Slashdot Mirror
Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sites
eldavojohn writes "You may recall the TSA demonstrating how tech-savvy it is by releasing a document with redactions intact. Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document (e.g. Cryptome and Wikileaks). In a letter to the DHS (PDF), Charles Dent (R-PA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Peter T. King (R-NY) asked, 'How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?' And they asked if the DHS is 'considering issuing new regulations pursuant to its authority in Section 114 of Title 49, United States Code, and are criminal penalties necessary or desirable to ensure such information is not reposted in the future?' King is the representative who announcing a probe into Wikileaks after the half million 9/11 pager messages were released."
This is a dangerous road to go down.
It's kinda hard to put back, if there are criminal charges to be involved, it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sources
If your national security relies on censorship in this day and age, you're just not doing it right.
I've never known a politician to be thick or outdated, so I'm sure these guys are just concerned for our rights. They must be intentionally invoking the Streisand effect upon realizing how important this information is to have spread further across the internet.
My webcomic
Suppressing the exposure is not the solution. It just means any future such leaks will be distributed "below the radar". In the interests of national security the leaks should be made as public as possible so that reactions can done to the leaks if required. Ideally the policies should be secure enough that we are still safe with full disclosure. As we all know security through obscurity is not a good solution.
Better that we know the leak occurred than the leak occurs and we don't know it happened.
Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
(of course the fascist said it pertaining to personal privacy, but the sentiment really belongs to government transparency.)
Now the fat ibogaine addicted swine are mudwrestling and brandishing weapons trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Anything to draw the publics attention away from the fact that not only do they not uphold their constitutional duties, but they have every intention of slowly subverting and perverting the constitution to suit their power hungry needs.
shutdown -r apocalypse now
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?
Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?
Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country? Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case. As to those who received and posted the documents for the world to see, unless they have a security clearance themselves (and have been appropriately briefed) I don't believe they are liable (obviously IANAL) so I don't see what exactly the congress-critters are asking for in this case.
To me, it sounds like they are saying "B- B- But they're doing something wrong, surely we can lock them up or something". In other words, "I don't know what law they're breaking, but I don't like what they're doing so find one that applies and enforce it." And that, even to someone who doesn't really buy into all the police state fears that go on around here, is a bit scary.
These politicians are liberal and that is where the corruption abounds. (They are also known as RINOs).
I don't disagree that corruption is party-agnostic, but I take umbrage to terms like Republicrat or RINO that marginalise the centre right and left. They promote a "with us or against us" mentality that was famous with the United States' last president.
Internet scofflaw
I really am interested in why would they be called liberals.
Basically because he would prefer a world where everyone equated liberal to bad (or even better, evil). There are two reasons someone would want to do this; to label the opposing party as evil, and to distance politicians he disagrees with from the party he supports. The former goes like this: all democrats are liberal, all evil politicians are 'liberal'. Therefore, all democrats are evil politicians. And as for the Republicans he doesn't agree with, they are all secretly liberal, not real republicans at all. He and he alone defines what makes a liberal/conservative, democrat/republican which makes it much easier to blindly continue forward without being forced to reevaluate decisions made long ago, like which political party is 'right' (as if there is such a thing).
So, Republican representatives... when WikiLeaks is being used to post information you object to, you want it investigated.
I trust the same outrage applies to the emails stolen from the CRU and posted on WikiLeaks? Or does your interest in privacy only apply to issues you care about?
Obscurity is not a substitute for security. But people forget that it *is* a very useful supplement to security in many cases. By all mean publish the plans to the safe, but don't tell people where you put the safe, that serves no purpose. Likewise, if you have a method or technique that you already know is flawed but have not found a way to remedy, keeping the badguys in the dark longer is a good thing. However the real point of this story is that people who really need to know better don't realize leaks are unrecoverable once they hit the internet. The letter seems to hint that they suspect there is nothing to be done at this point, but they aren't sure. Maybe a class on such topics would be useful. Wouldn't it be nice if all legislators used the time they weren't in session to educate themselves on such things?
