wiki leaks - DPChallenge Forums

12/08/2010 07:35:41 PM · #76

Originally posted by mike_311:

news reporting is exempt from copyright laws.

Wikileaks is not a news organization. These are hackers, not journalists, and merely calling the dissemination of state secrets "news" does not make it so.

Originally posted by scalvert:

A list of sites vital to the nation's security has nothing whatsoever to do with government corruption.

Originally posted by mike_311:

define vital. because the government says they are vital? if the sites are being used for something that the government is trying to keep from the public it does.

Do you seriously think a list of critical infrastructure sites like hydrothermal plants and refineries are all hiding places for secret UFO research? Wouldn't identifying vital locations to assure their security be expected of a responsible government? Why do you assume there must be some corrupt intent?

Message edited by author 2010-12-08 19:36:01.

12/08/2010 07:37:46 PM · #77

no, i completely agree.

but at this stage its hard to discern which secrets are necessary.

12/08/2010 07:40:15 PM · #78

Originally posted by mike_311:

no, i completely agree.

but at this stage its hard to discern which secrets are necessary.

And as valid a statement as that is, you can't decide which are by public forum... :)

12/08/2010 07:41:11 PM · #79

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mike_311:
news reporting is exempt from copyright laws.

Wikileaks is not a news organization. These are hackers, not journalists, and merely calling the dissemination of state secrets "news" does not make it so.

Originally posted by scalvert:
A list of sites vital to the nation's security has nothing whatsoever to do with government corruption.

Originally posted by mike_311:
define vital. because the government says they are vital? if the sites are being used for something that the government is trying to keep from the public it does.

Do you seriously think a list of critical infrastructure sites like hydrothermal plants and refineries are all hiding places for secret UFO research? Wouldn't identifying vital locations to assure their security be expected of a responsible government? Why do you assume there must be some corrupt intent?

no, they aren't a traditional news organization.

and yes as i just stated, some info is critical to security but how do we know what is and what isnt?

12/08/2010 07:46:17 PM · #80

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Someone on NPR commented that Assange isn't the one to actually steal the secrets, he's only publishing them.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg weren't the ones who actually stole state secrets either. They were only making the material available to another country, yet they were executed for espionage. What if they had called themselves "journalists" and published the information in public? Would that somehow make it OK?

12/08/2010 07:51:20 PM · #81

so some high ranking official in the US government is allowed to out a CIA agent but if someone posts "classified" information thats illegal?

whatever suits your needs i guess.

Message edited by author 2010-12-08 19:51:40.

12/08/2010 08:09:18 PM · #82

Originally posted by mike_311:

some info is critical to security but how do we know what is and what isnt?

We don't... and we still don't with the leaked info. Publishing a list like this does absolutely nothing to reveal locations "being used for something that the government is trying to keep from the public," but it's a gift wrapped shopping list for terrorists. Shall we also release the names of all CIA agents in case some are corrupt? Maybe we should post everyone's credit card information on the Times Square jumbotron ticker because we don't know which cards are being used for something they shouldn't be? There is a legitimate need to identify and secure vital facilities, and suspicion that some may be used for covert purposes (which may also be perfectly legitimate) does not excuse the recklessness of publishing classified information. Journalist who suspect a site is being used for corrupt agendas can and do invoke the Freedom of Information Act to investigate responsibly rather than broadcasting everything to the world.

12/08/2010 08:14:42 PM · #83

Originally posted by mike_311:

so some high ranking official in the US government is allowed to out a CIA agent but if someone posts "classified" information thats illegal?

Officials in the US government are NOT allowed to out a CIA agent, and Scooter Libby went to jail for doing so. Regardless of whether others may have been involved and escaped conviction, if they were allowed there wouldn't have been an investigation at all.

12/08/2010 08:20:16 PM · #84

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Someone on NPR commented that Assange isn't the one to actually steal the secrets, he's only publishing them.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg weren't the ones who actually stole state secrets either. They were only making the material available to another country, yet they were executed for espionage. What if they had called themselves "journalists" and published the information in public? Would that somehow make it OK?

I'm not disagreeing. But on the other hand, if his crime was obvious, you'd think the US govt would charge him with something before Sweden gets their hands on him for the sexual charges. The fact that no charge is forthcoming at this time makes me think the case is at the least complicated.

Message edited by author 2010-12-08 20:20:44.

12/08/2010 08:22:13 PM · #85

well i guess no of us have a shot at a government job now..

