3 ms·

I'm pretty sure passing information to Russia and Witchcraft were serious criminal incidents at the time. Guilt by association has never been valid.

by ig1 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
I'm not sure it's fair to compare passing information to the Soviet Union to witchcraft, either. It's also probably not fair to invoke "guilt by association" to a criminal investigation. There is a difference between investigating them and convicting them, or even indicting them, and a sliding scale of burdens the government needs to meet to do each thing in between. Is there any evidence anywhere that Moxie has been charged with any crime? I feel bad for Moxie. But he's 1 degree of seperation for Wikileaks. I know Wikileaks seems relatively harmless in Internetland, but it's a Very Big Deal in the real world.
- sp332 16y ago
  Much too late now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible Edit: OK, I misunderstood tptacek's point.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    If it's your impression that I'm saying there was anything reasonable about prosecuting people for witchcraft: no. If it's your impression that I'm saying there was anything reasonable about prosecuting people for passing industrial, commercial, or military secrets to the Soviet Union: of course there was. Were people unfairly prosecuted? Yes. Was the discretion to investigate people abused for political purposes? Yes. But don't be naive. There was actual, serious espionage. The Soviet Union was basically our sworn enemy for many decades. I know Internetland is one big happy family, but the real world isn't.
- ig1 16y ago
  It looks very much like a campaign of harassment rather than a genuine investigation. It seems unlikely that investigators could have got a court injunction on the basis that they were investigating him under. Pretty much everyone in the security community is probably only 1-2 degrees of separation away from wikileaks. On the basis that his name was in someone's phonebook, you could probably subject pretty much everyone at defcon to investigation.

I'm pretty sure passing information to Russia and Witchcraft were serious criminal incidents at the time. Guilt by association has never been valid.

by ig1 16y ago

I'm pretty sure passing information to Russia and Witchcraft were serious criminal incidents at the time. Guilt by association has never been valid.

tptacek 16y ago

I'm not sure it's fair to compare passing information to the Soviet Union to witchcraft, either. It's also probably not fair to invoke "guilt by association" to a criminal investigation. There is a difference between investigating them and convicting them, or even indicting them, and a sliding scale of burdens the government needs to meet to do each thing in between. Is there any evidence anywhere that Moxie has been charged with any crime? I feel bad for Moxie. But he's 1 degree of seperation for Wikileaks. I know Wikileaks seems relatively harmless in Internetland, but it's a Very Big Deal in the real world.

sp332 16y ago
Much too late now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible Edit: OK, I misunderstood tptacek's point.
- tptacek 16y ago
  If it's your impression that I'm saying there was anything reasonable about prosecuting people for witchcraft: no. If it's your impression that I'm saying there was anything reasonable about prosecuting people for passing industrial, commercial, or military secrets to the Soviet Union: of course there was. Were people unfairly prosecuted? Yes. Was the discretion to investigate people abused for political purposes? Yes. But don't be naive. There was actual, serious espionage. The Soviet Union was basically our sworn enemy for many decades. I know Internetland is one big happy family, but the real world isn't.
ig1 16y ago
It looks very much like a campaign of harassment rather than a genuine investigation. It seems unlikely that investigators could have got a court injunction on the basis that they were investigating him under. Pretty much everyone in the security community is probably only 1-2 degrees of separation away from wikileaks. On the basis that his name was in someone's phonebook, you could probably subject pretty much everyone at defcon to investigation.