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
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.
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'!