Is there any legal danger to seeding the Wikileaks "cablegate" torrents?
December 3, 2010 10:35 PM Subscribe
Is there any legal danger to seeding the Wikileaks "cablegate" torrents?
Now that the cat's out of the bag, these formerly classified documents become public domain, right?
Now that the cat's out of the bag, these formerly classified documents become public domain, right?
Response by poster: ... and if the documents are still classified, on what grounds would it be illegal for a private citizen (who isn't supposed to have them anyway) to distribute them?
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 11:00 PM on December 3, 2010
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 11:00 PM on December 3, 2010
Or view them, for that matter. I'm curious about this as well.
The event seems to be international in nature, so are we talking seeders will risk Interpol?
Or does the international nature make it more likely this will blow over when some body (China, ie) tells the US to forget about it?
posted by Galen at 11:23 PM on December 3, 2010
The event seems to be international in nature, so are we talking seeders will risk Interpol?
Or does the international nature make it more likely this will blow over when some body (China, ie) tells the US to forget about it?
posted by Galen at 11:23 PM on December 3, 2010
United States Code: Title 18,798: Disclosure of Classified Information
...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
posted by meowzilla at 11:24 PM on December 3, 2010
...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
posted by meowzilla at 11:24 PM on December 3, 2010
The New York Times printed the cables. Any organization that sues a private individual subsequent to their publication in the USA's newspaper of record will have an uphill battle.
posted by zippy at 11:55 PM on December 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by zippy at 11:55 PM on December 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
It is sort of like possession of stolen property: you didn't steal it, but it's still stolen.
I understand your argument- it doesn't make sense. But part of the point isn't just the value of the information, but the value of the system of secret information.
posted by gjc at 11:56 PM on December 3, 2010
I understand your argument- it doesn't make sense. But part of the point isn't just the value of the information, but the value of the system of secret information.
posted by gjc at 11:56 PM on December 3, 2010
zippy: The Times printed a selection of cables, while the torrent contains thousands of documents that the Times has not published.
posted by zachlipton at 12:51 AM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by zachlipton at 12:51 AM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Do not confuse your ability to hire expensive attorneys with the Times' ability to hire expensive attorneys..
posted by HuronBob at 3:18 AM on December 4, 2010 [23 favorites]
posted by HuronBob at 3:18 AM on December 4, 2010 [23 favorites]
Upload to usenet if you want to support it anonymously.
posted by smoke at 3:45 AM on December 4, 2010
posted by smoke at 3:45 AM on December 4, 2010
If you ever want to get a security clearance (the defense industry can be a stable job in a recession), you probably don't want to do it. They're pretty serious about wanting classified stuff to stay on the SIPRNet.
posted by Mala at 5:31 AM on December 4, 2010
posted by Mala at 5:31 AM on December 4, 2010
I don't know how anyone could say with certainty that it's NOT a potential legal minefield.
Tons of people I'm sure have participated in the torrent(s?) already - so the odds would seem low that they will start going after the little guy.
But be realistic - you're not just talking about copyright here, but about distributing classified government documents. To think that it's impossible you could get into any trouble for participating in that seems a bit foolish.
posted by TravellingDen at 5:42 AM on December 4, 2010
Tons of people I'm sure have participated in the torrent(s?) already - so the odds would seem low that they will start going after the little guy.
But be realistic - you're not just talking about copyright here, but about distributing classified government documents. To think that it's impossible you could get into any trouble for participating in that seems a bit foolish.
posted by TravellingDen at 5:42 AM on December 4, 2010
Best answer: Almost definitely murky, and IANAL, but my understanding of current case law is that the person criminally responsible under USC 18§798 is the one who legally had access to the classified information and disclosed it. Once it's out, the government has to meet a higher standard to prevent further dissemination. See, for instance, New York Times Co. v. United States.
Also, for what it's worth, "public domain" refers to things not covered by intellectual property laws, and all works of the US government are in the public domain, automatically. Classification of documents is orthogonal to their copyright status, though; that is to say, intellectual property claims aren't the reason that classified documents can't be disclosed.
posted by andrewpendleton at 6:45 AM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Also, for what it's worth, "public domain" refers to things not covered by intellectual property laws, and all works of the US government are in the public domain, automatically. Classification of documents is orthogonal to their copyright status, though; that is to say, intellectual property claims aren't the reason that classified documents can't be disclosed.
posted by andrewpendleton at 6:45 AM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
The State Department has already said that if you wish to ever have a security clearance for any reason (say, you work for a company who does contract work for the government), stay away from blogging about them, disseminating them, tweeting about them, etc. for they are still considered classified.
posted by proj at 6:50 AM on December 4, 2010
posted by proj at 6:50 AM on December 4, 2010
Best answer: United States Code: Title 18,798: Disclosure of Classified Information
...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
IANAL, but what's interesting about that law is that it that it refers exclusively to communications intelligence and unauthorized disclosure of cryptographic mechanisms. It says nothing about unauthorized republishing of human intelligence, which is why Lieberman introduced this bill on Thursday:
posted by Nothlit at 7:45 AM on December 4, 2010 [4 favorites]
...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
IANAL, but what's interesting about that law is that it that it refers exclusively to communications intelligence and unauthorized disclosure of cryptographic mechanisms. It says nothing about unauthorized republishing of human intelligence, which is why Lieberman introduced this bill on Thursday:
The so-called SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) would amend a section of the Espionage Act that already forbids publishing classified information on U.S. cryptographic secrets or overseas communications intelligence — i.e., wiretapping. The bill would extend that prohibition to information on HUMINT, human intelligence, making it a crime to publish information “concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States,” or “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government” if such publication is prejudicial to U.S. interests.As far as what happens when classified documents get leaked? Most government agencies and contractors have blocked access to WikiLeaks from their workplace networks, not to prevent people from uploading to it (as you might think) but rather to prevent people from downloading documents which are still technically classified onto non-classified computers, which results in a "data spillage" that is a huge pain to properly sanitize. So what it basically boils down to is that people with a security clearance are avoiding the WikiLeaks information like the plague for fear of seeing something they're not supposed to see, while people without a clearance are rushing to view it for the same reason. It's absurd, yes, but that's the way it works.
Leaking such information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers.
posted by Nothlit at 7:45 AM on December 4, 2010 [4 favorites]
Also, for what it's worth, "public domain" refers to things not covered by intellectual property laws, and all works of the US government are in the public domain, automatically.
There is at least one caveat here. Works created by contractors to the US Government are copyright, with ownership determined by the contract terms.
4.1 If a Work Was Created Under a Government Contract, Who Holds the Copyright?
Excerpt:
Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts are protected under U.S. Copyright Law. (See Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 (1982).) The ownership of the copyright depends on the terms of the contract. Contract terms and conditions vary between civilian agencies or NASA and the military.
posted by zippy at 9:45 PM on December 5, 2010
There is at least one caveat here. Works created by contractors to the US Government are copyright, with ownership determined by the contract terms.
4.1 If a Work Was Created Under a Government Contract, Who Holds the Copyright?
Excerpt:
Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts are protected under U.S. Copyright Law. (See Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 (1982).) The ownership of the copyright depends on the terms of the contract. Contract terms and conditions vary between civilian agencies or NASA and the military.
posted by zippy at 9:45 PM on December 5, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by saeculorum at 10:38 PM on December 3, 2010