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."

Comments

Dear My Government...

[girlintraining]

Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:

You do not own the internet. You do not control the internet. You screwed up by releasing sensitive information to the public through lawful channels, via a lawful request, that was not in any way fraudulent or deceiving. Man up to this, and figure out how to avoid the problem in the future like every other self-respecting government would -- instead of trying to throw your citizens to the wolves without a trial, or god only knows what else you're planning.

Sincerely,

A Whole Lot of Patriots

P.S. Those badges look like something out of a cereal box. Take this as an opportunity to make them actually look like something better than what you'd expect from a first year graphic design student. Or use psychic paper. Your choice.

Re:Dear My Government...

[girlintraining]

Since your high school civics classes obviously forgot to include it in your course of study, please allow me to introduce you to the First Amendment

They also forgot the exceptions to the First Amendment, because constitutional law is complex and has no place in a high school classroom with children that still believe that there are no losers, everything is sunshine and kittens, and basic language skills consist of "hey dood wut up? u wana cut skool n go smoke sum pot?"

Times of War.The Supreme Court has upheld on numerous occasions restrictions to speech that center around the military, particularily during times of war. It's become a clear precident that the protections afforded by the First Amendment can (and are) overlooked during wartime. There's also the "Clear and present danger" restrictions, made famous by saying free speech doesn't apply to someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The Supreme Court has stated that the states could punish people who's words "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state."

Obscenity/Sex If I say "Fuck you!" -- that's obscenity. If I say "Fuck the military," then it's a political statement. If I fuck you and record it, that's pornography. If I fuck you while dressed like Lady Liberty, and you're dressed like Justice, then it has "artistic merit" and is free speech. Unfortunately, like my analogies, the laws covering obscenity and sex are equally obtuse, poorly-worded, and occasionally humorous.

Slander and Libel. I say you're a child molester. You say "bullshit!" I can't prove it. I'm not protected because I made a false statement about your character, and you're not protected because you swore at me for doing so. ...
And the list goes on.

Re:Dear My Government...

[amicusNYCL]

If I fuck you while dressed like Lady Liberty, and you're dressed like Justice

I put on my robe and judge's wig.

Nice to know they're on our side

[T Murphy]

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.

I can answer that for you

[AdmiralXyz]

what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?

Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States. So, none.

Republicans for Powerful Government!!!

[rwv]

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?

Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t

[MozeeToby]

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.

Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth

[Myrimos]

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.

Re:Once it's out of the bag..

[girlintraining]

it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.

A government agency responsible for securing billions of dollars in assets and millions of lives yearly now knows the exact scope and nature of a serious breach of security that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed and could have been exploited by people who are a genuine threat to national security, as opposed to a bunch of average americans who get to feel special for about five minutes. Clearly, jailing the people who exposed this is the best route, as opposed to using a little-known fund that the DHS setup to reward private citizens who contribute to anti-terrorism objectives.

The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals. They've exposed a major security vulnerability before anyone could be hurt. Unfortunately, the reputation the TSA and DHS has when private citizens come forward to report problems with their administration of policy, or the policies themselves, is atrocious. They only option they had was a wide and public distribution -- if it could have been contained, they'd vanish right along with the problem. Moving forward the best thing to do is;

1. Establish guidelines for reporting problems with administration of their policy
    (in the private sector, we euphemistically refer to these as "training opportunities").
2. Establish guidelines for reporting problems with operational security.
3. Modify existing damage control procedures to focus more on problem resolution than image protection.
4. ACCEPTING THAT SECURITY BREACHES WILL OCCUR, and have a reporting procedure and clear chain of command
      (thus far, they've shown a remarkable lack of understanding of this key concept)
5. Stop over-reacting to perceived security breaches -- it desensitizes people and worsens response time should a truly serious situation occur.
      Call it the "I cried wolf too many times" story. Stories about the TSA used to make front page... now they're barely slow news day material.

The overarching objective here is to restore faith in the institution -- because the TSA has become the laughing stock of the media, and the flying public groans at the mention of it. Remember only a few years ago when the TSA was created how people said they'd willingly and happily stand in line for an hour and a half to get through the checkpoint, because they felt safer? Public opinion has dropped considerably since then -- now they're afraid they'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment. When a flight attendant flips out over someone's request to have orange juice and then receives an official notice that they could be thrown in jail, charged with felonies, and be added to the no-fly list... There is a serious lack of understanding about both what security means, and the public's perception of it. And it's nobody's fault but the TSA's for allowing this to happen.