7 ms·

I wonder what are the risks associated with downloading and sharing such torrents. Evidently, anyone getting them becomes a highly visible target and once the

by Renaud 13y ago

I wonder what are the risks associated with downloading and sharing such torrents. Evidently, anyone getting them becomes a highly visible target and once the content of these torrents is known, you could become involved in the distribution of classified data. Even if the content is not known, it could be viewed as an 'unfriendly' act and could make you become a "target of interest" to some zealous 3-letter agency... Maybe I'm too paranoid. On the other hand, maybe not enough. Hard to know these days.

Sven7 13y ago
Well thank god for college kids.
atmosx 13y ago
And what if I'm not a USA citizens, they are watching me anyway. Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News I'd already have targeted half it's crowd potentially dangerous to the security of the country, just for being so interested in national security matters. Those Geeks!!!
- a3n 13y ago
  "Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News ..." Wait, wait. You're saying there's a way to get paid to read HN all day? Where do I sign?
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    > Where do I sign? Follow the path to the dark side [1]. They have cookies. [1]: https://www.nsa.gov/psp/applyonline/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_HM_PRE&Action=A&SiteId=1 https://www.nsa.gov/psp/applyonline/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM...
  - gugol 13y ago
    And for watching porn...
    - a3n 13y ago
      Ah, Rule 34, by our own cstross: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34_%28novel%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34_%28novel%29
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/1223/ http://xkcd.com/1223/
northwest 13y ago
I'm positive it will stay alive on these (b/c peers can stay anonymous): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29
drunkenmasta 13y ago
only one way to find out!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Karunamon 13y ago
If I understand the law correctly, only military people have any prohibition about touching, reading, distributing, etc classified data. Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.
- zdean 13y ago
  If I understand the law correctly, U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by its own government without the benefit of due process.
  - Ihmahr 13y ago
    Please inform the people in power about this.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    That's because you don't understand the law correctly. Now show me the prohibition on classified material that applies to non military members.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You do state the law correctly, your confusion seems instead to be with regards to the phrase "due process." It means literally what it says: everyone is entitled to "due" (i.e. warranted) process, not judicial process. What process is "due" in any given case? It is, on its face, a context-sensitve inquiry. If you trace the due process clause back to its origins in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta, you'll see that it is not a guarantee of a trial in every case, but rather a protection against arbitrary action: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." The AUMF is, for better or worse, the law of the land. People gave Eric Holder a lot of flak when he stated that the Constitution guarantees due process and not judicial process, but his comment was a totally uncontroversial statement of the law. I'm pretty sure Greenwald knows that too, since last time I checked NYU (where he got his JD) doesn't teach some bizarro version of Constitutional Law where down is up and due process always requires a trial.
Alex3917 13y ago
"You could become involved in the distribution of classified data." IANAL, but I believe the espionage act contains a mens rea requirement.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Mens rea is a state of intent, not knowledge. Suppose, for example, that you discovered a locked storage box with 'property of Big Bank' on the outside. You're supposed to report found items to the police; instead you take it home. Someone sees you and the police turn up; it emerges the box contains a lot of money, and you are charged with theft. You argue at trial that no mens rea existed because you didn't know about the money; true, but the possibility that a locked box belonging to Big Bank would be full of cash was what motivated you to take it home. If, on the other hand, the both contained a brick, you could still be charged with attempt because your intent in picking up the box was impure, even if the contents were valueless. In this case, Wikileaks 'insurance' documents have in the past contained classified information; they are meant to function as insurance because the contents would embarrass or injure someone if revealed; revelation would be contingent on Wikileaks' dissolution or disablement; and it's reasonable to suppose that only a government could bring that about. Thus, your decision to host the files, even without knowledge of their content, involves an awareness of the strong possibility that they do contain classified information. So whatever the contents actually turn out to be, you would be judged on your intent given the information available at the time. Now you might also argue that there was some higher interest motivating your actions, eg the belief that all secrecy is evil and that nothing should be classified, ever. But such moral beliefs are normative, ie expressions of what you think the law should be; they have no bearing on what the law actually is, and it is the latter which is supposed to govern your actions. For comparison, I might hold a sincere belief that any insult to a person's honor justifies violent retaliation; but if I kill someone in defense of my honor, that won't spare my from charges of murder, because my private belief is not the law of the land, no matter how sincerely it is held. In short, don't take deliberately engineered ignorance as equivalent to innocence. You may find this law review article of interest: http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/112-3_Traps.pdf http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/... This discusses a narrower reading of mens rea than I have outlined above, but bear in mind the elevated likelihood of a public welfare argument in a case where national security turns out to be at stake. So I would be reluctant to rely on Flores-Figueroa as an escape hatch because that was a case in which the harm largely befell a single individual (the lawful possessor of the identifying information that F-F appropriated), as opposed to the general public whose collective security could be compromised by the release of classified information, personified in the form of the Untied States.
sklivvz1971 13y ago
Apparently having used TOR makes you a person of interest. Not that difficult.
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  Really?