//www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/wikileaks.students/index.html?hpt=C1

apparently commenting on it is also frowned upon.

move along, nothing to see here.

12/08/2010 08:29:45 PM · #86

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The fact that no charge is forthcoming at this time makes me think the case is at the least complicated.

Don't mistake the time involved in putting together a case with a lack of grounds for doing so. It was over two years before charges were filed against Scooter Libby even though identifying a CIA agent is CLEARLY illegal.

12/08/2010 08:36:56 PM · #87

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

its because the us government needs to prove that he solicited for the information (i which case i concede his guilt) but if he can prove that the information made its way unsolicited to wikileaks than the Supreme Court has said in the past the "innocent recipient of unlawful information" is usually protected in publishing it.

Message edited by author 2010-12-08 20:37:44.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/08/2010 08:47:31 PM · #88

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mike_311:
amazon dropped his site becuase of copyrights? government records and figures are copyrighted material now???

ALL records and communications are subject to copyright just like your photos are.

I'm 99.9% sure that government documents are in the public domain insofar as copyright law is involved. I think we own them, even if we're (currently) not allowed to read them due to security classification status.

12/08/2010 08:51:49 PM · #89

Hears a little fact I didn't know. Assange can't be charged with treason because he isn't an American. Personally, I didn't know that. Makes sense though.

12/08/2010 08:56:29 PM · #90

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hears a little fact I didn't know. Assange can't be charged with treason because he isn't an American. Personally, I didn't know that. Makes sense though.

I found that odd that treason was even brought up (since he's Australian), Assange mentioned the treason charge himslef.

I don't think the plan is to charge him with treason, it would be under the espionage act. Sweden has said they won't give him up under that charge unless they are assured he won't get the death penalty.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

[quote=scalvert]
I'm 99.9% sure that government documents are in the public domain insofar as copyright law is involved. I think we own them, even if we're (currently) not allowed to read them due to security classification status.

if wikileaks is considered a news organization, copyright law doesn't apply anyhow.

Message edited by author 2010-12-08 20:58:28.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/08/2010 08:56:40 PM · #91

Originally posted by scalvert:

Considering the controversy about whether the Rosenbergs ever committed actual espionage, or were set-up/framed by the government I'm not sure that's the best example you could be using.

I'd also counter your example with the case of the Pentagon Papers, which were also "stolen" and published by the NY Times. Of course, if you think it's OK for the Executive to lie to the Congress and the citizenry and lead the country into war based on false pretenses, then by all means let's start prosecuting the press for exposing governement activities and let them get back to acting in our name in secret.

I wonder how much this guy was influenced by the relatively recent release of The Most Dangerous Man In America (the story of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers) ...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/08/2010 08:59:00 PM · #92

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mike_311:
so some high ranking official in the US government is allowed to out a CIA agent but if someone posts "classified" information thats illegal?

Officials in the US government are NOT allowed to out a CIA agent, and Scooter Libby went to jail for doing so.

Nope -- he went to jail (briefly) for lying to the FBI about what he knew ... no one was ever prosecuted for violating the law regarding revealing the identity of a covert agent.

ETA: Treason by definition is the betrayal of one's own country -- if you are not a citizen of a country you can't be charged with treason in/of that country.

Message edited by author 2010-12-08 21:02:15.

12/08/2010 09:35:54 PM · #93

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'd also counter your example with the case of the Pentagon Papers, which were also "stolen" and published by the NY Times. Of course, if you think it's OK for the Executive to lie to the Congress and the citizenry and lead the country into war based on false pretenses, then by all means let's start prosecuting the press for exposing governement activities and let them get back to acting in our name in secret.

I have no problem with a news organization publishing a story. It's their job, their right and their responsibility to do so. However Wikileaks is no more a news organization than DPC, and they're not publishing a story. There is no journalism involved here, no verifying sources, no investigative reporting. They get their hands on secret info (legally or otherwise) and dump it into the public domain. It's one thing for a reporter to learn of a scandal and report it, but it would be quite another if the NY Times had acquired some random file cabinet full of classified info and posted it just for the sake of making whatever it contains public. The Times certainly wouldn't be protected from federal charges if it published nuclear launch codes or blueprints for stealth fighters, so clearly Freedom of Press is not carte blanche.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Nope -- he went to jail (briefly) for lying to the FBI about what he knew ... no one was ever prosecuted for violating the law regarding revealing the identity of a covert agent.

