7 ms·

Wikileaks is a journalistic organization. If someone in the US military emails the New York Times a classified secret, that does not make the Times an "enemy of

by bo1024 14y ago

Wikileaks is a journalistic organization. If someone in the US military emails the New York Times a classified secret, that does not make the Times an "enemy of the United States." All this nonsense about "most grievous breach in opsec history" and "extracting information" completely obscures the issue by putting the blame on the wrong boot. Hacking, spying, all these things can and should be declared illegal/wrong. But publishing data that was sent to you by a willing informant is much less clear-cut, and certainly doesn't warrant "enemy of the state" status from any country claiming to respect freedom of the press. The goal of news organizations is to find out information and make it public. If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Case closed.

tptacek 14y ago
A US Army information assurance agent downloaded gigabytes of state secrets and mailed them to a foreign national. Your willingness to call that a "nonsensical" breach says more about your biases than mine.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Honestly I thought that was the interesting segment of the post you responded to. You haven't really addressed what his point was.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    What do you think about his point?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I initially didn't think much of it, but in light of your response to his post I think he may have a valid point.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    "Make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources" is exactly what is happening here. A member of the military (presumably a female in the Air Force, from context) was leaking information to (EDIT: suspected of corresponding with) Assange and/or Manning.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The implication of his wording as I see it is that this is fine, and that this is as far as it needs to go.
    - bo1024 14y ago
      But doesn't the same logic make every person without classified access an enemy of the state? That is, if an Army agent emails classified info to you or your neighbor, that should be wrong without labeling you and your neighbor enemies of the USA.
- AnthonBerg 14y ago
  What is the US Army? What is it for? What is an information assurance agent? What is a state secret? What is a foreign national? What is nationality?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Yeah this sounds like a real fun discussion.
    - AnthonBerg 14y ago
      My point is that I see the comment I replied to as incredibly biased. I see it as laden with charged words and assumptions of the nobility of "our" side and the badness of "their" side. One man's state secret is another man's dirty laundry. Edit: In other words, you weren't really saying anything :D Edit 2: I always come to regret saying "you". Pointing fingers doesn't feel good.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I don't think anybody disputes that the person or persons who both were given access to the classified data and then gave it to someone who wasn't cleared to have it, should not be hunted down and punished. A number of people don't think that a journalistic organization that then tells the world about the information rises to the level of treasonous behavior. There is no evidence that Wikileaks seeks to 'overthrow' or otherwise 'impune the soverignty of' the United States or any other country whose dirty laundry their air, they are in the most classical of definitions the "messenger" here. What sort of reasoning can you use to show that they deserve the moniker 'enemy' which doesn't apply to the New York Times or the Economist?
  - danielweber 14y ago
    The TechDirt article was very distracting, but it seems that they way the US Military tells its own members "don't send secret information to a given third-party or we will hang you by the neck until you are dead" is by declaring that third-party an enemy. The documents are entirely about how they are prosecuting "Subject." Saying "enemy of the state" is sure good link bait, but it doesn't mean the US is in a state of war.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      And do the US newspapers have this same classification? I could see declaring Iranian state run TV as an enemy, they are the propaganda engine for Iran, I could see them declaring "The Center for Holy Jihad and the Complete Destruction of the US and Israel" an enemy. But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get, whether its US secrets or Australian secrets or what ever. So tell me the Times and the Washington Post are on the same list or have the same standing in the eyes of the US Government and I'll agree that this is a non-story and over blown.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        No. No newspaper has that classification, including Al Jazeera. The US military isn't terrified that Reuters is trying to socially engineer whole databases of diplomatic cables out of them.
- bo1024 14y ago
  To be clear, I agree that that was a crime on the part of the agent, but I fail to see why that incriminates Wikileaks in any way.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Wikileaks hasn't been incriminated (here, at least). While doing a personnel investigation, the Air Force said that female Subject was accused of communication with the enemy. Saying that "the enemy" was Wikileaks, and that "enemy" means various nefarious things are both things that are being read into this, with much urging from Assange and his lawyer. The Air Force didn't even want to publicize this but it got released by a FOIA request; it's hard to say I was incriminating a third-party with communications intended to be private. (I could well see that "communication with the enemy" refers to any dissemination of classified data that could end up in the hands of the enemy. Just what should count is probably a good debate to have, and I bet it's already been had since issues like this were around long before the Internet.)
EvanKelly 14y ago
The New York Times will parse and redact the information that they feel could endanger people from any classified information that they may publish or use in an article. They notably published the Pentagon Papers, which showed that the US had been misled regarding Vietnam. This information did not endanger anyone. Wikileaks, at least with the initial major leak, does not redact or edit information to protect anyone. This has been one of the reasons major journalist outlets (such as NYT) didn't cooperate with them regarding the initial leak. They simply serve as a clearinghouse for leaked info. The government would almost certainly be able to invoke prior restraint if they were able to take wikileaks to a US court. They were not able to show this in the Pentagon Papers case. I'm not commenting on the "enemy of state" situation, but I did want to clarify that major difference between an organization such as the NYT and Wikileaks.
- mtgx 14y ago
  So you think NY Times or other media shouldn't have exposed that video of the army guys in helicopter gunning those unarmed men?
  - EvanKelly 14y ago
    I'm not sure how you attribute that belief to me. I simply said that the New York Times and Wikileaks have different procedures for dealing with information leaked to them. I never said anything about what should or shouldn't have been exposed.
  - randall 14y ago
    Can't reply to the child, but I'll just say I'm super pleased with this disagreement / thread in general. Polite discourse hasn't died on HN!
  - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
    Playing devil's advocate here, but several of the men were actually armed. The controversy was not whether unarmed men were killed, but that two Reuters journalists who were among them were killed. Also, the NYTimes didn't break the story, the Washington Post did.
_djo_ 14y ago
If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Case closed. It already is, that's why Bradley Manning is in detention, the only problem is that it's selectively enforced largely because it's not easy to figure out the source of each leak.
- mtgx 14y ago
  If it's such a clear and cut case, then why isn't there a trial against him yet?
  - dmm 14y ago
    His trial is schedule to begin in Feb. 2013.
  - _djo_ 14y ago
    There is, United States v. Manning, Bradley E., PFC, presided over by Colonel Denise Lind. Even in civilian courts trials tend to move slowly, especially when there are many different defence motions filed. The court-martial was due to start on the 21st of this month, but has been delayed as a result of a motion filed by Manning's defence to dismiss all charges. The hearing for this motion will be on 29 October and the court-martial will now only start after that's resolved, expected to be early next year.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      In other words, if you waive your right to a speedy trial, you don't get a speedy trial.
abraxasz 14y ago
I believe that what is meant by "criminalizing contact between Wikileaks and active servicemembers" is not that Wikileaks should be considered an enemy of the US, but rather that "leaking secrets to Wikileaks" should be criminalized. The same should hold for communicating confidential information to any newspaper, I don't believe that Wikileaks should be singled out here.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Exactly, see my 'connecting the dots' response below. I get it that the US is pissed off that people are sending Wikileaks classified information, the Nixon administration was really pissed off by Woodward and Bernstein's revelations and the Johnson adminstration was in a tizzy over the release of the Pentagon papers, but they didn't turn around and declare the papers and the journalists 'enemies of the state' now did they?
slurgfest 14y ago
So, if I mean to do espionage against the US military, all I have to do is gather lots of information, and publicly dump part of my findings in order to become a "news organization".

