News WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[Evo]

So, wait a second... in a matter of minutes, a person provided a Wikipedia page that includes a map of anticipated submarine cables for Africa, information about protection zones created by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and information on how most fiber optic submarine cables were developed by a "consortia" of operators, using mostly private capital.

And this is supposedly a US secret?

And the cables are buried. How is al-Qaida supposed to access these cables again?

Some things are secret, some things are public.

If you want a nice map of the publicly known cables, here is one that will give you some idea of how essential underwater cables are.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg

 

[russ_watters]

I'm starting a new thread because this changes the whole ball game. I think this removes any doubt about Assange's true character and intentions.

Someone see the benefit in this release? I posted a quote in the other thread where Assange said he would not withold information that would cause harm.

Evo, I think you're late on this one. The previous leak was a mass release of random government communications. It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it. The video of the helicopter gunship killing reporters qualifies as an intended "whistleblowing". This appears to me to be more an intent to inflict damage on the US.

[edit] The Afghan War Diary strains the concept of "whistleblowing" as well, but with Assange's politics, it is possible he reasonably believed he was whistleblowing the entire war. He probably saw a lot of potential crimes in it. But the mass release of diplomatic cables doesn't qualify. There is little in those cables that could show evidence of US crimes.

 

[zomgwtf]

What good would come from cutting the ables anyways?

And intercepting them? I'm sure everything is encrypted and have tamper mechanisms or something.

 

[russ_watters]

Pfc Manning should be charged, tried, and executed by lethal injection, promptly, to put an end the game like atmosphere surrounding the outcome of his actions.

The legal system doesn't do anything "promptly" - not that the legal system (even the military legal system) should have anything to do with this. 65 years ago, perhaps what you suggest would have happened, but not today. 65 years ago, his CO might have executed him himself.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand why everybody is getting so angry at the messenger. Assange isn't the one who stole the documents, he's just the journalist.

If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Ok, I am dumber than what I suspected. Terrorists will be able to destroy submarine communications cables. I do not know how, but if the USG says so, it must be true.

Now, sell me the rabies and smallpox vaccine makers, the plutonium treatment maker, shipping lanes (beyond piracy), and whatever other I am forgetting. The only entry on that list that makes any sense, is the mineral mines. Everything else seems like it can be easily placed within the US.

 

[turbo]

If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?

Money is just markers. Place-makers that allow us to pass "value" around. You know that.

If somebody grabs info that shows that our government is complicit in bribery/illegality, etc, that should be fair game. Daniel Ellsburg was a speed-bump in the path of oligarchy, but I'm glad that he was there.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

I don't understand why everybody is getting so angry at the messenger. Assange isn't the one who stole the documents, he's just the journalist.

Well if he cares at all for the stability of his own society, why the release? Obviously, he is serving the journalistic community much more than the governments. This in general is not wrong, but the reasons for these latest releases are not clear to me. There's always been good indications that Canadian resources were important for the US, but I don't see why I'd go shouting about it on rooftops.

 

[russ_watters]

Money is just markers. Place-makers that allow us to pass "value" around. You know that.

How does that address my question?

If somebody grabs info that shows that our government is complicit in bribery/illegality, etc, that should be fair game.

Really? Is it legal (or should it be) to steal money from a criminal? Or does your logic only apply to anti-government actions?

What if someone thinks the information they are stealing implicates the government in a crime, but they are wrong? Is is still ok to steal it?

Your logic leads to bad places if applied universally/objectively.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I think you're late on this one. The previous leak was a mass release of random government communications. It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it. The video of the helicopter gunship killing reporters qualifies as an intended "whistleblowing". This appears to me to be more an intent to inflict damage on the US.

I must be losing my touch. I thought I was making it clear that harming the US was his intent.

 

[russ_watters]

I must be losing my touch. I thought I was making it clear that harming the US was his intent.

No, I mean late in just recognizing it now

...this changes the whole ball game.

 

[Gokul43201]

It doesn't fit the concept of a "whistleblower". A "whistleblower" is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it.

Wikileaks does not fit the description of a whistle-blower in a more fundamental way, and in roughly the same way that the newspaper contacted by an insider leaking information is not the one referred to as the whistle-blower.