Fair enough, but the point remains that there WAS an investigation, which would not have happened if government officials were allowed to out CIA agents, and espionage cases always take time. Even if Assange had personally broken into the Pentagon on videotape and stolen the secret recipe for Twinkies, it could be months before he was formally charged. You'd want to search for all the people involved, their sources and the details of their operation in order to build your case. No doubt they're also weighing what else might be at stake if they rush to press charges given the 'poison pill' extortion threats and trying to mitigate the release of more data.

Message edited by author 2010-12-08 21:44:03.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

12/08/2010 10:05:31 PM · #94

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd also counter your example with the case of the Pentagon Papers, which were also "stolen" and published by the NY Times. Of course, if you think it's OK for the Executive to lie to the Congress and the citizenry and lead the country into war based on false pretenses, then by all means let's start prosecuting the press for exposing governement activities and let them get back to acting in our name in secret.

I have no problem with a news organization publishing a story. It's their job, their right and their responsibility to do so. However Wikileaks is no more a news organization than DPC, and they're not publishing a story. There is no journalism involved here, no verifying sources, no investigative reporting. They get their hands on secret info (legally or otherwise) and dump it into the public domain. It's one thing for a reporter to learn of a scandal and report it, but it would be quite another if the NY Times had acquired some random file cabinet full of classified info and posted it just for the sake of making whatever it contains public. The Times certainly wouldn't be protected from federal charges if it published nuclear launch codes or blueprints for stealth fighters, so clearly Freedom of Press is not carte blanche.

Just to be devil's advocate, didn't the NYT just publish the exact same stuff that wikileaks posted? Why are they not guilty of the same crimes? Because they are a newspaper? Because it's no longer a secret?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

12/08/2010 10:28:01 PM · #95

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'd also counter your example with the case of the Pentagon Papers, which were also "stolen" and published by the NY Times. Of course, if you think it's OK for the Executive to lie to the Congress and the citizenry and lead the country into war based on false pretenses, then by all means let's start prosecuting the press for exposing governement activities and let them get back to acting in our name in secret.

I have no problem with a news organization publishing a story. It's their job, their right and their responsibility to do so. However Wikileaks is no more a news organization than DPC, and they're not publishing a story. There is no journalism involved here, no verifying sources, no investigative reporting. They get their hands on secret info (legally or otherwise) and dump it into the public domain. It's one thing for a reporter to learn of a scandal and report it, but it would be quite another if the NY Times had acquired some random file cabinet full of classified info and posted it just for the sake of making whatever it contains public. The Times certainly wouldn't be protected from federal charges if it published nuclear launch codes or blueprints for stealth fighters, so clearly Freedom of Press is not carte blanche.

Just to be devil's advocate, didn't the NYT just publish the exact same stuff that wikileaks posted? Why are they not guilty of the same crimes? Because they are a newspaper? Because it's no longer a secret?

Wikileaks is actually working with a number of established news outlets (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel to name a few) in order to determine which cables to release that WILL NOT jeopardize safety and are considered responsible to release. I don't know if a lot of people even either know this, or choose to ignore it. Out of 250,000 cables they have released approx. 800 to date.

Scalvert should be a politician, really. He'd be dangerously good at it.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

12/08/2010 10:51:40 PM · #96

Originally posted by scalvert:

However Wikileaks is no more a news organization than DPC [...]

What? We're not the news? Fie, fie on it! I thought we were.

12/08/2010 10:54:09 PM · #97

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

But that doesn't answer my question. If wikileaks (or Assange) is guilty of a crime, why isn't the NYT (or the editor) guilty of the same crime? or are they?

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/08/2010 10:58:52 PM · #98

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wikileaks is actually working with a number of established news outlets (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel to name a few) in order to determine which cables to release that WILL NOT jeopardize safety and are considered responsible to release. I don't know if a lot of people even either know this, or choose to ignore it. Out of 250,000 cables they have released approx. 800 to date.

But that doesn't answer my question. If wikileaks (or Assange) is guilty of a crime, why isn't the NYT (or the editor) guilty of the same crime? or are they?

Could it be that once a secret is released... it is no longer a secret?

Ray

12/08/2010 10:59:21 PM · #99

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just to be devil's advocate, didn't the NYT just publish the exact same stuff that wikileaks posted? Why are they not guilty of the same crimes?

You mean the same NY Times that had this to say about the "Climategate" emails? "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they wonâ��t be posted here.â�� Hmmm...