WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[Mathnomalous]

Ok, I am dumber than what I suspected. Terrorists will be able to destroy submarine communications cables. I do not know how, but if the USG says so, it must be true.

Now, sell me the rabies and smallpox vaccine makers, the plutonium treatment maker, shipping lanes (beyond piracy), and whatever other I am forgetting. The only entry on that list that makes any sense, is the mineral mines. Everything else seems like it can be easily placed within the US.

 

[turbo]

If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?

Money is just markers. Place-makers that allow us to pass "value" around. You know that.

If somebody grabs info that shows that our government is complicit in bribery/illegality, etc, that should be fair game. Daniel Ellsburg was a speed-bump in the path of oligarchy, but I'm glad that he was there.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

I don't understand why everybody is getting so angry at the messenger. Assange isn't the one who stole the documents, he's just the journalist.

Well if he cares at all for the stability of his own society, why the release? Obviously, he is serving the journalistic community much more than the governments. This in general is not wrong, but the reasons for these latest releases are not clear to me. There's always been good indications that Canadian resources were important for the US, but I don't see why I'd go shouting about it on rooftops.

 

[russ_watters]

Money is just markers. Place-makers that allow us to pass "value" around. You know that.

How does that address my question?

If somebody grabs info that shows that our government is complicit in bribery/illegality, etc, that should be fair game.

Really? Is it legal (or should it be) to steal money from a criminal? Or does your logic only apply to anti-government actions?

What if someone thinks the information they are stealing implicates the government in a crime, but they are wrong? Is is still ok to steal it?

Your logic leads to bad places if applied universally/objectively.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I think you're late on this one. The previous leak was a mass release of random government communications. It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it. The video of the helicopter gunship killing reporters qualifies as an intended "whistleblowing". This appears to me to be more an intent to inflict damage on the US.

I must be losing my touch. I thought I was making it clear that harming the US was his intent.

 

[russ_watters]

I must be losing my touch. I thought I was making it clear that harming the US was his intent.

No, I mean late in just recognizing it now

...this changes the whole ball game.

 

[Gokul43201]

It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it.

Wikileaks does not fit the description of a whistle-blower in a more fundamental way, and in roughly the same way that the newspaper contacted by an insider leaking information is not the one referred to as the whistle-blower.

 

[Jack21222]

If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?

Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.

When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.

I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.

 

[Evo]

Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.

When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.

I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.

Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.

 

[Proton Soup]

so does this list also contain our petroleum assets in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the Middle East, and Caspian Sea Region?

 

[Jack21222]

Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.

Assange didn't steal documents, he just spread information in the same way writing a story about a CIA informant's identity would.

 

[WhoWee]

Right after Richard Armitage and just before the people that lied to get us into the war in the first place?

Are we at war with Wikileaks? Don't try to distract the thread away from the subject.

 

[Gokul43201]

Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.

Novak published an article that revealed leaked classified information too (with a classification higher than "secret", I imagine).

 

[russ_watters]

Wikileaks does not fit the description of a whistle-blower in a more fundamental way, and in roughly the same way that the newspaper contacted by an insider leaking information is not the one referred to as the whistle-blower.

Point taken: Wikileaks leaks things for whistleblowers. The media has called it "the whistleblower website".

In any case, I'm not sure that changes anything about my point.

 

[russ_watters]

Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.

When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.

No, it really doesn't break down that way. You're not grasping the concept of ownership of information/intellectual property. Everything from patents to copy protected CDs work this way. For example copying a music cd and giving the copy to a friend is stealing even though you still retain your original copy and the artist who recorded it still has theirs.

I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.

I am not claiming Assange can be successfully prosecuted.

 

[Evo]

Assange didn't steal documents, he just spread information in the same way writing a story about a CIA informant's identity would.

The military guy didn't know how to get the documents, he asked for help in doing it, that's how he got reported. The assumpition is that wikileaks told him how to do it.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Another assumption is that someone else besides Wikileaks told him how to do it. It works in many ways.

 

[WhoWee]

Another assumption is that someone else besides Wikileaks told him how to do it. It works in many ways.

Are you going to keep us in suspense?

 

[Jack21222]

No, it really doesn't break down that way. You're not grasping the concept of ownership of information/intellectual property. Everything from patents to copy protected CDs work this way. For example copying a music cd and giving the copy to a friend is stealing even though you still retain your original copy and the artist who recorded it still has theirs. I am not claiming Assange can be successfully prosecuted.

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Are you going to keep us in suspense?

Mathnomalous pointed out an unsupported assumption that was about as plausible as the unsupported assumption Evo gave. I don't think there's any reason to feel suspense; I doubt either Evo or Mathnomalous intends to support the assumption they proffered.

 

[Gokul43201]

The military guy didn't know how to get the documents, he asked for help in doing it, that's how he got reported. The assumpition is that wikileaks told him how to do it.

Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.

 

[Evo]

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

No, it's a criminal offense. ICE has shut down 80 websites just recently for criminal copyright violation.

 

[Evo]

Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.

I assume it will take time to build up a case. Maybe they didn't and the guy found another hacker to help him after he contacted wikileaks. I'm not privy to the investigation. All I know for sure is that the hacker he contacted for help turned him in at the time he contacted wikileaks. A very short time frame.

 

[russ_watters]

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

Copyright infringement is actually a more direct analogy, so...no, it doesn't break down. I just used physical theft because you seem to reject the concept of stealing information. Now it seems you accept that such things are illegal. You're arguing against your own point.

 

[talk2glenn]

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

Id strongly suggest not taking legal advice from Jack.

 

[CRGreathouse]

No, it's a criminal offense. ICE has shut down 80 websites just recently for criminal copyright violation.

