Split From The ClimateGate of WikiLeaks

TShaitanaku said:
....

reprinting private CRU communications would have left them in a potential liability situation if the authors had chosen to pursue that course of action.

Reprinting the State Dept. documents, after they had already been publically published, does not place them in any legally liable position. ....
Click to expand...

What I'm reading in the above is you making things up that sound good to you. Add the phrase "after they had already been publicly published" to the first paragraph to see the error.

Next may I bring something to your attention? Security clearances do not expire when one leaves the service or employment where one had said clearance, so there is a whole 'nuther class of liability for anyone repeat publishing leaked US Government matters which were classified.

So we should likely narrow your second paragraph down with that restriction.

Next we should look at the actions of people who read the leaked material on a specfic site that printered or reprinted it. Assume that the 555th site to reprint classified material was read by someone who then acted on that information to perform a terrorist action.

I assure you that that specific 555th site and the propagators operating it would be in a world of hurt, which could either be legal or extra-legal. The penalties extend up and include death.

What's going on is that people are taking refuge in the past lax enforcement of these provisions. Having said that, your brandishing the appearance of knowledge on these issues is revealed to be, well, only that.

That leads us round robin back to the basic question of the OP: The attitudes and rationales why some might think Climategate to be a dastardly and frightening thing to avoid the republishing of, after they were already on the Internet - versus those who think that US Government secrets, would be a triviality and nothing of concern.

Pretty clear we are looking at issues of irrational bias.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
What I'm reading in the above is you making things up that sound good to you. Add the phrase "after they had already been publicly published" to the first paragraph to see the error...
Click to expand...

Just the opposite, you are reading into material things that make it sound better to you, unfortunately this ignores the legal issues.

Repeating violations of individual to individual private communications leaves one in potential civil liability. Individual rights and expectations of privacy can be multiply violated.

Violations of security classifications are a violation of security laws and can only occur on the first public reveal. Once the material has been publically exposed, repeating that exposure does not repeat the violation, the damage in done on the first exposure.

You may not like it, but that's the way the laws work.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
In one case we are talking about private emails between private individuals, in the other we are talking about the official reports between government officials.
Click to expand...
So they are very different in your opinion. And it seems you are comfortable that wikileaks is ok, climategate not...
Click to expand...

Again you take my statements claim they say the exact opposite of what I actually said and then assert that this confirms your beliefs. If this is not intellectual disingenuity, it is idiocy.

Wikileaks is the result of at least 2 crimes. The crime of the theft of classified information, and the crime of violating document security by open publication of classified information. Both crimes are wrong and improper and those responsible should be prosecuted for their crimes.

The CRU hacks consist of at least two crimes. The crime of hacking into the computer system, and the revelation of private exchanges between individuals that were stored on that system. Both crimes are wrong and improper and those responsible should be prosecuted for thier crimes.

The only difference, is that there is the additional potential civil liability associated with the exposure of private communications between individuals that is not present with the exposure of government documents and reports.

Both are crimes, both are wrong. If you reprint, after public exposure, formerly classified information you generally do not incur any additional liability (there are exceptions to this). If you reprint, after public exposure, formerly private exchanges and communications, you can incur additional civil liabilities and open yourself to potential civil lawsuits.
 
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They're saying it may be a crime to distribute these cables in the news today. Just saying.
 
3bodyproblem said:
They're saying it may be a crime to distribute these cables in the news today. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Well, there are exceptions, as I noted previously. If you have a reference for this information, I would be interested in reading the considerations applied.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Well, there are exceptions, as I noted previously. If you have a reference for this information, I would be interested in reading the considerations applied.
Click to expand...

I can't find the article I saw earlier today, it was on my phone app. But here's a couple musings on the matter.

http://www.slate.com/id/2277291/

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/132433-lieberman-nytimes-should-be-investigated-for-publishing-wikileaks-documents

At least Lieberman thinks it's worth investigating.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I can't find the article I saw earlier today, it was on my phone app. But here's a couple musings on the matter.

http://www.slate.com/id/2277291/

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/132433-lieberman-nytimes-should-be-investigated-for-publishing-wikileaks-documents

At least Lieberman thinks it's worth investigating.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Lieberman thinks he's a beloved Democratic senator as well, so we should probably stick with the law and legal opinion rather than Senator Droopy Dog's eternal search for relevance.

The Espionage Act (useless as it is) may be applicable to Julian Assange, but doesn't hold much water against subsequent publications (at least not with the wiki-dumps thus far).

The Comint Statute is a better route if you are looking at second hand publication crimes, but upon application to say any of the major media sources, would run into enough problems that I can't see it being successfully prosecuted.
 
TShaitanaku said:
The Espionage Act (useless as it is) may be applicable to Julian Assange, but doesn't hold much water against subsequent publications (at least not with the wiki-dumps thus far).
Click to expand...

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.
 
3bodyproblem said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the likelihood of either suing jref from simply having a member link to them, or post a snippet of one is what? Zero?
 
3bodyproblem said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously, those with JREF's legal liabilities, share and rejoice in your surety assessment, ...or, perhaps not.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Obviously, those with JREF's legal liabilities, share and rejoice in your surety assessment, ...or, perhaps not.
Click to expand...

So of all the many thousands of places that published the information - from newspapers to politicians to television networks to private blogs - would be in danger too?

Just when will the climategate email victims come forth and sue these groups and individuals do you reckon? :rolleyes:
 
A.A.Alfie said:
So of all the many thousands of places that published the information - from newspapers to politicians to television networks to private blogs - would be in danger too?

Just when will the climategate email victims come forth and sue these groups and individuals do you reckon? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There are potential legal issues and definite ethical issues, it matters little that you seem uncaring or oblivious to them.
 
TShaitanaku said:
There are potential legal issues and definite ethical issues, it matters little that you seem uncaring or oblivious to them.
Click to expand...

So with all these potential legal issues, just how many have been acted upon, and if none, when do you expect thgem to commence?

It is these questions being asked. Care to respond?
 
TShaitanaku said:
Yours, or those responsible for keeping JREF well away from any potential legal suits or complications?
Click to expand...

Yours. You're doing an awful lot of hand waving over this. The last set of cables comes with more legal complications, and yet there's been no management intervention. It's curious to say the least.

Last time it was what? A few members saying there were possible legal ramifications for reprinting these emails? Over what, a couple of threads?

Now there's no less than 10 active threads and a government official calling for an inquiry of sorts and nada. Nothing has been done.

Alarming.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Yours. You're doing an awful lot of hand waving over this. The last set of cables comes with more legal complications, and yet there's been no management intervention. It's curious to say the least.

Last time it was what? A few members saying there were possible legal ramifications for reprinting these emails? Over what, a couple of threads?

Now there's no less than 10 active threads and a government official calling for an inquiry of sorts and nada. Nothing has been done.

Alarming.
Click to expand...

LOL
Have you got your duct tape, plastic sheeting and aluminium foil?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
So with all these potential legal issues, just how many have been acted upon, and if none, when do you expect thgem to commence?

It is these questions being asked. Care to respond?
Click to expand...

Do you only avoid running stop signs when you see people getting tickets for running stop signs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom