anyway, because it physically took place at a site (Purdue University) that has a defense contract, committing them (apparently) to certain procedures for handling classified information, including information that was not received as part of the contract. That starts to raise the question of whether having a defense contract anywhere on your university campus restricts the academic freedom of other faculty members, even those uninvolved in the contract.
They’ve acknowledged that they overreacted, though, right? A situation occurred that the rules didn’t explicitly cover and somebody erred (as they see it) on the side of caution. Presumably we’ll get better guidance on the application of the rules now.
It’s like the time the TSA confiscated Ron Paul’s campaign cash. After that they clarified it’s not their concern what people carry on planes outside of weapons, and have purportedly instructed all agents to ignore things like that.