Split From The ClimateGate of WikiLeaks

[Hallo Alfie]

Do you only avoid running stop signs when you see people getting tickets for running stop signs?

Why would anyone bother stopping if there is no stop sign there and there are no tickets being issued?

 

[Trakar]

Why would anyone bother stopping if there is no stop sign there and there are no tickets being issued?

The sign is there and the law is clear, the rest is all on your own personal sense of ethics and regard for the law.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The sign is there and the law is clear, the rest is all on your own personal sense of ethics and regard for the law.

So if the sign is there (and clearly they are not), and if the laws are clear (and they aren't), when are the cops coming?

Answer. Never.
Why? Beacuse the signs and laws are not there.

 

[Trakar]

So if the sign is there (and clearly they are not), and if the laws are clear (and they aren't), when are the cops coming?

Answer. Never.
Why? Beacuse the signs and laws are not there.

Your disdain for laws when you see no immediate or impending prosecution for the violation of such is noted, as are the ethics and moral standards such implies.

 

[mhaze]

Either way, I'm pretty sure it would be a million times more likely the US government sued JREF for publishing these cables, than the boys over at the IPCC suing the JREF for the Climategate emails.

Exactly. Although some (many) of those on JREF who encourage and rant on with slightly-veiled anti-american sentiments, or who openly are anti-american, are not US citizens....JREF is an American organization.

And let's make one thing clear. There is not any need to bring a case against ALL who posted the TOP SECRET information, one can be simply made an example of. That's pretty common.

All it takes is to be one dot in someone's mind (of the type that carries a badge and a gun) connecting the dots. For example, some crazy loon goes out and does something bad. The week before, forensic evidence shows that he was reading about the TOP SECRET wikileaks....

On JREF (or pick your blog or website).

.... whatever that blog or website was, they'd be in a world of hurt. Anyone thinking otherwise is flat nuts.

With the Climategate emails, it was pretty clear that there was zero legal liability to posting links to them, excerpts or linking to satires of Climategate on youtube. Climategate offended the basket of feelings of liberals who didn't like their little world upset.

Thus we now discuss the obvious blinders on the part of the radical left as evidenced here, and how and why they are unable to see these things.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Your disdain for laws when you see no immediate or impending prosecution for the violation of such is noted, as are the ethics and moral standards such implies.

Rubbish.

Now when are the cops coming?
Such a big issue, such a gross invasion of privacy, ethics and morals; surely there are "immediate or impending prosecutions" forthcoming.

What's that!? There's nothing forthcoming?! Well I'll be.......

 

[Trakar]

Now when are the cops coming?...

The "cops" are after the hackers, the violations of privacy are civil suit issues, and as far as I know, none of the affected parties are currently pursuing such. If it had happened in the US the two issues could have been merged and the "cops" (federal prosecutors) could and probably would have been much more aggressive along the lines of the effort against the Palin yahoo mail acct. hacker. In Palin's case, she was a politician so her expectation of privacy is different in American law. The problem with the CRU hack is that the potential pursuit of civil suits across so many international borders is complicated and difficult. This doesn't remove the ethical and moral issues but it does make chasing a civil law suit difficult.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The "cops" are after the hackers, the violations of privacy are civil suit issues, and as far as I know, none of the affected parties are currently pursuing such. If it had happened in the US the two issues could have been merged and the "cops" (federal prosecutors) could and probably would have been much more aggressive along the lines of the effort against the Palin yahoo mail acct. hacker. In Palin's case, she was a politician so her expectation of privacy is different in American law. The problem with the CRU hack is that the potential pursuit of civil suits across so many international borders is complicated and difficult. This doesn't remove the ethical and moral issues but it does make chasing a civil law suit difficult.

Got it: Ineffective laws = toothless tiger (kitteh) = no-one gives a toss.

And when the laws aren't pursued, guess what - they are pointless. Morality and ethics mean little to those who do not believe in them.

So my one and only point is and always has been, if CRU was not OK, why is wikileaks ok? If it was sucha moral and ethical problem before, why isn't it now?

 

[Trakar]

Got it: Ineffective laws = toothless tiger (kitteh) = no-one gives a toss.

