WikiLeaks In New Legal Battle 86
geegel writes "The US Justice Department is now fighting in court demands from three WikiLeaks associates to disclose the names of several electronic service platforms that received requests to hand over user information. This comes after Twitter obtained a court order to unseal the demands in order to notify the three persons. The current legal row has seen both the ACLU and the EFF provide legal assistance to the WikiLeaks associates."
So many 503s (Score:1)
If you want to post, you might get through using the https page:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/06/04/1650250/WikiLeaks-In-New-Legal-Battle [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like there's a problem with their Varnish config. Someone needs to light a few firecrackers under that guru's ass.
Re: (Score:1)
Still better than fail whales balancing beach balls.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to Cowboy Neil?
Re:So many 503s (Score:5, Informative)
We're working on the 503 problems. Sorry it's been such a pain.
Re: (Score:2)
With what? Good intentions and bad language? Whatever you're using hasn't worked in a long time...
slashdot in new battle with 503s (Score:1, Offtopic)
wait till alex jones haers about this!!!11!11! (Score:2)
did you know there is.... a slashdot japan?
clearly, they are in with the 'globalist banksters'
Re:EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:EFF (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll bite.
What about the new york times and bazillions of other news organizations? How does the type of organization you are determine the legality of ones actions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EFF (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you accept the US's jurisdiction as world-wide, what Wikileaks did wasn't illegal. It falls squarely under freedom of the press. What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it, but once the information is out there, the media has no obligation to cover it up.
Re: (Score:2)
What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it
He has /already/ been punished and made an example of. I wander how history will remember Manning...
Re: (Score:1)
What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it
He has /already/ been punished and made an example of. I wander how history will remember Manning...
Assuming you mean "wonder" and "wander" was a typo Manning's likely to be veiwed like all too many spies/oathbreakers: some will think he was useful at best maybe even sympathetic, but NEVER to be trusted or believed. And if it turns out Wikileaks is just Julian Assange's anti-US cult-of-personality, Manning will go down as a tool.
Not too many spies in history who divulged classified/secret data who are held in high esteem by anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
president obama, is that you? (Score:2)
sir, with all due respect, don't you have better things to do than post on slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but why should the US constitution apply world-wide only because its other laws do?
Re: (Score:3)
What Manning did was illegal, ...
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He is still only a suspect ...
Re: (Score:1)
What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it
What Manning allegedly did.
All hail the EFF (Score:3)
What they did was illegal. You can't post classified and / or stolen information.
Tell it to the New York Times, asshole posting as AC.
Or listen to the laughter if you tell it to any reputable news publication.
Re:EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe in the EFF. I wish they never defended wikileaks. What they did was illegal. You can't post classified and / or stolen information. Pretty simple.
As your privacy is gradually stripped away, how many times have you heard the words "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear."
Re: (Score:1)
Cause if it is the law... (Score:2)
please show me exactly which law says that (Score:3, Interesting)
because you can't.
there is no law banning the 'leaking' of classified information.
there are several different laws that ban specific types of information, some of it classified, in certain situations, by certain people.
the truth is that the vast majority of the documents that Manning released do not fall under any law simply becasue they are classified.
read his charge sheet, then look up the actual laws and read them. the civilian laws that he broke do not use the word 'classified'. at all. the Espionage Ac
Re: (Score:2)
Young Manning doesn't have to be guilty of the various laws which you have attempted to cite. Mr. Manning is and was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He broke many regulations under that code. It remains to be seen whether the advocates can or will press the case as a capital case. They COULD.
And, before you try to tell me that the UCMJ doesn't authorize capital punishment - it does. In fact, a summary court martial followed by an immediate execution is unheard of today, but the UCMJ st
he is not charged with 'posting' 'classified' info (Score:2)
even if you look at the military charges...
they are things like 'moving information from a classified system to an unclassified system', or 'using a computer for its non-intended purpose'. it doesnt have anything about 'passing classified information to wikileaks'. it might say a lot of things, but thats one thing it doesnt say.
you have also mentioned 'stolen' information. this i find very hard to understand. all US government work is uncopyrightable, it is in the public domain. where does the 'value' then
Re: (Score:2)
why i am upset (Score:2)
because the media has painted him as the 'worst leaker in history' when the charges do not justify this portrayal
because the anger against wikileaks and Manning, stoked by illogical and incorrect assertions regarding his actions and the legality or illegality of them, will result in bad legal precedent, if he is convicted on all counts
because that precedent will then be used to target many, many other people for things like leaking embarassing videos.
If Manning's precedent stands on the Collateral Murder vi
Re: (Score:2)
He is not charged with Treason either. Why not? Could it be that the 'worst leaker in US military history' didnt leak anything all that important? Could it be that the state department over-classifies most of its material for political reasons?
