Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wikileaks didn't take the information .... it was given to them.
Yes I know, how many times are you going to repeat this? If your brother robs a home and gives you the tv they took, that doesnt mean you arent violating the law if you knew it was stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The analogy is what is ridiculous .... a better one would be that you robbed a bank ... stole 1 Million dollars .... One count of armed robbery would be the charge ... not 1 Million counts ... one for each dollar. Or the act of moving down the line of clerks, 5 of them emptying their cash drawers in your bag ... it's still one act ... not 5 acts.
Its ONE robbery.. Downloading and copying 100,000 files.. Havent you ever copied files and watched them copy 1 at a time? This is why when people get charged with downloading songs, its MULTIPLE counts..
Again, the analogy is ridiculous ... information is not cash, nor is it a physical tangible item. If you stole actual physical documents, that would be physical possession of stolen property. Wikileaks are not in physical possession of stolen documents ... they are in possession of digital information that is merely a representation of, and not actual documents.
ooh please stop. People are charged with a crime all the time for stealing electronic documents.. The fact that they are in electronic form doesnt mean there is no value and they arent protected by law.
including computer crime and intellectual property offenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And, since they are not US based, nor the operators US Citizens ... nor any of them bound by oaths or contracts with the US government in the handling of classified information, simply possessing digital information is not an international crime.
Doesnt need to be an international crime in order to be charged. Seriously, whats your "lack of knowledge" based upon? Something you read on the internet? The fact that he is not US Based doesnt mean he cant be charged. He might fall outside of the jurisdiction to extradite and face those charges but that doesnt mean he hasnt broken our laws. We charge people all the time outside the country for breaking our laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And, since they are not US based, nor the operators US Citizens ... nor any of them bound by oaths or contracts with the US government in the handling of classified information, simply possessing digital information is not an international crime.
never said he broke the law, because there clearly are questions if he did or not. I said being outside the country does not make one immune from the laws, nor does the fact they are in digital format. To claim either one of these are true is probably one of the uneducated postings I've read here on cd.. If its a law here, he can be charged regarless of his where he lives. They've been shut down websites for example world wide, well beyond the boundaries of the US Border lately.. By the hundreds..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You need to recognize the fundamental flaw in this ALL TOO FAMILIAR problem that seems to be the root cause of a lot of our difficulties ... the US Government has considered itself the Supreme Law of the world ... and that US interests are the ONLY interests of value. That may hold true here ... but in other countries, that's not the case. They have their own interests and laws ... and you can bet ...based on your position here ... EVERY US Intelligence official and Government Representative would be guilty of "stolen information" by any of the 200+ countries around the world that we spy on and steal information from on a daily basis. So it's a matter of perspective, is it not? One country's faithful servant is another country's espionage criminal.
I dont pretend to think that our government is some innocent victim in all of this. That doesnt justify breaking the laws to "get even", and that doesnt mean the man is beyond the scope of the legal authority for any crimes he might be guilt of..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Again, THAT has nothing to do with THIS issue. If a foreign entity is engaged in illegal activity involving harm to the US for example ... THAT MAY, under international law, offer some jurisdiction to pursue actions against them. Also, commerce treaties between the US and other countries may provide for another country to prosecute their citizen/s for a violation .. but the US has no actual jurisdiction to arrest, detain, judge or punish anyone outside of the United States.
Thepiratebay was also successfully prosecuted in america and paying millions in fines and the owners facing US jail despite them being located in Stockholm..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Additionally, in order to secure "extradition" of a non US citizen from another country with extradition treaties with the US ... such a petition would require proof that the person committed an illegal act applicable to said extradition agreements.
nope.. not true again.. There is no proof needed that they have committed an illegal act. There needs to be a warrant, a copy of the charges, a copy of the potential punishment, or in the event the individual has been found guilty, a copy of the judgment and sentencing to be proposed.. Wikileaks by his own admission took part in the acts.. If he broke a law, do you really think it will be difficult to obtain a warrant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Jurisdiction is really the key element here. JURISDICTION ... look it up ...
I know all about jurisdiction, you still are wrong. One doesnt need jursdiction to file charges, nor find guilt. You need jurisdiction to arrest and have them serve their time/punishment. There have been lots of individuals outside of the USA who have been charged with american crimes and serving time (see above thepiratebay) for example
If I remember correctly there was a big debate during the Clinton (possibly Bush 1 years) because we sent our military into another country to take someone by force to serve their time.. Dont recall who it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
No documents ... NO DOCUMENTS ... just digital information.
