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."
I'll let someone else speak for me... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The real meaning of enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness." ~ Nikos Kazantzaki
Of course, this is not what the people responsible for it wish to happen.
Falls under freedom of press (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, what? (Score:1, Interesting)
I am not from USA and don't know how large the variety is inside your parties (probably quite large as everyone has to choose one of two options). However, why would a liberal politician choose the republican party?
Aren't republicans against gay marriage, drug legalization*, legalizing prostitution*, women's right to abortion and pretty much every other thing that has ever been debated on the "liberal-conservative" axis?
Not trying to bash republicans here (though it might be clear that I wouldn't vote for them were I to live in USA, I acknowledge that some people disagree and the party is no doubt good for them) but I really am interested in why would they be called liberals.
(*I know many or most democrats are against that too, yes)
Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t (Score:3, Interesting)
You are correct.
Only the person(s) covered by a security clearance that disclosed the information are the ones liable, as they signed the documents agreeing to be bound by the rules/laws governing the handling of such classified material.
A person receiving such disclosed material (a third party), is under no obligation to protect or otherwise not distribute the information. Oh, sure, they could turn the material over to the authorities and turn the person in, yeap.
This all sounds to me like certain members of the government are afraid that somethings they do not want disclosed are going to be, and all hell is going to break loose as a result.
I know from reading data about past disclosures, that the security classification system is used and abused to *deny* information to the people that should know what the heck is going on in this country, namely its citizens.
Re:NO!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it this way though. Now we have the names of 3 lawmakers of which to start probing into their private lives INTENSELY.
This certainly applies to them:
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Better process is the solution, not censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
The genie is out of the bottle on this one. The document won't disappear, and even if it becomes illegal to host it, it'll continue circulating. The legislators need to accept this as a "teachable moment" and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring, perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content.
Beyond "use better redaction", process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing.
The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience. The administrative review was undoubtedly done, but not a technical review. It's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data, whether it's redacted or whether it's document metadata, and there's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process.
The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience. If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices, then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it.
And now that some of the TSA's security practices are public knowledge, we'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns. A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater, but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics, something's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation.
Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dear My Government... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
an effective health care system delivered by the free market. The free market doesn't work for health care
That depends on your definition of "effective."
The current health care system isn't a free-market system by any stretch of the imagination. A few reforms would make it much closer to one and it would greatly reduce costs. These reforms wouldn't socialize medicine, but you could add socialism a lot cheaper if you had these reforms:
1. Price lists - health providers MUST have and PUBLISH them, and MUST follow them ALL the time. No negotiated rates for anybody. If you want an operation done you can comparison shop from a catalog.
2. Up-front cost disclosures. If the patient's name isn't on a piece of paper disclosing the cost of a procedure, then the service provider doesn't get paid, in general. Acute emergency procedures can be handled differently, but should be the exception. They could probably be socialized as well with regulated prices (which would of course encourage providers to avoid calling everything an emergency).
Just those reforms alone would greatly lower the cost of healthcare by commoditizing much of it. Those without insurance would also get fair prices, and if this care was socialized then the taxpayers would save money as well.
I think that other changes could be made more opt-in, so that people can choose from a number of different insurance options. I think that catastrophic coverage is something to consider - there is no reason that people should need insurance for routine care unless they have a serious chronic problem. Wellness programs (almost HMO-like) are another option where providers can be paid based on outcomes rather than services. Healthcare savings accounts should have carryover and the ability to freely contribute at-will so that they are used whenever possible. Or, you could use other mechanisms to tax-deduct health expenses. The main issue with voluntary insurance coverage is that you need to avoid the pre-existing condition problem, and as genetic testing becomes more advanced that could be a big problem. Mandatory coverages of some kinds could be necessary.
I don't mind socialism in medicine, but I think that it should be the exception for those who truly cannot care for themselves. There are a number of reforms that could make a market-based system much more efficient, and that actually makes socialized medicine easier to deliver.