by bo1024 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

A US Army information assurance agent downloaded gigabytes of state secrets and mailed them to a foreign national. Your willingness to call that a "nonsensical" breach says more about your biases than mine.

jlgreco 14y ago
> If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Honestly I thought that was the interesting segment of the post you responded to. You haven't really addressed what his point was.
- tptacek 14y ago
  What do you think about his point?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I initially didn't think much of it, but in light of your response to his post I think he may have a valid point.
- danielweber 14y ago
  "Make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources" is exactly what is happening here. A member of the military (presumably a female in the Air Force, from context) was leaking information to (EDIT: suspected of corresponding with) Assange and/or Manning.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The implication of his wording as I see it is that this is fine, and that this is as far as it needs to go.
  - bo1024 14y ago
    But doesn't the same logic make every person without classified access an enemy of the state? That is, if an Army agent emails classified info to you or your neighbor, that should be wrong without labeling you and your neighbor enemies of the USA.
AnthonBerg 14y ago
What is the US Army? What is it for? What is an information assurance agent? What is a state secret? What is a foreign national? What is nationality?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Yeah this sounds like a real fun discussion.
  - AnthonBerg 14y ago
    My point is that I see the comment I replied to as incredibly biased. I see it as laden with charged words and assumptions of the nobility of "our" side and the badness of "their" side. One man's state secret is another man's dirty laundry. Edit: In other words, you weren't really saying anything :D Edit 2: I always come to regret saying "you". Pointing fingers doesn't feel good.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I don't think anybody disputes that the person or persons who both were given access to the classified data and then gave it to someone who wasn't cleared to have it, should not be hunted down and punished. A number of people don't think that a journalistic organization that then tells the world about the information rises to the level of treasonous behavior. There is no evidence that Wikileaks seeks to 'overthrow' or otherwise 'impune the soverignty of' the United States or any other country whose dirty laundry their air, they are in the most classical of definitions the "messenger" here. What sort of reasoning can you use to show that they deserve the moniker 'enemy' which doesn't apply to the New York Times or the Economist?
- danielweber 14y ago
  The TechDirt article was very distracting, but it seems that they way the US Military tells its own members "don't send secret information to a given third-party or we will hang you by the neck until you are dead" is by declaring that third-party an enemy. The documents are entirely about how they are prosecuting "Subject." Saying "enemy of the state" is sure good link bait, but it doesn't mean the US is in a state of war.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    And do the US newspapers have this same classification? I could see declaring Iranian state run TV as an enemy, they are the propaganda engine for Iran, I could see them declaring "The Center for Holy Jihad and the Complete Destruction of the US and Israel" an enemy. But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get, whether its US secrets or Australian secrets or what ever. So tell me the Times and the Washington Post are on the same list or have the same standing in the eyes of the US Government and I'll agree that this is a non-story and over blown.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      No. No newspaper has that classification, including Al Jazeera. The US military isn't terrified that Reuters is trying to socially engineer whole databases of diplomatic cables out of them.
bo1024 14y ago
To be clear, I agree that that was a crime on the part of the agent, but I fail to see why that incriminates Wikileaks in any way.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Wikileaks hasn't been incriminated (here, at least). While doing a personnel investigation, the Air Force said that female Subject was accused of communication with the enemy. Saying that "the enemy" was Wikileaks, and that "enemy" means various nefarious things are both things that are being read into this, with much urging from Assange and his lawyer. The Air Force didn't even want to publicize this but it got released by a FOIA request; it's hard to say I was incriminating a third-party with communications intended to be private. (I could well see that "communication with the enemy" refers to any dissemination of classified data that could end up in the hands of the enemy. Just what should count is probably a good debate to have, and I bet it's already been had since issues like this were around long before the Internet.)

