WikiLeaks

[kahljorn]

Assange didn't commit espionage to obtain the information. It was given to wikileaks by most likely a member of the US military. It's not espionage, nor is 'exposing classified documents' considered espionage. The fact that such classified information is leaked through this particular website is NOT proof that said website used espionage to obtain it. That's not proof that Assange is a spy, a head of a spy ring, a hacker, or assisting or being an accessory to spies.

Here's a definition of ESPIONAGE that i found:

Black's Law Dictionary (1990) defines espionage as: "...gathering, transmitting, or losing...information related to the national defense".

Sounds like he does all of that

ALSO you can't technically "STEAL" information/ideas anyway, so most of your arguments regarding it being "Stolen" are irrelevant. "Unlawful reproduction" or transmission would be more appropriate, i guess. So just replace all of those terms with stolen and it should be AOK. The only way you can really "Steal" information is if you use it first, claim it was yours and/or get the benefits.

[kahljorn]

but you didnt actually STEAL the information

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

but you didnt actually STEAL the information

No. No, I did not.

[kahljorn]

OoPS MY BROWSER FUCKED UP

[Dimnos]

What if I worked for Grumman and was working on a top secret plane for the military and took part of the design and posted it on a billboard on the side of the highway. Is the guy who owns the company that owns that billboard responsible? Or am I the one responsible because Im the one that broke confidentiality?

You want to address cause and effect but dont want to look at the effect of violating the fist amendment. No matter how you slice it Assange and Wikileaks are part of the press and thus protected. If you dont want this kind of thing going on you need seal your leaks. You dont want your thoughts and ideas about the rest of the world published for the rest of the world to read? DONT PUT IT IN A FUCKING EMAIL JACKASS.

[kahljorn]

What if I worked for Grumman and was working on a top secret plane for the military and took part of the design and posted it on a billboard on the side of the highway. Is the guy who owns the company that owns that billboard responsible? Or am I the one responsible because Im the one that broke confidentiality?

VERY NICE. But what about when you have a billboard labeled, "BILLBOARD FOR POSTING TOP SECRET PLANE PLANS FROM THE MILITARY AND BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY" then you have created an environment in which posting these top secret plane plans is encouraged and provides an avenue for them to be taken advantage of. I also think the fact that you are looking for that sort of information makes you "responsible" in a way...
Torrent sites don't actually steal the information themselves and that is why they've been able to get away with it for so long (IN PLACeS LIKe SWedEN INTERESTINGLY WITH ALL THEIR TRANSPARENCIES IT SOMEHOW MAKES IT EASIER TO GET AWAY WITH "PROVIDING A RESOURCE AND OUTLET FOR HACKErS/INFORMATIONTHIEVES." But now more and more of these sites are coming under scrutiny and have had certain rules placed upon them due to these problems.

Furthermore, what if the billboard owner refuses to take them down cause its protected by freedom of speech/press/information? There's responsibility there right?

[Dimnos]

The billboard analogy was more to accentuate the idea that he who breaks confidentiality is responsible. In the actual case of posting on a billboard Im spending money for that space. As long as Im paying the rent why would the owner take it down? He is just conducting business. He nor I are breaking the law. Unless I did in fact sign a confidentiality agreement. Then I and I alone am in breach of contract.

As far as encouraging the behavior... There is nothing illegal about that either. If on that same billboard I posted a sign that reads "No cops for 10 miles. GUN IT!" I am encouraging illegal and dangerous behavior but Im not breaking the law. Say I wrote and or published a book that explained how to do illegal activities I still havent broken the law. People who buy and read said book arent breaking the law despite the fact that I am "encouraging" the behavior. Example...

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cook.../dp/0962303208

One could argue that Powel indeed encourages people do make bombs and blow shit up. Even if someone did buy this book and did in fact make a bomb using the details inside and then used the bomb to kill their neighbor whos dog just wont shut the fuck up. Who is at fault here? Is it Powel for writing the book in the first place? Is it the publisher who printed the book? Or maybe its Amazon for selling it? No. The only one responsible is the guy who actually made the bomb and used it.

[executioneer]

which is kind of funny, since amazon kicked wikileaks off their webspace. IT'S OK TO SELL BOOKS ON HOW TO BOMB SHIT BUT DONT YOU *DARE* EMBARRASS AMERICA :mad

[kahljorn]

The billboard analogy was more to accentuate the idea that he who breaks confidentiality is responsible. In the actual case of posting on a billboard Im spending money for that space. As long as Im paying the rent why would the owner take it down?

There is now pictures of child pornography on the billboard.

Say I wrote and or published a book that explained how to do illegal activities I still havent broken the law. People who buy and read said book arent breaking the law despite the fact that I am "encouraging" the behavior.

Say you publish a book of child pornography. People who buy the book are now in possession of child pornography.