Re:Screw TSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen to that!
I have sworn off airports.
I love to fly. Airplanes are just cool. going from Chicago to Denver in 3 hours is great.
I will not, however, put up with the bullshit that goes on in airports and with airlines.
We are no safer than we were 10 years ago.
That time and date printed on your ticket? Well it doesn't mean anything. you bought a ticket that said you would be in North Carolina thursday night? Well, not this thursday, the conecting flight has been delayed. Yeah, the plane isn't ready to fly. How long have we known? We found out 6 hours before you got on your first flight. We will TRY to get you out of here tomorrow. In the meantime here is a voucher for a "free" sandwich, now go sit down.
The next year I drove. Less time, 10 hours vs. 16. Less money, $300 in gas vs. $700 in air fare. Less hassel, I can bring nail clippers and a bottle of water in the car.
Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dear My Government... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but I think your post is misleading and inaccurate.
"It's become a clear precident that the protections afforded by the First Amendment can (and are) overlooked during wartime."
This is misleading. The most important restrictions on free speech relating to national security actually came during times of peace. Scarily enough, they were related to the red scare in the 1920s (Gitlow v. People of New York) and McCarthyism in the 1950s (Dennis v. United States). Those rulings basically stand for the proposition that if the government is afraid of an ideology (i.e., communism), then its okay to punish members of groups that espouse that ideology.
"There's also the "Clear and present danger" restrictions"
This is inaccurate. Clear and present danger is short hand for the restrictions that exist on top of the national security exception talked about above. The current rule is that advocacy of unlawful activity cannot be punished "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Brandenburg v. Ohio)
If I say "Fuck you!" -- that's obscenity.
No, that's not obscene. Obscenity only applies to "speech" (i.e., movies and pictures and maybe books) that "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct," "appeals to the prurient interest," and "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." (Miller v. California)
What that could be is "fighting words," which are "Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire). But even still, the government may not ban a word or set of words based on the presumption that they're fighting words (Cohen v. California, Virginia v. Black).
"the laws covering obscenity and sex are equally obtuse, poorly-worded, and occasionally humorous."
To nitpick, laws that proscribe obscene speech must be carefully and explicitly worded, or else the courts will strike them down for vagueness or overbreadth. On the other hand, the rules the Supreme Court has made as to how to determine whether certain speech is obscene and thus can be banned by a carefully constructed law are obtuse and poorly worded.
"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"
This stuff gets complicated. Depending on who you are and I am, potentially there's no free speech / first amendment issue here at all. If you post on your blog that I'm a child molester, and I'm not a "public figure" or somehow involved in a public issue of some kind - then I can sue you for defamation, and only have to show that the statement is false and you were negligent in publishing it. If I'm a public figure, then I have to show "actual malice," which basically means that I have to prove that you actually knew the statement was false, or had serious doubts that it was true and published it anyway.
And the list goes on.
It does. We haven't covered true threats, commercial speech, symbolic speech, speech by public employees, content based discrimination, viewpoint based discrimination, time place and manner regulations, the secondary effects doctrine, public forums etc.
Re:Source??? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just read through all TSA security manuals and don't find anything about this road being dangerous.
I read the TSA manual. I didn't see anything that was particularly dangerous. Most of it SOP for anybody involved in the security (public or private) business.
I would wager that they are more worried about embarrassment than security. The part of the document that stuck out in my mind was the list of exemptions from enhanced security screenings. Your friendly local Congress-critter need not worry about dealing with security in the same manner as us mere plebs. All he or she has to do if selected for the enhanced screening is show a Congressional ID and the TSA folks are supposed to fold like a cheap suit. So much for all citizens being equal under the law.
Another thing I could find to bitch about is the practice at certain airports of giving first class passengers their own special queue to the security checkpoint. How is it that the Government tolerates this practice when it's our tax dollars funding the security system? TSA's answer on this is cute too, "We aren't in charge of the line, the airport is". Nice little cop out, isn't it?
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.