No, it's because Treason is a crime specifically defined in the US Constitution. Manning's circumstances don't meet the Constitutional test for treason.
As far as I recall or know, only one person has been charged with treason sinc
where should i be looking? (Score:2)
The first article you linked to discusses a lot of allegations in the wikileaks info - it doesnt go into much detail about the disruption caused.
The second article you linked to says this: "The repercussions for US diplomats, some of whom have written colourful descriptions of their host countries and leaders, have so far been relatively minor."
"It said officials believed the disclosure of the cables had affected contacts in some countries between US diplomats and human rights activists, who were now wary
Re: (Score:2)
What wikileaks did was illegal? Please, cite some laws that they broke. If you actually find some laws that you think that they broke, then PLEASE follow up with your rationale for US jurisdiction over wikileaks and/or Julian Assange. I would really prefer if you could keep it rational, and paint a nice clear picture for dummies to understand.
Before you start, allow me to point out that Julian is not a US citizen, nor is wikileaks a US company, corporation, organization, nonprofit, or any other such enti
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone already pointed out, you can't really steal information that is in the public domain to begin with. As for WikiLeaks selling the intel, I would be very sceptical of such reports. There's a lot of disinfo mixed in with the real information regarding WikiLeaks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying I can steal your car and then leave it in parking lot some where with the keys in the ignition.
Here we are talking about intellectual property, as opposed to tangible goods.
The military documents were definitely not in the public domain.
On one hand, you have information as completely abstract concept which is not a property, and you have documents (classified or otherwise) which are tangible copyrightable work of the US agencies. Since US has a rule that government-produced work cannot be copyrighted [wikipedia.org] it does not enjoy the level of protection that other copyrighted works enjoy. This applies to all documents produced within the government. Military documents are, n
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
IP can be considered tangible goods in every since of the word. But I seriously doubt the military gives a damn about the nuances of copyright law in this instance.
And you're right. Military doesn't give a shit about copyright protection because there is none. They do care about copyrighted work of their contractors, but that's a different matter, and certainly has nothing to do with diplomatic cables in question. Diplomatic staff are all government people, so whatever material they produce is considered public domain, regardless of their classification. So, they cannot care about copyright laws even if they wanted to. What they do care about is the way classified doc
Hey Slashdot! (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you turned over any records to the Feds concerning Wikileaks members (or any records, period)? If you can't comment on that, then perhaps you could outline what Slashdot's policy is for turning over records to law enforcement when not accompanied by a Federal warrant or National Security letter.
They have and they will (Score:4, Interesting)
Years ago someone posted the "top secret" scientology documents into the comments and they were deleted. I can't recall if it was court ordered or merely a scare letter from an attorney.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I can recall. It was court ordered. Gun-on-the-head-like. The whole site would have gone down, and the guys gone to coercive contention. Something like that.
Yes, that's a crime, and the criminal is the child-raping terrorist mass-murdering jacking-off-into-the-wounds-of-the-tortured financially conspiring social engineering warlocks called "Scientology"*. With the assistance of a Cheney-like court, lacking spines, balls, a heart, or any kind of emotion, pissing on the constitution and shitting on the faces
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago someone posted the "top secret" scientology documents into the comments and they were deleted. I can't recall if it was court ordered or merely a scare letter from an attorney.
I know this is rather unrelated here, but the real difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of secrecy leaders want/need. I don't subscribe to organized religion, but I don't recall other religions being so damned secretive of their "documents", which is rather laughable with scientology, since most of their "documents" can be found in the science fiction section if any bookstore, filed under "Hubbard".
Re:Hey Slashdot! (Score:5, Informative)
We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else. I'm not aware of any requests happening before that either, but I couldn't say for sure.
The closest we've come, to my knowledge, was a DMCA takedown request [slashdot.org] after copyrighted Scientology material was posted in a comment. The comment ended up being deleted, but I think the post pretty clearly illustrates how we felt about that. There was also a time Microsoft asked us to remove some comments [slashdot.org] back in 2000. Those comments stayed in place [slashdot.org].
I actually have no idea if we have a "policy" for such requests, since it hasn't come up. If it were up to me, I'd tell them to get stuffed. I suspect CmdrTaco would as well. Honestly, I don't know what records we'd have that would be worth requesting.
Re:Hey Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else.
Look. I know how this stuff goes. You can't exactly say that you did, but if you have, just give us a signal -- Maybe just cough twice (er, no -- something electronic...) OK just cause a few server errors -- that'll be the signal.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else.
OK just cause a few server errors -- that'll be the signal.
So, every one of those damned 503 errors was a subpoena or NSL-based request? Wait, you probably can't answer that and stay out of PMITA accommodations, so I'll rephrase it.
So, every one of those damned 503 errors caused your nose to grow longer?