[kahljorn]

In June 1971, Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo were charged with a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they lacked legal authority to publish classified documents that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers.[19] The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial based on irregularities in the government's case.[20]

feaoihfoieah

yea, so that's the law that makes it illegal to publicize classified information/be seditious. The Espionage Act of 1917

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

I GUESS THIS ARGUMENT IS FINISHED NOW?
AT LEAST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAW?

[Dimnos]

Child pornography is a bit of a different story. Its flat out illegal no matter who has it or where its displayed.

Riots though! If I were to write a book (shoot a film or whatever) on how to start a riot there is nothing illegal about it. If I were to write a book saying we are going to riot on this day at this time and this is how we are going to do it... Then yes I am guilty of incitement. For it to be applicable to Assange he would have to get on Wikileaks (or I suppose anywhere really) and say "We are going to hack <government or corporate entity> next Wednesday by way of DoS."

Let me read up on this Espionage Act. BBL.

[kahljorn]

oh yea.. i edited out the part about riots, but i was just bringing that up to point out why that you can't publicize/say whatever you want.

Child pornography is a bit of a different story. Its flat out illegal no matter who has it or where its displayed.

so are guberment secrets that can harm the nation if displayed, apparantly :O

"We are going to hack <government or corporate entity> next Wednesday by way of DoS."

Isn't that what 4chan basically did in response to this? thought i saw guitar woman or someone mention that

SHIELD Act
In response to the actions of Julian Assange and his organization, U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman, John Ensign, and Scott Brown "introduced a bill to amend the Espionage Act in order to facilitate the prosecution of folks like Wikileaks."[31] This legislation, known as the SHIELD Act, "would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence informants."[32] Critics have noted that "[l]eaking [classified] information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers," and that "Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community."[33]

Interesting that they want to modify the law specifically for the Julian Asshinge thing. Does that mean wikileaks leaked the names of US Military and Intelligence informants?

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

so are guberment secrets that can harm the nation if displayed, apparantly :O

This is another point in this whole debate. IS anything he posted really going to harm the nation or its military efforts. Most of what has been released by Wikileaks (I dont say all because I havent read over all 200K+ documents) doesnt pertain any current military actions. They document mistakes and carelessness on the part of the military in events that happened in '09.

So far from what I have been reading about the espionage act this is also what keeps them from being in violation of the espionage act. But more on that later.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Isn't that what 4chan basically did in response to this? thought i saw guitar woman or someone mention that

Yes and by all accounts they are in fact guilty. However unless you can prove that Assange is a member and actually partook in their illegal hacking then he still isnt guilty. Even if they did it "in his name" or whatever.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Interesting that they want to modify the law specifically for the Julian Asshinge thing. Does that mean wikileaks leaked the names of US Military and Intelligence informants?

I dont exactly follow this quote. At the beginning it sounds like they want to prosecute Wikileaks. Then it switches to talk specifically about military and intelligence informants and releasing their names. I dont know if Wikileaks released actual names of informants but if they have to amend the law to make what Wikileaks did illegal then arent they kind of saying it wasnt illegal before? Ill read up more about this Shield Act while Im reading up on the espionage thing.

[kahljorn]

What they are talking about is making it specifically illegal to publish the names of undercover people and stuff. All of the stuff about leaking information covered by the espionage act was already illegal since it was ennacted in 1917. It's already illegal but this will make it easier to convict them. prolly before with a good lawyer you could get out of it easily.

prolly cause of stuff like this and the Plame case.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

[Dimnos]

Kind of like when Cheney outed Valerie Plame? :oops

[kahljorn]

yea. i think what they are going for is that a lot of these laws are based on intent or something. So while there are laws against it there's nothing to actually protect the individuals who will have their names leaked...

with this its illegal to publicize their names, period. So it will provide a discouragement from publicizing their names at least.

[Pentegarn]

I was going to reply to your tripe Zhukov, but after the beating Khal laid on your post/stance in his replies today I think that would not be very sporting of me

[Tadao]

For the record, I'm fine with transparency, what I'm not fine with is allowing small countries with little to no military to be open to black mail. Let me guess. I'm completely wrong and this could never happen. Well I'm not saying that it is happening, I'm saying this is just one of the many horrible things that can happen just so that armchair politicians can read the latest hot gossip and complain by the water cooler about how bad the world is.

Good thing we found out abut all this stuff, now let the change roll over me like a cool mountain breeze on a hot summer night! Ahhhhhhhh refreshing!

I know, you need a better example. Let's say a county like Georgia has done some really illeagal things against Russia in order to prepare themselves against Putin's constant manuvering. Now that people who work withing Georgia's government have a place to reveal these secrets that they themselves were probably a part of as well, and the whole world is so hungry for these secrets that they are willing to protect these whistle blowers, said blower can ask for a lot of stuff or they will give the secrets out. Georgia will pay for sure, they can't afford to be held accountable, but major countries like the U.S. and Russia can just ignore the crime they themselves have committed because no one is going to take them down.