Digital information is also protected by law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Let me explain the facts of life to you .... you and thousands of others do the same thing everyday.
This should be about as good as the errors you posted above. As I told someone yesterday here, I've argued international domain law in front of icann.org and also federal trademark infrigement law in US Federal courts. While I'm no lawyer, and I admit to only having to do each of these once, my knowledge is much greater on the subject then your average bear. And since you completely miss the obvious above, (such as not understanding that documents are protected even in digital form), I'm starting to wonder how much about life you dont really know.. but lets continue, I'm in for a good laugh..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Yes ... as the law APPEARS ... you may indeed sell originals legally
Wait, a few postings ago you told me you couldnt. Is this your admission you were wrong after I cited the case law to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
but that IS NOT WHAT THE APPEALS COURT DECIDED in the cited case, which has caused much worry with large operations dealing with used music and software.
Can you cite any other case, or just the case where Vernon didnt buy the software from the owner while trying to claim he was protected as if he did. There is a HUGE difference in this one little fact, and while you first told me you couldnt sell used software, you are now admitting you can.
I sell both used software, music, dvd's (and even vhs movies still) along with new. I've never once ran into a problem or concern. And while my internet company primarily deals in other media types, (including electronic digital files) the laws are the same. Doubt me, check out my past postings. I have 40 Tb's of space on my server, and most of its full with digital files. (legal ones). I didnt expand into digital before properly researching the laws which would apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
This is a very recent development, BTW, so the long term implications of that decision is unknown at this point, but you can bet that the music and software companies out there will be salivating ... they've been after a decision like this for years.
There is no long term ramification. Its quite clear that if you buy new software, you can resell it as used No court has ruled otherwise despite your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Remember, you live in a land "of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation" now ... so forget that BS they taught you in school about "Of, by, and for the people" crap.
As an owner of several corporations. I can admit you finally got one thing right.. Woo hoo..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And, besides .... the actual point I'm making is that Wikileaks is a FRAUD .. and that the information itself isn't stolen to begin with ... it was leaked purposely by the government itself.
And here we have another poster just yesterday talking about how his wikileaks mirror site is being attacked by the government..
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Why would I suspect this? Because of the NON-STOP media attention, and the fact that Wikileaks could be shutdown in 5 minutes if the US Government desired it ... and Assange would be dead inside 24 hours if that were desired too.
NEWS FLASH.. IT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN.. where have you been? http://www.wikileaks.org/ It can currenly only be reached through their mirror sites (213.251.145.96) for example
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
This guy flies around the world ... gives press conferences for chis sake ... he's not hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.
Yes I know, how many times are you going to repeat this? If your brother robs a home and gives you the tv they took, that doesnt mean you arent violating the law if you knew it was stolen.
Just as many times as you claim they stole "documents" ... when they clearly did not.
Now I'm going to cut this debate down to it's relative points.. as I really think the substance is getting lost in the tit-for-tat nonsense here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Doesnt need to be an international crime in order to be charged. Seriously, whats your "lack of knowledge" based upon? Something you read on the internet? The fact that he is not US Based doesnt mean he cant be charged. He might fall outside of the jurisdiction to extradite and face those charges but that doesnt mean he hasnt broken our laws. We charge people all the time outside the country for breaking our laws.
There are a number of points in this "diatribe" of yours that seems to reside in confusion of two independent issues ... 1) what is legitimate and legal .... 2) what is actually done.
As an example .. George Bush declares some dude in a foreign country an enemy terrorist without a lick of proof or evidence ... they snatch him up, ship his but to Cuba and keep him there indefinitely .. and torture him. So, when I say "Bush can't do that" ... I don't mean to say he can't do that "literally" ... because he's OBVIOUSLY did it. I'm saying he can't do it "legitimately" or "legally" in the eyes of justice outside this US criminal mafia.
Now this particular issue ... possession and distribution of "classified" material is a crime only here in the US and applicable only to those who are subject to US Laws .... that being US Citizens .. and those visiting our country, who could be charged with "espionage". Those foreign nationals outside our country have no obligation to adhere to a standard of handling materials of this nature in any particular manner. Because this type of "crime" is associated with "treason", it is simply inapplicable to a foreign national .. as they have no oath or duty to the United States, nor subject to such laws. This is the POINT you seem loath to concede.
