| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2010 12:58:09 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you listen to the interview (link I posted earlier) with one of the reporters for the Times working on the case you will hear a lot about what's been released and what hasn't, and how and why the decisions were made. The Times showed the articles to people at the State Department before printing them, and offered them the opportunity to request further redactions than had already been made, though not all of those requests were obliged. The newspapers are not just thoughtlessly printing everything they're handed ... |
...and this makes it...legal? Wouldn't printing a state secret, whether big or small, be printing a state secret? I'm really asking here because people seem to think they know the answers. Shannon compared wikileaks to the Rosenbergs, but my question still remains...what's the difference between Wikileaks and the NYT in the eyes of the law?
The Australian foreign minister frames my question well:
"The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorised release," he said.
"There is a separate and secondary legal question â€Â¦ which is the legal liabilities of those responsible for the dissemination of that information, whether it's WikiLeaks, whether it's Reuters, or whether it is anybody else.".
I am unaware that "the press" (however that is defined) has some special designation that allows them to do something someone else cannot.
Message edited by author 2010-12-09 01:08:08. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 01:51:37 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am unaware that "the press" (however that is defined) has some special designation that allows them to do something someone else cannot. |
It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Originally posted by U.S. Constitution:
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
The language is pretty clear and specific: the terms "no law" and "abridging" don't support a whole lot of latitude in interpretation. You can read the entire Bill of Rights here. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:35:25 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am unaware that "the press" (however that is defined) has some special designation that allows them to do something someone else cannot. |
It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Originally posted by U.S. Constitution:
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
The language is pretty clear and specific: the terms "no law" and "abridging" don't support a whole lot of latitude in interpretation. You can read the entire Bill of Rights here. |
Obviously, Paul. But I have that right just like anybody else. I don't have to have some card tucked in my hat that says "press" to be afforded that right. I don't need to have majored in journalism to enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. In fact, there is no certification process to become "press" in the US which should clearly confirm the idea they are not granted extra rights.
Message edited by author 2010-12-09 11:37:03. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 11:57:33 AM · #104 |
I believe the crime is obtaining and/or sharing data without authorization. Wikileaks just shares data people give them. The people that give them the data are breaking the law, wikileaks just encourages it.
I've been involved with secret data and in the training it's made clear, it is your responsibility to secure the data. You are obligated to not share it and you sign legal documents saying you accept the penalties if you do. If I share it with someone not authorized to have it, they are under no such obligation to not share it.
If I understand it right, it's not illegal to share information unless you agreed not to share it?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2010 01:15:47 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Jac:
I shouldn't be surprised as we all know our governments are in bed with corporations. This is proof. |
While you're at it, you should close your Visa account, too. They dropped support for Wikileaks (and AMEX didn't support them to begin with). If efforts to get WL classified as a terrorist organization go through, you'll also need to close all your bank accounts for being "in bed with corporations." Oh, and you surely won't want to use government issued currency. Pretty soon you'll be left with Chuck E. Cheese tokens and Monopoly money.
Mastercard has EVERY right to cut off customers who may be engaged in criminal activities. They are both entitled and obligated by their own membership agreement. When you publish classified lists of infrastructure sites critical to U.S. (and Canadian) security, it becomes crystal clear that your intentions are neither benign nor motivated by government deception. How does revealing such a list keep government in check or serve the interests of the public? It qualifies as providing material support to terrorists just as surely as if you had mailed blueprints of the WTC directly to Al Qaeda. Having your supporters launch class A felony attacks on businesses and blackmailing authorities to avoid prosecution doesn't help, either. If I found out that Mastercard didn't cut off service to a group that clearly helps the bad guys, intentionally or not, THAT'S when I'd consider dropping them. |
You seem to have missed the point Scalvert.
When governments use corporations to get their way it's high time to start asking questions.
Message edited by author 2010-12-09 13:18:49. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 04:23:39 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Jac:
I shouldn't be surprised as we all know our governments are in bed with corporations. This is proof. |
While you're at it, you should close your Visa account, too. They dropped support for Wikileaks (and AMEX didn't support them to begin with). If efforts to get WL classified as a terrorist organization go through, you'll also need to close all your bank accounts for being "in bed with corporations." Oh, and you surely won't want to use government issued currency. Pretty soon you'll be left with Chuck E. Cheese tokens and Monopoly money.