Whatever though, telling you this is gonna prevent this from happening as much as Hilary Clinton is gonna be punished for her crimes against the U.N.

[kahljorn]

i was readin gthis thing earlier and it said that after he announced that he was gonna release some new leaks next month about corrupt individuals in a major bank, that Bank of Americas stock declined and it migt be because they thought the leaks were about bank of america
:INSIdeTRADING

[Tadao]

Wait, he's now pre warning what he is gonna release. This dude is probably as corrupt as the people he is outing.

[Tadao]

I've been too negative about this whole thing, so here is a positive scenario.

All the world leaders are at a table in their secret cave. They are very upset. Apparently all there brilliant strategist and operatives couldn't figure out how to stop there employers collapse. It all started after Blasted Child told his mom that he is outraged and something needed to be done. Magically rocks thrown by rebels could bring down war planes and a molotov cocktail could destroy a tank. Trash can lids could deflect bullets and people were organized enough to forget about their own financial woes and made it to a rally. Indecently, rallies were effective enough to keep peoples emotions high past the next day and new leaders were put into office with the strict warning that Blasted Child would be able to see everything they did and they would be sorry if he catches you being corrupt.

[Tadao]

I know this girl who will have sex with you for money. She's 12 years old. I'll give you her number for 50 dollars and you pay her directly for the sex. I'm not a scumbag though because I'm not the one breaking the law.

[Pentegarn]

You forgot to hope really hard for the best case scenario Tadao, if you do that then bad consequences can't possibly happen no matter what short sighted things one does right?

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Here's a definition of ESPIONAGE that i found:

KAHL: There are several definitions out there; I was going with

1. the systematic use of spies to obtain secret information, esp by governments to discover military or political secrets
2. the act or practice of spying

or

Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, lest the legitimate holder of the information change plans or take other countermeasures once it is known that the information is in unauthorized hands.


I hate it when we whip out the dictionary to prove a point, and I just don't consider posting anonymously donated information on your website as espionage.

UGH.

The act of obtaining, delivering, transmitting, communicating, or receiving information about the national defense with an intent, or reason to believe, that the information may be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. Espionage is a violation of 18 United States Code 792-798 and Article 106, Uniform Code o fMilitary Justice.

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.


In this example you could argue for and against it, since Wikileaks is receiving the information (although they don't know what they are receiving) but they don't receive it with the intent to cause injury to the US or to advance any other nation. Unless you are Pentegarn and believe that he is doing it to bring about the end of mankind.

ALSO you can't technically "STEAL" information/ideas anyway, so most of your arguments regarding it being "Stolen" are irrelevant. "Unlawful reproduction" or transmission would be more appropriate, i guess. So just replace all of those terms with stolen and it should be AOK. The only way you can really "Steal" information is if you use it first, claim it was yours and/or get the benefits.

My arguments AGAINST Assange stealing the information have always been the same; he isn't involved in obtaining it. My arguments AGAINST any one else stealing information is based in the facts that they are not outsiders hacking in to US military bases and stealing whatever Pentegarn thinks they are stealing but hasn't told us what. Neither of us were using a dictionary or the official US legal definition for 'stealing', both of us were simply using it as 'illegally obtaining'. If having classified documents leaked to you without any action on your part counts as 'stealing', and everyone in this thread uses that stance, then I guess I will change my use of "he didn't steal it" to "he didn't do any illegal actions to obtain it". Hasn't changed my stance.

Personally, I do think there are military secrets. The blue prints of your weapons, the names and families of your soldiers, other stuff, and honestly, if someone let that sort of information out then I can see why it's illegal. It's illegal to give it away, sure, but that is what we are dealing with, not someone stealing it from outside. This is what Pentegarn has asserted this whole time; be it Julian Assange himself, personally, or him encouraging or hiring others to do it for him. This is the 'stealing' and 'stolen' I am referring to. As I said, the legal terms are above me and I can concede that and it's not really a beating on my stance, since my stance is that the information has not been obtained illegally - Wikileaks did not hack computers to get it, and even though it was/is illegal for them to leak it, whomever uploaded it to wikileaks did not have to steal to get it.

For the record I'm only talking about hacking here because that is the ridiculous accusation I was dealing with - Julain Assange is a hacker thief anarchist terrorist.

PENTEGARN: Bye! Play again anytime! Thanks for going from 'kinda cool guy that I can respect' to 'wanker who can't have a discussion without getting aggressively personal'!

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I hate it when we whip out the dictionary to prove a point, and I just don't consider posting anonymously donated information on your website as espionage.

So you hate it when someone posts something factual that is contrary to your views?

I see....

PS Thanks from going from 'guy I barely noticed' to 'douchebag who can dish out insults but gets pissy when he has to take them'