Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Internet & Networking It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet - and they're learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks' account suspension. Update II: Visa.com is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Thread beginning with comment 452868
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely disagree"
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

" Wikileaks 'attacked' first.


This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
"

This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences.

Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable.

Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. "

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"[q] Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. "

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice. [/q]

You are correct about treason, but espionage is different. Many countries have espionage laws and might be willing to extradite someone who violates them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.


My bold. God, I love OSNews amature-hour universe-the-way-I-wish-it-was comments. Tital 18, quoted elsewhere, specifically states that if you operate in support of another party who attains and distributes classified data without clearance, you can be prosecuted for the offense in full measure. Note that it does not require that the other party be charged with anything, convicted of anything, or even be a U.S. citizen.

Towards the end of http://www.osnews.com/permalink?452778 , specifically:
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


Edit: cleaned up the quote blocks a bit.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Wrong. You forgot to add something like "and he does not live there.", which, now that I'm writing this, appears insufficient to covers all cases of people being judged in the US: I saw a documentary yesterday about the Nairobi bombing in 1998 and they said one of the terrorist has been judged in the US. So no, being a US citizen is not a complete requirement.

Reply Parent Score: 2