It's worth mentioning that this leak is *not* a copyright violation, insofar as the leaked material is the product of US government employees. (Of course they would presumably be in violation of the National Security Act of 1947 and/or EO 13526 and/or the UCMJ.)

 

[Evo]

It's worth mentioning that this leak is *not* a copyright violation, insofar as the leaked material is the product of US government employees. (Of course they would presumably be in violation of the National Security Act of 1947 and/or EO 13526 and/or the UCMJ.)

I think jack21222 knows that now.

 

[Jack21222]

I think jack21222 knows that now.

I still maintain that it's largely civil, not criminal. I've found this website which cites US law, but, I cannot vouch for its accuracy.

http://stason.org/TULARC/business/c...t-infringement-a-crime-or-a-civil-matter.html

However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A
copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement
is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain.

In my opinion, it's FAR more common for copyright violations to NOT be for commercial gain. The millions of people in the United States who have pirated music, movies, or software for personal use have not committed a crime according to that website, because it wasn't for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Russ's example was copying a CD and giving away one copy for free. This is NOT a crime. If my source is wrong, please post a better source saying so.

Edit: My source is from 16 years ago, but I'm struggling to find more recent, credible answers. It's past midnight, and I have better things to do before bed than parse US code.

 

[CRGreathouse]

IANAL

In my opinion, it's FAR more common for copyright violations to NOT be for commercial gain. The millions of people in the United States who have pirated music, movies, or software for personal use have not committed a crime according to that website, because it wasn't for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Look at §506(a)(1)(B). If you hit a six-month total of $1000 retail value (probably not unreasonable, and extremely easy if they allow double counting -- I don't know the case law here) then it's criminal, not civil.

The penalties are also pretty severe even on the civil side. Statutory damages are between $750 and $30,000 per work. That probably means that one such lawsuit takes all your money.

 

[Evo]

I still maintain that it's largely civil, not criminal. I've found this website which cites US law, but, I cannot vouch for its accuracy.

http://stason.org/TULARC/business/c...t-infringement-a-crime-or-a-civil-matter.html



In my opinion, it's FAR more common for copyright violations to NOT be for commercial gain. The millions of people in the United States who have pirated music, movies, or software for personal use have not committed a crime according to that website, because it wasn't for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Russ's example was copying a CD and giving away one copy for free. This is NOT a crime. If my source is wrong, please post a better source saying so.

Edit: My source is from 16 years ago, but I'm struggling to find more recent, credible answers. It's past midnight, and I have better things to do before bed than parse US code.

<sigh>

Last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seized over 80 websites for alleged copyright and trademark violations. Caught up along with many sites alleged to be selling counterfeit clothing and other products were five entertainment websites, including the popular hip-hop blogs OnSmash.com and dajaz1.com.

All that remains on their homepages is a stern notice from the government threatening steep fines and prison time under federal statutes.

Even uploading something that is copyrighted and allowing downloads is illegal because it denies the owner the profit of a sale.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/01/homeland.security.rap.blog.ew/index.html?section=cnn_latest

But this is OFF TOPIC. THE END.

 

[Fra]

Eh, a simple note to the Pentagon letting them know about the security flaw might have sufficed.

I suspect the point is to show the world(=the democratic system), that weaknesses. Because the entire world is ultimately the democratic basis.

One of the points of wikileaks (as far as I understand their logic) is that too much secrecy (in particular that countries has governmentms and special forces that excecute actions that are in fact not know to the public) is a democratic problem, because the population will from the point of view of the environment be held responsible for any action executed by secret special forces as well. I personally would not want to be held responsible for stupid things my government does. What I am unaware if, means I don't even have a chance to vote against it.

/Fredrik

 

[Evo]

I suspect the point is to show the world, that weaknesses. Because the entire world is ultimately the democratic basis.

One of the points of wikileaks (as far as I understand their logic) is that too much secrecy (in particular that countries has governmentms and special forces that excecute actions that are in fact not know to the public) is a democratic problem, because the population will from the point of view of the environment be held responsible for any action executed by secret special forces as well. I personally would not want to be held responsible for stupid things my government does. What I am unaware if, means I don't even have a chance to vote against it.

/Fredrik

Well, we know now that was all garbage, his true intent is now known. We've moved past any good intent.

 

[Fra]

Well, we know now that was all garbage, his true intent is now known. We've moved past any good intent.

Which is? I you mean to say "damage US", which is somewhat obvious (but he has caused damage also to other countries, so US is not alone), the question is what is his motives for doing that?

Any ideas? That it's just pure evil is something I find utterly unlikely. That he would say be on al quaidas payroll I also find unlikely.

/Fredrik

 

[Mathnomalous]

Well, we know now that was all garbage, his true intent is now known. We've moved past any good intent.

Whatever Assange's intentions are, they do not change the nature of the information Wikileaks is releasing. Also, it seems some influential people understood Assange's intentions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=2&hp
http://www.slate.com/id/2276857/

All you need to know about Assange is contained in the profile of him by the great John F. Burns and in his shockingly thuggish response to it. The man is plainly a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda. As I wrote before, when he says that his aim is "to end two wars," one knows at once what he means by the "ending."

I would like to correct a mistake I made before. I said Assange is Swedish. He is not. He is Australian.

 

[Evo]

Which is? I you mean to say "damage US", which is somewhat obvious (but he has caused damage also to other countries, so US is not alone), the question is what is his motives for doing that?

Any ideas? That it's just pure evil is something I find utterly unlikely. That he would say be on al quaidas payroll I also find unlikely.

/Fredrik

The upload this thread is about was done specifically to harm the US. He has now threatened to upload documents that are, in his words, "a thermonuclear device in the information age.” He doesn't care about the harm he does, he now plans to upload all of the unredacted documents with the names and locations of all people. The guy is a scum bag.