3 ms·

It's not Wikileaks' job to save the DNC, but they could claim more moral authority if they didn't so brazenly also play a role in disseminating donor financial

It's not Wikileaks' job to save the DNC, but they could claim more moral authority if they didn't so brazenly also play a role in disseminating donor financial information. That's essentially what Snowden is saying. Go ahead and expose things worthy of exposure (by all means!), but doing so in a way that puts others at risk is irresponsible. If your home gets broken into because the door was left unlocked, is the thief innocent because "you are to blame"? No. Sure, you bear some responsibility for not being more responsible and exercising better judgment; but you're not the one who committed the theft.

fit2rule 10y ago
The problem is, the word 'theft'. There is no theft possible in an open protocol such as email. There is only interception and observation - which occurs inherently as a part of the way email is handled. If the original author of the leaked emails had used encryption, none of this would matter. The fact that they chose not to encrypt the contents of the email, instead stupidly thinking that email was secure by nature (it most definitely is NOT), is the real issue here. If I hear you shouting your social security number at the top of your voice to your friend across the room, its not my responsibility that your information is no longer secure or protected. Its yours, and yours alone. The technological incompetence of the authors of DNC emails is the issue here, people. Do you really want someone running the country who can't even fathom the most basic, basic aspects of the technology that runs the world?
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Even if you hear somebody shouting a secret across the room, you can choose not to rebroadcast that information.
- csydas 10y ago
  No, this is wrong from a legal standpoint, at least with US law and many EU laws as well. Ownership laws are fairly clear and have lots of precedent in regards to email, and there are also clearly defined cases of theft and violations of the CFAA. Your analogy breaks down in that the leaks are are a result of a breach, most certainly a violation of CFAA. No current understanding of law shares your opinion that because it's an open protocol that you no longer have agency over the content. Security measures were put in place, though certainly not enough to prevent a major leak. Though I hate bringing in analogies, you're not more culpable for your house being broken into just because you don't have 6 cm steel shutters for all openings; it's certainly more secure, but illegal access is illegal access. I say this next part not to be demeaning but to state an assumption of mine, but I'm going to assume you probably dislike the CFAA; I do as well, but to say there's no theft possible is a naive notion in the face of labyrinthine laws. The world has been dealing with email breaches since your average hacker got a home connection fast enough to move a few megabytes of data without timing out. The law's opinion on theft of email is incredibly different from your own.
  - fit2rule 10y ago
    >The law's opinion on theft of email is incredibly different from your own. Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? Also, since when was Hillarys' personal email server covered by the same facet? As an outsider looking in, it doesn't appear to me that CFAA applies: are the DNC computers exclusively for the use of the US Gov't? Was Hillarys' email server? I think these are very interesting questions .. and I ask them in earnest, since I'm clearly naive about the CFAA (and thank you for making this point clear..)
    - detaro 10y ago
      CFAA applies to basically all computers in the US (technically it doesn't if no network traffic crosses state borders, but that seems hard to argue in the days of the internet), not just those under government control. The requirement is either government use or interstate communication, not both.
      - fit2rule 10y ago
        That is indeed a broad and over-reaching law. Fascinating, thanks for the education.
    - LA_Banker 10y ago
      >Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? U.S. Law (U.S. Code or "U.S.C.") doesn't just cover the government. It covers, well, the U.S. Were you thinking Constitutional Law, which limits the powers of the government? The issue here is that the hackers are foreign. Had you compromised DNC (or RNC! or Goldman Sachs') servers and were an American, you can rest assured there'd be some not-so-friendly men in suits at your door. It's one among a body of laws that makes black hat hacking and theft of private information illegal. That doesn't strike me as overreaching. I'd prefer that my computer (or my bank's servers) not be hacked – and that there be criminal laws in place to deter it. Just like how I should protect myself such that I'm not a victim of homicide... but I still appreciate homicide laws in place. Sure, both I and the bank should have proper security protocols in place, but there should also be some criminal recourse for those who decide to commit such crimes.
venomsnake 10y ago
The analogy is wrong - the DNC situation is akin to Oberyn Martell saying he don't need helmet. Everybody that has spent more than 3 hours on the internet already knows that everyone is out there to get you.
- LA_Banker 10y ago
  >Everybody that has spent more than 3 hours on the internet already knows that everyone is out there to get you. Yes, just like every adult knows thieves are out there to get to your valuables. It means you should secure them, sure, but that doesn't absolve them of guilt if/when they successfully steal based on your failure to store everything in an underground vault.

