6 ms·

> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulati

> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War. We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which are now being misused. Another example is 200 year old laws being used to get companies to break encryption.

int_19h 7y ago
ITAR has many absurdities to it. For example, many items that are imported into US, cannot be re-exported because of ITAR. This is especially amusing when the country of origin is China. Also, the article is somewhat misleading when it says that the law "encompasses a wide range of actual military equipment that can’t be replicated in a home garage, such as space launch vehicles, nuclear reactors, and anti-helicopter mines". I mean, it's true that the law does encompass all of these - but it also applies to many things that can be replicated in a home garage. For example, wood furniture (handguard or pistol grip) for any firearm is an ITAR-controlled item. The combination of these two is why there are a lot of small businesses in Europe and Asia that import firearm accessories and other "tactical" products into the US, but US exports are all done by large corporations that can go through the regulatory hurdles.
ryanlol 7y ago
Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?
- mschuster91 7y ago
  The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of <long list>". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo, NYT) - but small operations like local papers, small radio stations, bloggers, they rather retreat than to lose their existence. And it's not just about the money for lawyers that the losing party ends up with - it's also a huge loss of time and in case of actual criminal accusations (e.g. libel, or fraud if I go undercover as a journalist) the risk of jail time or a criminal record. Journalists need better financing and the legal system a reform. As long as the standards of decent journalism are adhered it should not be a crime in any way or even carry the risk of that.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection. Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well. Additionally the amount of lawyer fees that can be awarded to the losing side should be capped. In Germany you're free to charge your client whatever you want as a lawyer (there are minimums to prevent dumping though)... but if your client wins, your client will only get a (highly capped) amount of these costs from the losing side and be on the hook for the rest.
      - ryanlol 7y ago
        How do you decide who is and isn’t a journalist? Can journalists really do no wrong?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - barry-cotter 7y ago
        Journalists aren’t special. They’re not a protected class and their job isn’t sacred. Freedom of the press meant freedom to use a printing press, not membership of a profession. Whistleblower protection doesn’t exist in practice. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe... > Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers > Joshua Wilson > Wilson and Major Jeremy Gordon exposed the malfunctioning oxygen system on board the F-22 Raptor systems that were causing pilots to become disoriented, first to superior officers and then to CBS 60 Minutes. As a result, Wilson's superiors cancelled his promotion to Major, took him off flying duty and threatened to take away his wings. Wilson was also forced out of his desk job at Air Combat Command. No such actions faced Major Gordon. > Carmen Segarra > Carmen Segarra discovered that Goldman Sachs did not have a conflict of interest policy when it advised El Paso Corp. on selling itself to Kinder Morgan, a company which Goldman Sachs owned a $4 billion stake. She was forced by her superiors at the Federal Reserve to falsify her report, but stated that her professional view of the situation had not changed. She was shortly thereafter fired.[216] The New York Federal Reserve disputes that she was fired in retaliation. > John Crane > Crane built up the DoD IG office over his 25 years there to become the "gold standard" within the government but had his career destroyed for his support of government whistleblowers. Edward Snowden went public rather than reporting within the system due to severe reprisal against earlier NSA whistleblowers.
- saghm 7y ago
  In the context of a lawyer of a threatening to sue to stifle a legitimate news story that their client wants suppressed, yes, that really seems like a problem.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    But is it a problem with the old laws (e.g. ITAR)?

int_19h 7y ago

ITAR has many absurdities to it. For example, many items that are imported into US, cannot be re-exported because of ITAR. This is especially amusing when the country of origin is China. Also, the article is somewhat misleading when it says that the law "encompasses a wide range of actual military equipment that can’t be replicated in a home garage, such as space launch vehicles, nuclear reactors, and anti-helicopter mines". I mean, it's true that the law does encompass all of these - but it also applies to many things that can be replicated in a home garage. For example, wood furniture (handguard or pistol grip) for any firearm is an ITAR-controlled item. The combination of these two is why there are a lot of small businesses in Europe and Asia that import firearm accessories and other "tactical" products into the US, but US exports are all done by large corporations that can go through the regulatory hurdles.

ryanlol 7y ago

Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?

mschuster91 7y ago
The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of <long list>". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo, NYT) - but small operations like local papers, small radio stations, bloggers, they rather retreat than to lose their existence. And it's not just about the money for lawyers that the losing party ends up with - it's also a huge loss of time and in case of actual criminal accusations (e.g. libel, or fraud if I go undercover as a journalist) the risk of jail time or a criminal record. Journalists need better financing and the legal system a reform. As long as the standards of decent journalism are adhered it should not be a crime in any way or even carry the risk of that.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection. Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well. Additionally the amount of lawyer fees that can be awarded to the losing side should be capped. In Germany you're free to charge your client whatever you want as a lawyer (there are minimums to prevent dumping though)... but if your client wins, your client will only get a (highly capped) amount of these costs from the losing side and be on the hook for the rest.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      How do you decide who is and isn’t a journalist? Can journalists really do no wrong?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Journalists aren’t special. They’re not a protected class and their job isn’t sacred. Freedom of the press meant freedom to use a printing press, not membership of a profession. Whistleblower protection doesn’t exist in practice. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe... > Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers > Joshua Wilson > Wilson and Major Jeremy Gordon exposed the malfunctioning oxygen system on board the F-22 Raptor systems that were causing pilots to become disoriented, first to superior officers and then to CBS 60 Minutes. As a result, Wilson's superiors cancelled his promotion to Major, took him off flying duty and threatened to take away his wings. Wilson was also forced out of his desk job at Air Combat Command. No such actions faced Major Gordon. > Carmen Segarra > Carmen Segarra discovered that Goldman Sachs did not have a conflict of interest policy when it advised El Paso Corp. on selling itself to Kinder Morgan, a company which Goldman Sachs owned a $4 billion stake. She was forced by her superiors at the Federal Reserve to falsify her report, but stated that her professional view of the situation had not changed. She was shortly thereafter fired.[216] The New York Federal Reserve disputes that she was fired in retaliation. > John Crane > Crane built up the DoD IG office over his 25 years there to become the "gold standard" within the government but had his career destroyed for his support of government whistleblowers. Edward Snowden went public rather than reporting within the system due to severe reprisal against earlier NSA whistleblowers.
saghm 7y ago
In the context of a lawyer of a threatening to sue to stifle a legitimate news story that their client wants suppressed, yes, that really seems like a problem.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  But is it a problem with the old laws (e.g. ITAR)?