5 ms·

That's not against the TOS. Snowden tweets about PRISM all the time on Twitter.

by Dudelander 4y ago

nonethewiser 4y ago
Its against the same hacked materials policy
- noxer 4y ago
  There was no hacking material and no evidence that it could be based on such material. You repeat what they intentionally used as "reason" fully aware that it isn't. Heck even if the new articles about the topic would have used hacked material as source it dint not include that material itself and thus wound not fall under that policy anyway. Not even articles about a confirmed hacks fall under this policy even if the hack is confirmed with the hacked material itself. This is and was a excuse from the very start.
chrisbaker98 4y ago
Sharing hacked materials isn't against the TOS? Twitter explicitly said that they were suppressing the Hunter Biden story because it violated their policy against sharing hacked materials.
tsimionescu 4y ago
Snowden didn't hack the CIA, he obtained the information legally and chose to disclose it (which was probably illegal, but widely regarded as moral). Hacking a 3rd party to obtain information and then disseminate it is a different matter.
- 0cVlTeIATBs 4y ago
  Snowden was specifically charged with stealing the information as well as releasing it.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    Could you explain exactly which statute makes "stealing ... information" a crime?
    - eggnet 4y ago
      Here you go. https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        Interesting, thank you. "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; ..." It's definitely possible to imagine a situation in which Snowden "knowingly ... sells ... any record ... or thing of value of the United States" to Russia, namely a copy of the information he had available to him while working for the NSA. I'm not sure how courts have interpreted "record ... or thing", and whether (for example) a copy of a page from an internal government wiki would count, but let's assume that digital information is a "thing" and that copies of it are still "of the United States". I'll further grant, for the sake of argument, that the US government has secret evidence that such a selling did take place (perhaps witnessed by a double agent working at the Kremlin, who could be called upon to give a witness statement at a trial held in secret), although I don't actually believe such selling occurred. My main point, though, was that I don't know of any court interpreting "steals" in a statute to mean "making an unauthorized copy of" or "leaking". You're right, though, that there are other laws that cover what Snowden did.
        eggnet 4y ago
        > that I don't know of any court interpreting "steals" in a statute to mean "making an unauthorized copy of" or "leaking" Is there some reason you would know this? Intellectual property and classified information are things. You can steal them.
- refurb 4y ago
  That’s a bizarre policy if differentiates between hacked and leaked sources. If, for example, some hacker found out the President is a spy for China they’d suppress it but if a CIA agent breaks the law and leaks it’s fine?
  - heydemo 4y ago
    This actually makes sense. A leaker is someone you've specifically disclosed info to, not just a random adversary. If you can't keep your own team from leaking, greater chance the info you're hiding is in the public interest. A hacker doesn't even know what the information is before the attack and is likely an adversary who will use any information to damage, regardless of public interest.
    - refurb 4y ago
      I’m pretty sure the emails about Hunter’s interactions with the Ukraine government are relevant to the “public interest”? Maybe they show corruption, maybe they don't. But if the article is censored, I guess the public won't get the chance to make a decision for themselves? And as as the Twitter files show and the Democratic rep (Ro Khanna) highlighted, they were banning a “news article” about hacked materials, no hacked materials themselves. Are we prepared to even ban the media from talking about hacked materials?
- maxerickson 4y ago
  There are statutes that criminalize gathering classified information without authorization. Access is not the same as authorization.

That's not against the TOS. Snowden tweets about PRISM all the time on Twitter.

nonethewiser 4y ago

Its against the same hacked materials policy

noxer 4y ago
There was no hacking material and no evidence that it could be based on such material. You repeat what they intentionally used as "reason" fully aware that it isn't. Heck even if the new articles about the topic would have used hacked material as source it dint not include that material itself and thus wound not fall under that policy anyway. Not even articles about a confirmed hacks fall under this policy even if the hack is confirmed with the hacked material itself. This is and was a excuse from the very start.

chrisbaker98 4y ago

Sharing hacked materials isn't against the TOS? Twitter explicitly said that they were suppressing the Hunter Biden story because it violated their policy against sharing hacked materials.

tsimionescu 4y ago

Snowden didn't hack the CIA, he obtained the information legally and chose to disclose it (which was probably illegal, but widely regarded as moral). Hacking a 3rd party to obtain information and then disseminate it is a different matter.

0cVlTeIATBs 4y ago
Snowden was specifically charged with stealing the information as well as releasing it.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Could you explain exactly which statute makes "stealing ... information" a crime?
  - eggnet 4y ago
    Here you go. https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      Interesting, thank you. "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; ..." It's definitely possible to imagine a situation in which Snowden "knowingly ... sells ... any record ... or thing of value of the United States" to Russia, namely a copy of the information he had available to him while working for the NSA. I'm not sure how courts have interpreted "record ... or thing", and whether (for example) a copy of a page from an internal government wiki would count, but let's assume that digital information is a "thing" and that copies of it are still "of the United States". I'll further grant, for the sake of argument, that the US government has secret evidence that such a selling did take place (perhaps witnessed by a double agent working at the Kremlin, who could be called upon to give a witness statement at a trial held in secret), although I don't actually believe such selling occurred. My main point, though, was that I don't know of any court interpreting "steals" in a statute to mean "making an unauthorized copy of" or "leaking". You're right, though, that there are other laws that cover what Snowden did.
      - eggnet 4y ago
        > that I don't know of any court interpreting "steals" in a statute to mean "making an unauthorized copy of" or "leaking" Is there some reason you would know this? Intellectual property and classified information are things. You can steal them.
refurb 4y ago
That’s a bizarre policy if differentiates between hacked and leaked sources. If, for example, some hacker found out the President is a spy for China they’d suppress it but if a CIA agent breaks the law and leaks it’s fine?
- heydemo 4y ago
  This actually makes sense. A leaker is someone you've specifically disclosed info to, not just a random adversary. If you can't keep your own team from leaking, greater chance the info you're hiding is in the public interest. A hacker doesn't even know what the information is before the attack and is likely an adversary who will use any information to damage, regardless of public interest.
  - refurb 4y ago
    I’m pretty sure the emails about Hunter’s interactions with the Ukraine government are relevant to the “public interest”? Maybe they show corruption, maybe they don't. But if the article is censored, I guess the public won't get the chance to make a decision for themselves? And as as the Twitter files show and the Democratic rep (Ro Khanna) highlighted, they were banning a “news article” about hacked materials, no hacked materials themselves. Are we prepared to even ban the media from talking about hacked materials?
maxerickson 4y ago
There are statutes that criminalize gathering classified information without authorization. Access is not the same as authorization.