Yet, you do concede so in a roundabout way when admitting the jurisdictional problems associated ... which goes right back to my main point ... the US as no legal authority over persons of another nationality ... outside the US. They only have authority over such people and their actions when ON US SOIL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
never said he broke the law, because there clearly are questions if he did or not. I said being outside the country does not make one immune from the laws, nor does the fact they are in digital format. To claim either one of these are true is probably one of the uneducated postings I've read here on cd.. If its a law here, he can be charged regarless of his where he lives. They've been shut down websites for example world wide, well beyond the boundaries of the US Border lately.. By the hundreds..
You consider this uneducated because it conflicts with your opinion. But it is your opinion that is "all wet" here ... or perhaps more appropriately .. shallow and simple minded, not understanding the principles of the the issue.
The principle here is a "distinction" between possessing "stolen" objects (physical documents), as opposed to the possession of "stolen" information (which could be a digital record of documents or even the knowledge of or reading and recall and writing or blogging about said information).
Physical possession of "stolen" physical objects could be an issue that applies to a foreign national ... even though there are still jurisdictional issues in apprehending ... but simply having digital reproduction of information is another matter altogether, especially given the fact that it is not a commercial copyright issue ... but a sensitive data issue that has nothing to do with international commerce and copyright.
Your example of actions taken by the US to "shut down" websites aside, China is perhaps the largest pirate of copyright in the history of copyright ... and even Microsoft and it's vast resources haven't been able to put a dent in the practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I dont pretend to think that our government is some innocent victim in all of this. That doesnt justify breaking the laws to "get even", and that doesnt mean the man is beyond the scope of the legal authority for any crimes he might be guilt of..
There you go again ... the law breaking stuff .... earlier you said "never said he broke the law" .... then this. Look ... he is under no obligation to handle sensitive material in a manner in keeping with "laws" that don't apply to him. IF, he were caught on US soil in possession of stolen information that is the property of the US Government, and is restricted or classified .. then he could be charged with conspiracy to commit espionage. But he wasn't. He distributed information that was given to him ... information he had no obligation to keep secret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
nope.. not true again.. There is no proof needed that they have committed an illegal act. There needs to be a warrant, a copy of the charges, a copy of the potential punishment, or in the event the individual has been found guilty, a copy of the judgment and sentencing to be proposed.. Wikileaks by his own admission took part in the acts.. If he broke a law, do you really think it will be difficult to obtain a warrant?
I know all about jurisdiction, you still are wrong. One doesnt need jursdiction to file charges, nor find guilt. You need jurisdiction to arrest and have them serve their time/punishment. There have been lots of individuals outside of the USA who have been charged with american crimes and serving time (see above thepiratebay) for example
If I remember correctly there was a big debate during the Clinton (possibly Bush 1 years) because we sent our military into another country to take someone by force to serve their time.. Dont recall who it was.
NO, I don't think you understand ANYTHING about jurisdiction ... at least you don't indicate so with such statements. Again, in order to attain a "warrant" the issuing authority requires "jurisdiction" to do so. In order to establish jurisdiction, the court requires some "evidence" to support probable cause that a crime was committed within the jurisdiction of that court issuing the warrant. In many cases, that is problematic even within the United States .. and is certainly so with regard to what transpires in another country, to which jurisdiction would be extremely difficult to establish. Doesn't mean that some crooked federal judge in Washington DC won't issue one ... they break the law all of the time ... so lets again be clear about what I'm saying ... I don't contend that they can't do whatever the hell they want to ... I'm simply saying they can't do it "legitimately".
Regarding your "example" you cannot remember ... I can't respond. But in the case of Manual Noriega, the US invaded Panama and captured Noriega and put him in prison where he still resides I believe. And I think this is an example of the US Government acting illegally ...surprise surprise ... OBVIOUSLY one can avoid the legal issues of jurisdiction if you simply ignore it, and use military force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Digital information is also protected by law.
This should be about as good as the errors you posted above. As I told someone yesterday here, I've argued international domain law in front of icann.org and also federal trademark infrigement law in US Federal courts. While I'm no lawyer, and I admit to only having to do each of these once, my knowledge is much greater on the subject then your average bear. And since you completely miss the obvious above, (such as not understanding that documents are protected even in digital form), I'm starting to wonder how much about life you dont really know.. but lets continue, I'm in for a good laugh..
