> - Telling an uncleared person what is classified amounts to giving that person even more classified material that they're not allowed to have. Obviously, so is saying that there's classified material on the page at all, but arguably less so.
What recourse does a person have then? If the information is publicly posted, it hardly seems more of a security risk to tell one person what to remove than have the 'secrets' published for the entire world to see.
Additionally, how can a company such as Wikipedia possibly comply without any specific information? I.e. - how can they prevent the re-posting of said information if they have no idea what that information is?
Reminds me of this case in 2007 in China. A newspaper ad "Paying tribute to the strong(-willed) mothers of June 4 victims" slipped through the censorship, because the young clerk had no idea that June 4 is a reference to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the talking of which is not allowed. Because she had never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests, because censorship had been so effective.
Yes, there is a certain catch-22. I'm guessing that there is precedence in how intelligence services interact with the press. Surely, similar issues come up from time to time there.
What recourse does a person have then? If the information is publicly posted, it hardly seems more of a security risk to tell one person what to remove than have the 'secrets' published for the entire world to see.
Additionally, how can a company such as Wikipedia possibly comply without any specific information? I.e. - how can they prevent the re-posting of said information if they have no idea what that information is?