4 ms·
To further clarify, holding a clearance is basically an NDA a person signs with the government. If you don't sign the NDA, it's ok for you to know the informat
by panzagl 6y ago
To further clarify, holding a clearance is basically an NDA a person signs with the government. If you don't sign the NDA, it's ok for you to know the information. The question is, what crimes were committed to give you that knowledge? And how complicit were you in aiding those crimes? For example, hearing a classified fact that was inadvertently leaked in a briefing is different than paying people to break their NDA and give you secrets.
- mLuby 6y agoThanks (and to parent comment); I did not know this is how it worked. So then this appears to be the difference between the Manning/Assange and Snowden/Greenwald cases: both Manning and Snowden held security clearances and violated them by sharing with Assange and Greenwald. But while Assange may have solicited and/or assisted Manning's crime, Greenwald just passively received the materials from Snowden's crime. So Greenwald is innocent and Assange is prosecuted.
- panzagl 6y agoThat is my understanding as well.