fit2rule 10y ago

The problem is, the word 'theft'. There is no theft possible in an open protocol such as email. There is only interception and observation - which occurs inherently as a part of the way email is handled. If the original author of the leaked emails had used encryption, none of this would matter. The fact that they chose not to encrypt the contents of the email, instead stupidly thinking that email was secure by nature (it most definitely is NOT), is the real issue here. If I hear you shouting your social security number at the top of your voice to your friend across the room, its not my responsibility that your information is no longer secure or protected. Its yours, and yours alone. The technological incompetence of the authors of DNC emails is the issue here, people. Do you really want someone running the country who can't even fathom the most basic, basic aspects of the technology that runs the world?

tedunangst 10y ago
Even if you hear somebody shouting a secret across the room, you can choose not to rebroadcast that information.
csydas 10y ago
No, this is wrong from a legal standpoint, at least with US law and many EU laws as well. Ownership laws are fairly clear and have lots of precedent in regards to email, and there are also clearly defined cases of theft and violations of the CFAA. Your analogy breaks down in that the leaks are are a result of a breach, most certainly a violation of CFAA. No current understanding of law shares your opinion that because it's an open protocol that you no longer have agency over the content. Security measures were put in place, though certainly not enough to prevent a major leak. Though I hate bringing in analogies, you're not more culpable for your house being broken into just because you don't have 6 cm steel shutters for all openings; it's certainly more secure, but illegal access is illegal access. I say this next part not to be demeaning but to state an assumption of mine, but I'm going to assume you probably dislike the CFAA; I do as well, but to say there's no theft possible is a naive notion in the face of labyrinthine laws. The world has been dealing with email breaches since your average hacker got a home connection fast enough to move a few megabytes of data without timing out. The law's opinion on theft of email is incredibly different from your own.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  >The law's opinion on theft of email is incredibly different from your own. Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? Also, since when was Hillarys' personal email server covered by the same facet? As an outsider looking in, it doesn't appear to me that CFAA applies: are the DNC computers exclusively for the use of the US Gov't? Was Hillarys' email server? I think these are very interesting questions .. and I ask them in earnest, since I'm clearly naive about the CFAA (and thank you for making this point clear..)
  - detaro 10y ago
    CFAA applies to basically all computers in the US (technically it doesn't if no network traffic crosses state borders, but that seems hard to argue in the days of the internet), not just those under government control. The requirement is either government use or interstate communication, not both.
    - fit2rule 10y ago
      That is indeed a broad and over-reaching law. Fascinating, thanks for the education.
  - LA_Banker 10y ago
    >Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? U.S. Law (U.S. Code or "U.S.C.") doesn't just cover the government. It covers, well, the U.S. Were you thinking Constitutional Law, which limits the powers of the government? The issue here is that the hackers are foreign. Had you compromised DNC (or RNC! or Goldman Sachs') servers and were an American, you can rest assured there'd be some not-so-friendly men in suits at your door. It's one among a body of laws that makes black hat hacking and theft of private information illegal. That doesn't strike me as overreaching. I'd prefer that my computer (or my bank's servers) not be hacked – and that there be criminal laws in place to deter it. Just like how I should protect myself such that I'm not a victim of homicide... but I still appreciate homicide laws in place. Sure, both I and the bank should have proper security protocols in place, but there should also be some criminal recourse for those who decide to commit such crimes.

venomsnake 10y ago

The analogy is wrong - the DNC situation is akin to Oberyn Martell saying he don't need helmet. Everybody that has spent more than 3 hours on the internet already knows that everyone is out there to get you.

LA_Banker 10y ago
>Everybody that has spent more than 3 hours on the internet already knows that everyone is out there to get you. Yes, just like every adult knows thieves are out there to get to your valuables. It means you should secure them, sure, but that doesn't absolve them of guilt if/when they successfully steal based on your failure to store everything in an underground vault.