EvanKelly 14y ago

The New York Times will parse and redact the information that they feel could endanger people from any classified information that they may publish or use in an article. They notably published the Pentagon Papers, which showed that the US had been misled regarding Vietnam. This information did not endanger anyone. Wikileaks, at least with the initial major leak, does not redact or edit information to protect anyone. This has been one of the reasons major journalist outlets (such as NYT) didn't cooperate with them regarding the initial leak. They simply serve as a clearinghouse for leaked info. The government would almost certainly be able to invoke prior restraint if they were able to take wikileaks to a US court. They were not able to show this in the Pentagon Papers case. I'm not commenting on the "enemy of state" situation, but I did want to clarify that major difference between an organization such as the NYT and Wikileaks.

mtgx 14y ago
So you think NY Times or other media shouldn't have exposed that video of the army guys in helicopter gunning those unarmed men?
- EvanKelly 14y ago
  I'm not sure how you attribute that belief to me. I simply said that the New York Times and Wikileaks have different procedures for dealing with information leaked to them. I never said anything about what should or shouldn't have been exposed.
- randall 14y ago
  Can't reply to the child, but I'll just say I'm super pleased with this disagreement / thread in general. Polite discourse hasn't died on HN!
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago
  Playing devil's advocate here, but several of the men were actually armed. The controversy was not whether unarmed men were killed, but that two Reuters journalists who were among them were killed. Also, the NYTimes didn't break the story, the Washington Post did.

_djo_ 14y ago

If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Case closed. It already is, that's why Bradley Manning is in detention, the only problem is that it's selectively enforced largely because it's not easy to figure out the source of each leak.

mtgx 14y ago
If it's such a clear and cut case, then why isn't there a trial against him yet?
- dmm 14y ago
  His trial is schedule to begin in Feb. 2013.
- _djo_ 14y ago
  There is, United States v. Manning, Bradley E., PFC, presided over by Colonel Denise Lind. Even in civilian courts trials tend to move slowly, especially when there are many different defence motions filed. The court-martial was due to start on the 21st of this month, but has been delayed as a result of a motion filed by Manning's defence to dismiss all charges. The hearing for this motion will be on 29 October and the court-martial will now only start after that's resolved, expected to be early next year.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    In other words, if you waive your right to a speedy trial, you don't get a speedy trial.

abraxasz 14y ago

I believe that what is meant by "criminalizing contact between Wikileaks and active servicemembers" is not that Wikileaks should be considered an enemy of the US, but rather that "leaking secrets to Wikileaks" should be criminalized. The same should hold for communicating confidential information to any newspaper, I don't believe that Wikileaks should be singled out here.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Exactly, see my 'connecting the dots' response below. I get it that the US is pissed off that people are sending Wikileaks classified information, the Nixon administration was really pissed off by Woodward and Bernstein's revelations and the Johnson adminstration was in a tizzy over the release of the Pentagon papers, but they didn't turn around and declare the papers and the journalists 'enemies of the state' now did they?

slurgfest 14y ago

So, if I mean to do espionage against the US military, all I have to do is gather lots of information, and publicly dump part of my findings in order to become a "news organization".