Again ... simple minded comes to mind here. That's a very broad statement ... "digital information is protected" .... I could show you a thousand court cases where it isn't. One example ... and you can go research this ... is the fair use of copyrighted information ... and how such information can be freely used for educational purposes ... or for exposing criminal conduct .. or for antagonistic purposes ... such as refuting a claim made by an author. You could right a book ... claim that the moon is made of cream cheese .. and I could publish your "copyrighted" words to show what a NUT you are, and you couldn't stop me.
I can also use, with very few limitations .. any copyrighted material I care to for educational or documentary purposes without permission. Copyright is the commercial protection of intellectual material ... when such is used for non-commercial purposes as previously cited .. you don't have a legal leg to stand on!!! So, I contend that you know as much about protection of digital information as you do about jurisdiction ... which is not very much.
Would it be safe to assume that Wikileaks uses the information they present for "educational and documentary" purposes? Think about that "Mr. IOWN SEVERLCORPORTAIONS.
So, that being a pretty obvious defense I think ... squashing any attempt to claim commercial copyright ... that falls back to the criminal issue of handling classified material for which Assange has no obligation to honor.
Of course, that doesn't prevent the US Gov't from apprehending him ... placing him in front of a kangaroo court, and imprisoning him. That is certainly a possibility. But it doesn't make it legal.
Why would anyone want to post something they saw on Wikileaks. I don't even want to see private information that was stolen, let alone re-post it. Ignore wikileaks and maybe they will just go away.
Why would anyone want to post something they saw on Wikileaks. I don't even want to see private information that was stolen, let alone re-post it. Ignore wikileaks and maybe they will just go away.
DHS and the State Dept want more people like you.
Fingers in ears..La-la-la-la..I can't hear you, see you.
If I don't read about it then it never happened.
Someone stole confidential info from the US Gov't. Wikileaks received this info and posted it on the Internet. Some call this akin to espionage & spying. If Assange is arrested then why not people on C-D who cut&paste & re-posted the info? Why would they be any different than Wikileaks? Both are just passing on info that they received.
You haven't proven the information is classified.
Yes, the US government labeled or classified the documents, but that doesn't mean the documents really are classified, or that they ought to be classified.
That was the argument over the Pentagon Papers.
Does a newspaper in the US have the right to print or publish classified documents that have been leaked?
The US Supreme Court said, "Yes."
I have repeatedly said, "There is a difference between National Security and National EmbarrASSment."
The reason I say that is because that is what the US Supreme Court said.
Again, just because you can classify documents at a certain security level does not mean that you ought to classify documents at a certain security level.
The US Supreme Court (and common sense) says that the government cannot classify a document to protect itself from National EmbarrASSment.
That is a gross abuse of power and of the intent and reason for classifying documents.
I would have hoped people on this forum could learn and understand the difference, but I suppose my expectations were way too high.
As a follow up to my contention that Wikileaks has broken no laws for which they are accountable ....apparently the US Congress agrees, which is why they have introduced legislation to criminalize Wikileaks actions.
IF ... as is the contention of the misguided here ... that Wikileaks are so clearly in violation of some law that applies to them ... why the new bill?
The answer is clear. And it's also why some establishment figures are calling for having Assange declared an enemy combatant, and rounded up like they do with others around the world .... quite illegally of course..
Meanwhile back at the ranch....
Why is no one asking the State Dept why they deemed over 5 million people needed access to those servers ?
Why is no one asking what's being done to better track security access and trace access points ?
Meanwhile back at the ranch....
Why is no one asking the State Dept why they deemed over 5 million people needed access to those servers ?
Why is no one asking what's being done to better track security access and trace access points ?
The public and the government officials are being encouraged to ignore the reality that they have an open sieve of information and they cannot stop leaks until they figure out what to do with it. But that would be as much an embarresment as the leaks. So maybe people will be distracted enough and tptb can wave the "terrorist" flag and criminialize any release of anything and they will think they took care of the problem.
Batman has the ability to expose the world wide lie machine or the "plutocracy". It is a system based upon misinformation capitalism and the day to day relationships of money. He wants change...worldwide, global and lasting so that people everywhere are empowered beyond the governments which are intended to serve them.
He is Batman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why when people get charged with downloading songs, its MULTIPLE counts..