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
This equates to Digital Book Burning. This is an essential liberty.
"The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it."
That's not exactly true. If documents are an *actual* security risk, the publication can be suppressed. The Pentagon Papers case wasn't about the ability of the government to prevent the publication of material that threatened national security; it was about how the government classifies such information. The court found that the government cannot simply declare document "Top Secret" for no reason, or because the are embarrassing.
In practice, the press can get away with a lot because they use the Pentagon Papers case as an invincible shield, when it's not. In the Valerie Plame case, Bob Novak KNEW she had a TS clearance and was still under cover, and he published anyway. He should have been prosecuted along with Armitage. And if that lead to the VP and others, so be it. Instead we got Scooter Libby for lying to the FBI. Lots of justice there, yessiree.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
And there I was, thinking I was funny:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470306&cid=30363244
And now they're doing it.
Can we please re-introduce the death penalty for stupidity? Back in the days, before the whole "civilization" nonsense, fuckers like these wouldn't have survived long enough to demonstrate that there is a perfect vaccuum in this universe - inside their heads.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Most Americans I know have significant problems with the existing political parties. Specifically, that most Americans I know prefer a financially conservative economic policy, peaceful foreign policy, and liberal social policy. This is a big problem because neither major party embraces all three. The Republicans are very much interested in imposing Christian social policy and generally have a fairly belligerent and aggressive foreign policy. The Democrats are socially liberal and have a more moderate foreign policy. Neither party, regardless of rhetoric, is remotely financially conservative in practice.
Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:
I don't think they're reading slashdot.
I will not fly in a commercial flight until TSA is dismantled. The 9/11 attacks did not warrant federal intrusion into air security. You may disagree, but that's fine. I will continue to vote with my dollars as I see fit. I'd rather drive several days than go through airport security.
The information was openly requested - No Charge
The information was provided by the US Government legally - No Charge
The information was posted on a website not hosted in the US and is not breaking any local or international laws - No charge
What can they do ... nothing
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Ok, let's look at gay marriage, drug legalization, prostitution.
A conservative would channel ***PRE***-president Reagan, and say government is the problem and freedom is the solution. They would say that people have to do things for themselves, let the market decide, etc. A liberal, on the other hand, will have a (well-meaning) vision for how a Great Society should be, and think about what actions government policy should take in order to cause that vision to become reality.
Marriage. The conservative will say, "whatever people wanna do, let 'em do it and face the consequences." Some of them will add, "I hope those homos some day figure out that no matter how much they buttfuck, they're not going to create a baby. Too bad, their loss when they grow old and don't have a family to support them." Other conservatives will say, "What consequences? Spending your life with someone you love? Ha!"
A liberal will say, "I think we all share a vision of what marriage should be, and the polls even in 2009 bear that out. Government should enact policies enforce the will of the people. That's democracy and the way forward to the world that we want to live in." But then they split on what the will of the people is (damn polls keep changing), so some try to allow gay marriage and some try to outlaw it.
And so on, the same sort of thing with drugs and prostitution (and healthcare!), The Rs are liberal on some of these, and conservative on others. Same with the Ds. Neither of those parties adopts a consistently liberal or conservative platform. (See the Libertarians or the Communists for consistent ideology.)
Abortion is a little different. A conservative is going to uphold the woman's right (just like they would for marriage and prostitution) but some of them believe that a fetus is a person and therefore needs its rights upheld too. And really, a liberal can also have that same position too. So abortion isn't really a liberal/conservative conflict. It's a conflict between people who think fetus' rights are in dire jeopardy (babies are being murdered, the most egregious civil rights violation imaginable), versus people who think "fetus' rights" is just as much as a nonsense oxymoron as "rock's rights," so the woman's rights aren't in conflict with anyone else's rights at all. Neither side is really taking the position that a progressive vision-of-society should trump rights, although each side thinks the other side does, since they disagree about whether or not a fetus can have rights.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers.
Oh, you mean like when Bad Country uses their national firewall to block access to websites deemed unsavory?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.