Re: (Score:3)
I've always wondered whether libraries/etc who would like to protest these kinds of gag orders could easily get around them in this manner:
Every week post a list of library card numbers with the statement "we declare that we've never gotten a request for records for any of these numbers."
Then one week the list change slightly - three numbers are missing from the list, and a new list is started "we can neither confirm nor deny that we've gotten a request for records of any of these numbers."
Or every time you
Re: (Score:2)
From what I recall, one library actually did that. They got smacked down, if I recall correctly.
you misunderstand librarians (Score:2)
i would say the vast majority do not understand or care about what you are talking about. if the police come asking for stuff, their first instinct is to be helpful and get rid of the 'bad people'.
libraries are top down bureaucracies that make corporate life seem like a montessori school. independent thought is not allowed, especially regarding "the computers", control of which many library administrators cling to as some kind of ailment for middle age.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. What a story. Got any bears left? I haven't had a bear steak in ages. Don't ruin those good bears with gay little vienna sausages though - I'll pass on them!
The real question here is... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are in the right.. well.. why hide it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the justice dept want to hide who it is asking records from.
If they are in the right.. well.. why hide it.
Because
A) the public might get uppity and demand that private corporations not give up information without a fight.
B) the public might stop patronising the services of private corporations that the government requests information from.
Those are both very real arguments that have been made by government lawyers in court cases.
The government can't afford to have corporations stonewall them because the public doesn't like being snooped on.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the justice dept want to hide who it is asking records from.
If they are in the right.. well.. why hide it.
Because surveillance operations and investigations are usually most effective when they're secret so the subjects of the investigation / surveillance don't change their incriminating behavior, or try to destroy evidence?
Really, is this not obvious? Why don't football players call the play in the open when they line up so the other team can hear? "Left end run on three -- hut - hut - hut - Oh! That had to hurt!"
Revealing investigations and surveillance operations means effectively no more sting operations.
Re: (Score:2)
If they hadn't spent so much time destroying their own credibility with the people and if they didn't act so much like paranoid lunatics most of the time, people would voluntarily keep it quiet, just for the asking.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't have the subjects getting all uppity and thinking the government is supposed to serve them and shit.
National Defense is Different (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:National Defense is Different (Score:4, Informative)
Once upon a time [cbsnews.com], Haiti was going to increase their minimum wage from $0.24/hour to $0.61/hour. Levi Strauss and Hanes (among others) didn't like that, so the US State Department pressuredHaiti to create an exemption for textile workers.
The only reason anyone knows that happened is because of wikileaks.
Re:National Defense is Different (Score:4, Informative)
Once upon a time, ...
"Once upon a time"? What a splendidly evasive way to say, under the Obama Administration.
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap [businessinsider.com]
Once again we see Wikileaks essentially in the role of, "If you don't know it, it's news to you". Geeks that wouldn't give a damn about anything in Haiti are finally reading about it in Wikileaks, take whatever information is there with no context, and assume the worst.
Haiti minimum wage protests escalate [smh.com.au]
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be an effing tool.
Republican or Democrat, it makes no bloody difference - are you naive enough to still think the US is a democracy? Both serve corporate interests instead of the people - voting is so fraud infected it's ludicrous.
What Wikileaks has done is allowed EVERYONE to see what's going on, even when people with their heads up their arses say 'nothing new here, move along, Wikileaks isn't important'.
Wake Up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no sympathy for Wikileaks when it comes to National Defense secrets. There is a whole magnitude of difference from corporate malfeasance in these leaks.
My impression of the US diplomats has had a huge boost after reading summaries about how they reported about other countries and people. It was sharp and a lot better than I expected (looking back at eight years of Bush). I haven't seen anything yet that would seriously harm the US interest. For everything that I have read in newspapers, it only has made the world better.
So can you tell me (at least) one national defense secret that has been published and that harms the US?
how do you know what they leaked? (Score:2)
have you been reading about it?
doesn't that make you a criminal too, technically, since you are 'retaining national defense information', which is covered by 18 USC 793 subparagraph (e) ?
Re: (Score:2)
au contraire mon frere (Score:2)
18 USC 793 (Espionage Act)
subparagraph (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, deli
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm paraphrasing this analogy badly, but here goes:
Leaking secrets is like breaking somebody's basement window. Nobody's life is directly threatened by the act, but it may expose the fact that there is a slave in the basement; the owner deserves every bit of embarrassment and punishment that is to follow.
There is nothing in the public sphere that should be kept secret. If officials are running shady international operations, it's only their fault when it blows up in their face.
Top Secret CODE WORD 'R' (Score:1)
WikiLeaks has proven the old school saying about 'being cleared for Ridiculous'.
Re: (Score:1)
It this technique not winnow and chaffe?
Fill the pipe with bullshit and real info... only the cleared monkies know which his which.
Can someone parse the first sentence for me? (Score:2)
Which one is the verb, “is fighting” or “demands”?