4 ms·

As far as I understood what was happening is that he may have broken the law by how he got the information, not by releasing the info. I think the accusation is

As far as I understood what was happening is that he may have broken the law by how he got the information, not by releasing the info. I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info. I haven't followed the case too closely so maybe I'm wrong on that. But if that's what they're accusing him of doing, I struggle to see how that's just doing journalism. Maybe journalistic methods to extract info aren't so black and white and some do similar things and yet I imagine there is a line where that info gathering becomes illegal.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
> I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info. He told Manning "curious eyes never run dry," but more importantly that is one of the eighteen charges he faces. The others are all for publishing classified documents. If he only faced that one charge, I'd still disagree that it matters but I would understand your point of view. As is, they're using that charge to justify an attack on the free press.
pydry 5y ago
No, he broke the espionage law by releasing the info. It is ludicrously broad. It's the same reason Snowden refuses to come home. He's repeatedly promised to come home if they tighten the definition of the espionage to include, y'know, just espionage. Congress refuses.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I just looked into the indictment and the laws he's accused of breaking and yeah, they're all in the espionage section. It does seem quite broad to me. I also think way too much stuff is classified these days. At the same time, I guess I'm confused at what a government should do. The way I read the US code title 18 793 is that it's basically illegal to access and disseminate classified information. If that isn't a law, what's the point of having classified information? Shouldn't it be illegal? How could the law be tightened? I'm open for ideas, just not seeing how to tighten it.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Snowden had a specific proposal IIRC. i think it was basically an exception for public interest.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

> I think the accusation is that he essentially encouraged someone to hack into computers, which sounds similar to encouraging someone to break into someone's home or office, to retrieve info. He told Manning "curious eyes never run dry," but more importantly that is one of the eighteen charges he faces. The others are all for publishing classified documents. If he only faced that one charge, I'd still disagree that it matters but I would understand your point of view. As is, they're using that charge to justify an attack on the free press.

pydry 5y ago

No, he broke the espionage law by releasing the info. It is ludicrously broad. It's the same reason Snowden refuses to come home. He's repeatedly promised to come home if they tighten the definition of the espionage to include, y'know, just espionage. Congress refuses.

jimkleiber 5y ago
I just looked into the indictment and the laws he's accused of breaking and yeah, they're all in the espionage section. It does seem quite broad to me. I also think way too much stuff is classified these days. At the same time, I guess I'm confused at what a government should do. The way I read the US code title 18 793 is that it's basically illegal to access and disseminate classified information. If that isn't a law, what's the point of having classified information? Shouldn't it be illegal? How could the law be tightened? I'm open for ideas, just not seeing how to tighten it.
- pydry 5y ago
  Snowden had a specific proposal IIRC. i think it was basically an exception for public interest.