I enjoy a lively civil discussion.
Derek J. Balling <[email protected]> asserts: > On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, that > > doesn't mean that it's public domain data. Hosting the data and passing it > > on is (or at least has the flavor of) 'trafficing in stolden merchandise' > > > > What makes leaded data 'Ok' to host and pass on, but unauthorized copies > > of commercial software, books, music, etc 'Piracy'? > > Legally speaking, once it's been released by an organization purporting to > be >of "journalistic intent", the SCOTUS case-law protects that release of data >into the wild. And once it's in the wild "legally", it's just "data of >journalistic value". > > The leaker can face stiff penalties, but beyond that initial leaker, the >existing case-law is pretty clearly on the side of the public, not the gov't. Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd appreciate if you can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege exists. I don't think there's a Woody Allen or "journalistic intent" clause that says if Derek steals a classified document, then gives it to me, I'm free and clear because I wasn't the person that stole it. Or are you asserting there is? I'm open, brother. Here's a counter point: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/February%202007/0207pentagon.aspx "there is no law, court decision, or precedent from the Pentagon Papers case or anywhere else that legalizes the leaking of national security information or allows newspapers to decide for themselves which secrets to publish. The Espionage Act is still in effect. Under that act, in January 2006, former Department of Defense analyst Lawrence A. Franklin was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for passing classified information to a pro-Israel lobbying group. Those who received the material from him are vulnerable to prosecution under the same act. “Whistle-blowing,” in which federal employees reveal the government’s dirty laundry to the news media and Congress, is often regarded positively by the public. There are several “whistle-blower protection acts,” but they do not give leakers nearly as much latitude as some enthusiasts believe. In the case of national security information, a whistle-blower can take the information to Congress or to an inspector general within the department. Passing such information to the newspapers is a crime under the Espionage Act." We can argue about the merits of the Act, but it's still on the books. On the trafficking in stolen goods part: I don't see the difference between this, a stolen Metallica recording master, or a stolen Pam Anderson sex tape. It's somebody else's property. The entity holding it agrees both that it is stolen and that the original holder does not want it circulated. What definition of trafficking in stolen property is at odds here? Some folks raise the issue that there is a justification for disclosing illegal acts. For the cables which are just the opinions of embassy staff, there is nothing illegal about having an opinion and expressing it in writing. Noting that Kim Yung Il is a "flabby old chap" is not a crime - except perhaps in North Korea. On a different note, I like the related discussions that argue about whether this is proof positive that Cloud Computing works/doesn't work. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