 

[Jack21222]

If someone steals money from a bank and then gives it to you, are you free to keep that money?

Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.

When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.

I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.

 

[Evo]

Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.

When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.

I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.

Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.

 

[Proton Soup]

so does this list also contain our petroleum assets in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the Middle East, and Caspian Sea Region?

 

[Jack21222]

Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.

Assange didn't steal documents, he just spread information in the same way writing a story about a CIA informant's identity would.

 

[WhoWee]

Right after Richard Armitage and just before the people that lied to get us into the war in the first place?

Are we at war with Wikileaks? Don't try to distract the thread away from the subject.

 

[Gokul43201]

Stolen classified and secret documents are not the same as reporting a story.

Novak published an article that revealed leaked classified information too (with a classification higher than "secret", I imagine).

 

[russ_watters]

Wikileaks does not fit the description of a whistle-blower in a more fundamental way, and in roughly the same way that the newspaper contacted by an insider leaking information is not the one referred to as the whistle-blower.

Point taken: Wikileaks leaks things for whistleblowers. The media has called it "the whistleblower website".

In any case, I'm not sure that changes anything about my point.

 

[russ_watters]

Information isn't money. When money is stolen, a tangible good is taken from one person and given to another.

When information is stolen, the original person still has all of the same information. The analogy breaks down.

No, it really doesn't break down that way. You're not grasping the concept of ownership of information/intellectual property. Everything from patents to copy protected CDs work this way. For example copying a music cd and giving the copy to a friend is stealing even though you still retain your original copy and the artist who recorded it still has theirs.

I've never heard of a case where a journalist was successfully prosecuted for reporting on a factual story, regardless of how the information was obtained. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. The most recent case I can think of is the Plame case, and you didn't see journalist Robert Novak prosecuted. I don't recall anybody going after Novak at all.

I am not claiming Assange can be successfully prosecuted.

 

[Evo]

Assange didn't steal documents, he just spread information in the same way writing a story about a CIA informant's identity would.

The military guy didn't know how to get the documents, he asked for help in doing it, that's how he got reported. The assumpition is that wikileaks told him how to do it.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Another assumption is that someone else besides Wikileaks told him how to do it. It works in many ways.

 

[WhoWee]

Another assumption is that someone else besides Wikileaks told him how to do it. It works in many ways.

Are you going to keep us in suspense?

 

[Jack21222]

No, it really doesn't break down that way. You're not grasping the concept of ownership of information/intellectual property. Everything from patents to copy protected CDs work this way. For example copying a music cd and giving the copy to a friend is stealing even though you still retain your original copy and the artist who recorded it still has theirs. I am not claiming Assange can be successfully prosecuted.

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Are you going to keep us in suspense?

Mathnomalous pointed out an unsupported assumption that was about as plausible as the unsupported assumption Evo gave. I don't think there's any reason to feel suspense; I doubt either Evo or Mathnomalous intends to support the assumption they proffered.

 

[Gokul43201]

The military guy didn't know how to get the documents, he asked for help in doing it, that's how he got reported. The assumpition is that wikileaks told him how to do it.

Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.

 

[Evo]

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

No, it's a criminal offense. ICE has shut down 80 websites just recently for criminal copyright violation.

 

[Evo]

Is it known that wikileaks helped him steal the info? I imagine if the government had enough evidence for that, there wouldn't be any trouble getting a warrant for his arrest.

I assume it will take time to build up a case. Maybe they didn't and the guy found another hacker to help him after he contacted wikileaks. I'm not privy to the investigation. All I know for sure is that the hacker he contacted for help turned him in at the time he contacted wikileaks. A very short time frame.

 

[russ_watters]

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

Copyright infringement is actually a more direct analogy, so...no, it doesn't break down. I just used physical theft because you seem to reject the concept of stealing information. Now it seems you accept that such things are illegal. You're arguing against your own point.

 

[talk2glenn]

Copying a music cd and giving it to a friend is copyright infringement, not theft. There is a real difference in the law. So yes, it really does break down that way. Copyright protection is largely a civil matter, not criminal.

Id strongly suggest not taking legal advice from Jack.