Mastercard has EVERY right to cut off customers who may be engaged in criminal activities. They are both entitled and obligated by their own membership agreement. When you publish classified lists of infrastructure sites critical to U.S. (and Canadian) security, it becomes crystal clear that your intentions are neither benign nor motivated by government deception. How does revealing such a list keep government in check or serve the interests of the public? It qualifies as providing material support to terrorists just as surely as if you had mailed blueprints of the WTC directly to Al Qaeda. Having your supporters launch class A felony attacks on businesses and blackmailing authorities to avoid prosecution doesn't help, either. If I found out that Mastercard didn't cut off service to a group that clearly helps the bad guys, intentionally or not, THAT'S when I'd consider dropping them. |
You seem to have missed the point Scalvert.
When governments use corporations to get their way it's high time to start asking questions. |
Did the government ask them to to take action or did they do it on their own? I guess I never heard they were asked to do anything so I am curious where you heard the government was involved in directing their actions. |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 04:26:38 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Did the government ask them to to take action or did they do it on their own? I guess I never heard they were asked to do anything so I am curious where you heard the government was involved in directing their actions. |
I imagine any government influence is being kept secret ... |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 04:36:51 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Did the government ask them to to take action or did they do it on their own? I guess I never heard they were asked to do anything so I am curious where you heard the government was involved in directing their actions. |
I imagine any government influence is being kept secret ... |
If we lack facts we can at least imagine what the truth has to be.... |
|
|
|
12/09/2010 05:28:48 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I imagine any government influence is being kept secret ... |
Maybe we will find out on Wiki leaks itself. Keep your eyes peeled. :D |
|
|
|
12/11/2010 01:35:12 PM · #110 |
|
|
|
12/11/2010 04:50:07 PM · #111 |
|
|
|
12/12/2010 10:46:48 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Jac:
I shouldn't be surprised as we all know our governments are in bed with corporations. This is proof. |
While you're at it, you should close your Visa account, too. They dropped support for Wikileaks (and AMEX didn't support them to begin with). If efforts to get WL classified as a terrorist organization go through, you'll also need to close all your bank accounts for being "in bed with corporations." Oh, and you surely won't want to use government issued currency. Pretty soon you'll be left with Chuck E. Cheese tokens and Monopoly money.
Mastercard has EVERY right to cut off customers who may be engaged in criminal activities. They are both entitled and obligated by their own membership agreement. When you publish classified lists of infrastructure sites critical to U.S. (and Canadian) security, it becomes crystal clear that your intentions are neither benign nor motivated by government deception. How does revealing such a list keep government in check or serve the interests of the public? It qualifies as providing material support to terrorists just as surely as if you had mailed blueprints of the WTC directly to Al Qaeda. Having your supporters launch class A felony attacks on businesses and blackmailing authorities to avoid prosecution doesn't help, either. If I found out that Mastercard didn't cut off service to a group that clearly helps the bad guys, intentionally or not, THAT'S when I'd consider dropping them. |
You seem to have missed the point Scalvert.
When governments use corporations to get their way it's high time to start asking questions. |
Did the government ask them to to take action or did they do it on their own? I guess I never heard they were asked to do anything so I am curious where you heard the government was involved in directing their actions. |
GeneralE is spot on and I'm wondering why you're asking when the topic at hand is government secrecy and cover ups and its denial to let the people know.
How many people use Mastercard for cash advances to buy illegal drugs and sell them on the street?
How many people use their credit card to pay off illegal gambling debts?
Are these people being cut off by Mastercard? No, because they have no proof that anything illegal is going on.
Why have they cut off Wikileaks? Have they been charged with anything? No. Convicted. No.
What's the basis for Mastercard's cancellation of Wikileak's account? Was Wikileaks late in paying their Mastercard or Visa bill? What other reason could they use?
Why else would a business stop taking money from a customer?
Message edited by author 2010-12-13 15:00:16. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/18/2025 06:23:05 PM EDT.
