Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sites 316
Posted
by
kdawson
from the rest-of-the-world-perhaps-you've-heard-of-it dept.
from the rest-of-the-world-perhaps-you've-heard-of-it dept.
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."
NO!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Once it's out of the bag.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Headline should read: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NO!! (Score:3, Insightful)
we're already there.
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice to know they're on our side (Score:5, Insightful)
Exposure is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 Google CEO Says... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Retards in office. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Republicans only care about less government when that means lower taxes and the government not providing services to it's citizens - especially the poor ones. But when it comes to a police state, defense spending and going to war they don't give a crap about liberty.
There really is no option (with respect to a viable political party) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas. The democrats want to take away economic liberty.
And both major parties don't seem to have common sense, eg we cant run deficits year after year since 2001 without severe consequences, IP is out of control and the gini coefienient is way too high. And except for a few on the hard left, there seems to be serious brain damage in the American political system when the majority of people think that you can have an effective health care system delivered by the free market. The free market doesn't work for health care.
How do they feel about the CRU leaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Once it's out of the bag.. (Score:1, Insightful)
With regard to DHS and TSA, there probably are. We won't hear about them, especially if the person who 'let them out' has a position of significance. Not that such a thing exists at either of these agencies....
We should all recognize this type of tactic. Attack, and blame the ones holding the data after the fact. Not the idiots who let it out in the first place. This is standard procedure for politicians with regard to agency fuck-ups.
Re:Nice to know they're on our side (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How do they feel about the CRU leaks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe document stolen from England need enforcement action from England rather than promoting the US as the World Police Force(tm).
not a substitute (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Very Dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
This equates to Digital Book Burning. This is an essential liberty.
Re:Falls under freedom of press (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
that was predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
And there I was, thinking I was funny:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470306&cid=30363244 [slashdot.org]
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.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once it's out of the bag.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dear My Government... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think they're reading slashdot.
Screw TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?
More accurately, they only want a powerful government when they are in power.
Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the bifurcation of the right.
When Republicans were kind of the 'permanent minority' in Congress, we remained the party of small, local government (our founding principles).
When the Democrats screwed up so bad that they lost control to the Republicans, there emerged the neo-con - EVANGELICAL (in a jam-it-down-their-throats way, not a religious way, although a large proportion of them ARE religious) conservatism. It's the party of force-your-conservative-viewpoints-on-everyone instead of the mildly Libertarian "just generally leave us alone" original party platform. This was likewise the party that supported the GWBush 'spend like a drunken sailor' plan, and the Bush 'massively broaden the powers and reach of the Federal government plan' that would have had Republicans even from the 70's and 80's going WTF?
Sucks, and I think that's most of what's wrong with the Republican party now, but there it is.
FWIW the Democrats have pretty much also morphed into something unrecognizable by their grandfathers. Can you see a blue-collar steelworker from the 1960s looking at NAMBLA and saying "oh yeah, I'll vote with them!"?
Re:I can answer that for you (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I can answer that for you (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Once it's out of the bag.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Being a criminal and being a hero aren't mutually exclusive things.
Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republican Party was founded in 1854, and elected its first President in 1860. Given the most notable events of that first administration, I don't think the Republican Party's "founding principles" had much to do with "small, local government".
Please present a copy of the text of this "just generally leave us alone" original platform of the Republican Party. Because the earliest party platforms -- those of 1856 and 1860 -- I can find contains a call for building new infrastructure (a transcontinental railroad, river and harbor improvements, etc.) as a government priority, including a positive call for an expansive view of federal Constitutional authority to support that effort, and a call for strong federal regulation on certain contemporary areas of trade. Insofar as they contain "just generally leave us alone" provisions at all, they are in regard to the 1860 platforms declaration of the inviolability of State's rights to control its own domestic institutions, which certainly didn't seem to survive very long past 1860 as a core Republican principle.
Given the similar expansion and spending of the Reagan years, I have trouble understanding that. Unless you are suggesting that the intervening decade would have caused Republicans from that time to forget the 1980s.
What does NAMBLA have to do with anything? I can't imagine current Democrats supporting NAMBLA any more than I can imagine 1960s Democrats doing so (well, except that 1960s Democrats -- like 1960s Republicans -- wouldn't have a choice, since NAMBLA didn't exist.)
A more real change in the Democratic Party since the 1960s was a result of the Civil Rights movement, which drove a wedge between the conservative (and often segregationist) wing of the party and the rest of the party, which was exploited by Republicans with Nixon's Southern strategy and subsequent efforts, over time turning the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one.
Re:NO!! (Score:2, Insightful)
That was (one of) my point(s). IMO the verb should be singular rather than plural, although the British (and a lot of Americans) disagree.