And when the laws aren't pursued, guess what - they are pointless. Morality and ethics mean little to those who do not believe in them.

So my one and only point is and always has been, if CRU was not OK, why is wikileaks ok? If it was sucha moral and ethical problem before, why isn't it now?

And now you have affirmed my earlier assessment:

Your disdain for laws when you see no immediate or impending prosecution for the violation of such is noted, as are the ethics and moral standards such implies.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But what laws?!?! Clearly there are none or they would have been acted upon. Duh!

 

[mhaze]

But what laws?!?! Clearly there are none or they would have been acted upon. Duh!

The loud and clear assertion by the loons of the Left on Climategate vs. Wikileaks is simply this:

Hurting the feelings of someone on our side, such as by the climategate hacker, is horribly bad.

But we can discuss the revealed facts from the Palin hacks. And we can discuss the facts from leaked secret documents during the Bush era.

That's okay - after all, what are Bush and Palin. And we can discuss TOP SECRET leaks from the Wikileaks, that's okay too.

So back to my earlier question and IIRC correctly the OP before complainers jerked the staff around and tried to get this thread moved off of public view.

Why was Climategate so bad it had to be banned, but the climate related emails within Wikileaks not bad at all?

One might hurt someone's feelings, the other has by it's nature a high security classification. One has possible civil lawsuit potentialities, the other serious criminal consequences.

We know the answer. But let's hear those lame excuses.

 

[Beeyon]

If you reprint, after public exposure, formerly classified information you generally do not incur any additional liability (there are exceptions to this).

That is true. However, material does not become "formerly classified" upon release to the public. It is classified until it is officially declassified, no matter how many people know about it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That is true. However, material does not become "formerly classified" upon release to the public. It is classified until it is officially declassified, no matter how many people know about it.

Even if it is placed in the classifieds?

 

[Trakar]

That is true. However, material does not become "formerly classified" upon release to the public. It is classified until it is officially declassified, no matter how many people know about it.

True, and completely accurate. But prosecution is generally based upon harm, and generally the damage is done by the initial media exposure. It is a hard argument to sustain with regards to secondary and beyond republications of the same information, especially with the global reach of modern internet communications.

Again, to be clear, I consider wikileaks to represent crimes, and the republication of information from those crimes to represent ethical problems whether or not prosecution is imminent.

FAS has an informative .pdf on the subject
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404-101810.pdf

 

[Furcifer]

LOL
Have you got your duct tape, plastic sheeting and aluminium foil?

looks like "they" got to the forum management

 

[mhaze]

True, and completely accurate. But prosecution is generally based upon harm, and generally the damage is done by the initial media exposure. It is a hard argument to sustain with regards to secondary and beyond republications of the same information, especially with the global reach of modern internet communications.

Again, to be clear, I consider wikileaks to represent crimes, and the republication of information from those crimes to represent ethical problems whether or not prosecution is imminent.

FAS has an informative .pdf on the subject
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404-101810.pdf

So you admit that republisher of wikileaks simply must hope for mercy, or that there is safety in the crowd of other republishers. But they are engaged in criminal acts that certainly are prosecutable.


Further you admit that forums allowing repuvlishing are engaged in unethical practices.

And that puts us into essential agreement-that only a blind and ignorant anti-American sentiment would assert that wikileaks is fine to link and republish, but climate gate is not.

 

[Trakar]

So you admit that republisher of wikileaks simply must hope for mercy, or that there is safety in the crowd of other republishers. But they are engaged in criminal acts that certainly are prosecutable.


Further you admit that forums allowing repuvlishing are engaged in unethical practices.

And that puts us into essential agreement-that only a blind and ignorant anti-American sentiment would assert that wikileaks is fine to link and republish, but climate gate is not.

It isn't an "either/or" situation, from my perspective, publishing either are ethically contaminated positions. There is less danger of prosecution than there is of civil suit, but regardless of prosecution, linking to the documents or republishing the material, in either case, is IMO, an ethically compromised position to assume. That JREF seems to have gotten it right in one instance and wrong in the other, isn't in my opinion, a good argument for getting it wrong in both cases.