5 ms·

It’s amazing to me the distinction the government is making here with Wikileaks. How many things related to the Russian probe were leaked last year? Wasn’t it o

It’s amazing to me the distinction the government is making here with Wikileaks. How many things related to the Russian probe were leaked last year? Wasn’t it one “bombshell” after another? No problems there even though that information turned out to be false but was plastered across every tv screen in the country.

duxup 7y ago
Reporters who reported on those leaks are largely in the clear. Had they tried to give someone help someone " (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information" ... they likely would be in a lot of trouble. Such as "hey man here's how to hack Muller's computer" and so forth (that's a very blunt example but it would qualify). That isn't a line that gets crossed by reporters very often in the US. It's hard to talk about in here as so few people want to talk about the actual charges, but that step in assisting (or trying to) is the key to these charges.
- AshamedCaptain 7y ago
  So what is the following page, other than a tool to help circumvent legal safeguards on information? It even includes information on how to encrypt your leak so that you're not caught... https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips
  - duxup 7y ago
    Encrypting your own information, or providing information is clearly not the same as "here's how to hack someone's computer" (again blunt example but it is the gist of the difference).
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Of course reporters are largely in the clear based on what we know so far. But the DOJ and intelligence agency officers who selectively leaked information about the Russia investigation and unmasked people to the press in order to foment their own narrative should technically be prosecuted just as Manning and Snowden were. If enough insiders keep doing it and they all mostly agree with each other, and they are the only ones in charge of initiating these prosecutions, obviously they aren't going to prosecute themselves for breaking the rules in the same manner they went after relative outsiders such as Manning and Snowden. And they obviously would turn a blind eye to reporters they are cozy with, compared to how deeply they looked into Assange.
  - duxup 7y ago
    It's a tough line to find there with what you propose. I'm not happy about all leaks, particularly those that seem to intend to deceive / distort. On the other hand it's hard to really draw that line when it comes to intent for sure without shutting down all and any leaks, and leaks are an important part of democracy. Every government has to find a way to deal with them, and hopefully not cross the ever moving line. The hacking thing though, I think that's a legitimate line. How much Assange did or did at all, courts get to decide that. Leaks are just such a difficult area to manage.
  - noelsusman 7y ago
    Most of those leaks likely came from the Trump camp, not DOJ. But yeah, government employees who leak classified information are charged all the time. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

duxup 7y ago

Reporters who reported on those leaks are largely in the clear. Had they tried to give someone help someone " (i) circumvent legal safeguards on information" ... they likely would be in a lot of trouble. Such as "hey man here's how to hack Muller's computer" and so forth (that's a very blunt example but it would qualify). That isn't a line that gets crossed by reporters very often in the US. It's hard to talk about in here as so few people want to talk about the actual charges, but that step in assisting (or trying to) is the key to these charges.

AshamedCaptain 7y ago
So what is the following page, other than a tool to help circumvent legal safeguards on information? It even includes information on how to encrypt your leak so that you're not caught... https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips
- duxup 7y ago
  Encrypting your own information, or providing information is clearly not the same as "here's how to hack someone's computer" (again blunt example but it is the gist of the difference).
drak0n1c 7y ago
Of course reporters are largely in the clear based on what we know so far. But the DOJ and intelligence agency officers who selectively leaked information about the Russia investigation and unmasked people to the press in order to foment their own narrative should technically be prosecuted just as Manning and Snowden were. If enough insiders keep doing it and they all mostly agree with each other, and they are the only ones in charge of initiating these prosecutions, obviously they aren't going to prosecute themselves for breaking the rules in the same manner they went after relative outsiders such as Manning and Snowden. And they obviously would turn a blind eye to reporters they are cozy with, compared to how deeply they looked into Assange.
- duxup 7y ago
  It's a tough line to find there with what you propose. I'm not happy about all leaks, particularly those that seem to intend to deceive / distort. On the other hand it's hard to really draw that line when it comes to intent for sure without shutting down all and any leaks, and leaks are an important part of democracy. Every government has to find a way to deal with them, and hopefully not cross the ever moving line. The hacking thing though, I think that's a legitimate line. How much Assange did or did at all, courts get to decide that. Leaks are just such a difficult area to manage.
- noelsusman 7y ago
  Most of those leaks likely came from the Trump camp, not DOJ. But yeah, government employees who leak classified information are charged all the time. I'm not sure what you're getting at.