by Renaud 13y ago

Sven7 13y ago

Well thank god for college kids.

atmosx 13y ago

And what if I'm not a USA citizens, they are watching me anyway. Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News I'd already have targeted half it's crowd potentially dangerous to the security of the country, just for being so interested in national security matters. Those Geeks!!!

a3n 13y ago
"Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News ..." Wait, wait. You're saying there's a way to get paid to read HN all day? Where do I sign?
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  > Where do I sign? Follow the path to the dark side [1]. They have cookies. [1]: https://www.nsa.gov/psp/applyonline/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_HM_PRE&Action=A&SiteId=1 https://www.nsa.gov/psp/applyonline/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM...
- gugol 13y ago
  And for watching porn...
  - a3n 13y ago
    Ah, Rule 34, by our own cstross: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34_%28novel%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34_%28novel%29
- saraid216 13y ago
  Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/1223/ http://xkcd.com/1223/

northwest 13y ago

I'm positive it will stay alive on these (b/c peers can stay anonymous): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29

drunkenmasta 13y ago

only one way to find out!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Karunamon 13y ago

If I understand the law correctly, only military people have any prohibition about touching, reading, distributing, etc classified data. Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.

zdean 13y ago
If I understand the law correctly, U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by its own government without the benefit of due process.
- Ihmahr 13y ago
  Please inform the people in power about this.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Karunamon 13y ago
  That's because you don't understand the law correctly. Now show me the prohibition on classified material that applies to non military members.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You do state the law correctly, your confusion seems instead to be with regards to the phrase "due process." It means literally what it says: everyone is entitled to "due" (i.e. warranted) process, not judicial process. What process is "due" in any given case? It is, on its face, a context-sensitve inquiry. If you trace the due process clause back to its origins in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta, you'll see that it is not a guarantee of a trial in every case, but rather a protection against arbitrary action: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." The AUMF is, for better or worse, the law of the land. People gave Eric Holder a lot of flak when he stated that the Constitution guarantees due process and not judicial process, but his comment was a totally uncontroversial statement of the law. I'm pretty sure Greenwald knows that too, since last time I checked NYU (where he got his JD) doesn't teach some bizarro version of Constitutional Law where down is up and due process always requires a trial.

Alex3917 13y ago

"You could become involved in the distribution of classified data." IANAL, but I believe the espionage act contains a mens rea requirement.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Mens rea is a state of intent, not knowledge. Suppose, for example, that you discovered a locked storage box with 'property of Big Bank' on the outside. You're supposed to report found items to the police; instead you take it home. Someone sees you and the police turn up; it emerges the box contains a lot of money, and you are charged with theft. You argue at trial that no mens rea existed because you didn't know about the money; true, but the possibility that a locked box belonging to Big Bank would be full of cash was what motivated you to take it home. If, on the other hand, the both contained a brick, you could still be charged with attempt because your intent in picking up the box was impure, even if the contents were valueless. In this case, Wikileaks 'insurance' documents have in the past contained classified information; they are meant to function as insurance because the contents would embarrass or injure someone if revealed; revelation would be contingent on Wikileaks' dissolution or disablement; and it's reasonable to suppose that only a government could bring that about. Thus, your decision to host the files, even without knowledge of their content, involves an awareness of the strong possibility that they do contain classified information. So whatever the contents actually turn out to be, you would be judged on your intent given the information available at the time. Now you might also argue that there was some higher interest motivating your actions, eg the belief that all secrecy is evil and that nothing should be classified, ever. But such moral beliefs are normative, ie expressions of what you think the law should be; they have no bearing on what the law actually is, and it is the latter which is supposed to govern your actions. For comparison, I might hold a sincere belief that any insult to a person's honor justifies violent retaliation; but if I kill someone in defense of my honor, that won't spare my from charges of murder, because my private belief is not the law of the land, no matter how sincerely it is held. In short, don't take deliberately engineered ignorance as equivalent to innocence. You may find this law review article of interest: http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/112-3_Traps.pdf http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/... This discusses a narrower reading of mens rea than I have outlined above, but bear in mind the elevated likelihood of a public welfare argument in a case where national security turns out to be at stake. So I would be reluctant to rely on Flores-Figueroa as an escape hatch because that was a case in which the harm largely befell a single individual (the lawful possessor of the identifying information that F-F appropriated), as opposed to the general public whose collective security could be compromised by the release of classified information, personified in the form of the Untied States.

sklivvz1971 13y ago

Apparently having used TOR makes you a person of interest. Not that difficult.

notdrunkatall 13y ago
Really?