Politicians Investigating Leaks Sites... Not Leaks

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

Fri, Dec 11th 2009 4:12am — Mike Masnick

It was rumored recently that some politicians were going to investigate Wikileaks for some leaked documents that were posted there. The details weren't clear, and I was hoping something was lost in the translation, and they meant that the politicians would be investigating the leaks not the site Wikileaks for posting it. No such luck apparently. Three Congressional Reps have apparently asked Homeland Security what can be done about sites that post leaked documents, including not just Wikileaks, but Cryptome as well. In the letter to Homeland Security, they basically suggest that if needed, they'll put forth legislation that would make reposting such content illegal, which could create one hell of a First Amendment legal battle at some point. Either way, these politicians are focused on the wrong things. The problems aren't these sites, which are just service providers for the information. The problems are the leaks of info themselves.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blame, cryptome, homeland security, leaks, messenger, wikileaks

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Richard (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 4:24am

Feynman's maxim
Feynman’s Maxim: An organization will fear and despise loyal vulnerability assessors and others who point out vulnerabilities or suggest security changes more than malicious adversaries.

see more maxims at...
http://www.ne.anl.gov/capabilities/vat/seals/maxims.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 11 Dec 2009 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: Feynman's maxim
  In other words, "We tend to want to shoot the messenger".
  
  That being what it is, I'm still perplexed by not only the desire to go after the leak publishers instead of the leak-makers...
  
  ...but what about the malfeasance the leak exposes? No discussion on the legality of the leaked action and the benefit that the leak provides to correct misdeeds in government?
  
  Of course not. Let's not use the information to bust more prostitutes, let's just bring up Craigslist on charges and make prostitution even harder to correct.
  
  That's thinkin' for ya'...
  
  (the reason for all this I suspect? Some might be surprised at the level of complicity by officials in both examples. Shutting down the ability to view misdeeds in broad daylight is probably in the best interest of certain well placed individuals.)
  
  CBMHB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Robinson, 11 Dec 2009 @ 4:45am

dificult to stop
From what i understand Wikileaks was purposely designed from the outset to be dificult to shut down. It operates in multiple jurisdictions and the software it uses is free open source. Trying to shut it down would end up being the ultimate streisand effect/game of whack a mole. Lets hope the politicians realise this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CastorTroy-Libertarian, 11 Dec 2009 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: dificult to stop
  No i hope they dont realize it, let the steisand effect happen and show what a bunch of in-bred, douche-bags, we are allowing to run the country..
  Plus then we get to point and say MYTHIC FAIL! when they try to play wack a mole
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stander, 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:21am

Kill the Messenger
FTA -> "Three Republican lawmakers have asked the Department of Homeland Security what can be done to bar or criminally penalize whistleblower sites that reposted a sensitive airport-screening manual that was published on the internet by a government worker."

First amendment covers this hopefully. Also, isn't there some sort of law which provides protection to a whistle blower ... oh yeah, that only protects against corporate retribution not government.

Get a load of that guy in the picture - they make him look like Adolf. Pretty funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:21am

Makes you wonder
There was a senator or congressman who stated we should investigate the person who leaked/stole the climategate emails as well. Makes you wonder why a government officer would worry more about prosecuting the culprit rather than investigating to see if there is any truth to the claim. Its not like the world is going to spend trillions of tax dollars in the next few years to solve a problem that isn't a problem. No, lets not focus on that, lets catch the guy who exposed the fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BobinBaltimore (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:29am

Difference
I would note that there is a difference between whistleblowing (revealing illegality or wrong-doing) and just leaking information, especially when that information is classified. Completely agree that the messenger should not be killed in really either case, especially the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 6:36am
  
  Re: Difference
  "I would note that there is a difference between whistleblowing (revealing illegality or wrong-doing) and just leaking information, especially when that information is classified."
  
  Very true, though some of us believe that "classified information" needs to be done away with entirely. Just be open and honest. No need to hide troop movements beyond not broadcasting them. No need for spies and all that nonsense. I'd rather my country be open and weak, than closed and strong...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 11 Dec 2009 @ 7:18am
    
    Re: Re: Difference
    "No need to hide troop movements beyond not broadcasting them. No need for spies and all that nonsense."
    
    Okay, I'm all for openness, but that's just silly. The Internet is global. "Not hiding" is exactly the same thing as broadcasting. If our enemy can determine our troops' positions at will, then yeah, we have a problem.
    
    "I'd rather my country be open and weak, than closed and strong..."
    
    How about a happy medium? "Open and weak" could easily become "closed and ruled by someone else." I do not agree with the war in Iraq. I believe that war should be used only as a last resort. But, when it is used, we better be damned good at it. Like it or not, freedom does require defense. Giving enemies free and open access to our strategies and tactics is not going to help us at all. It's going to cause a lot of soldiers, who are real, valuable people just like you and me, to die.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 7:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Difference
      Okay, you're right, I shot my wad a little too strongly there. I'm just sick of all the BS nat'l security garbage stuffed down my throat. Keep the troop movements secret, I suppose, but do it by keeping it quiet, not shutting people up.
      
      Secret documents in a democracy infuriate me....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BobinBaltimore (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Difference
      Agreed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:31am

They will catch the guy, they will expose what happened, but it doesn't change the very basic thing:

Any media (including websites) should not be in any legal position to push out secret or secure government documents with impunity. The act of sharing the document is pretty much as bad as the original leaker. In many cases, it is worse, because it means that the document ends up widely distributed.

oh yeah, sorry, 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230! Riiiight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  "The act of sharing the document is pretty much as bad as the original leaker."
  
  Which is usually orders of magnitude better than keeping it secret.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  I like how you don't even know what 230 is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:32am

"these politicians are focused on the wrong things"

Nope, these politicians are perfectly focused on protecting their campaign financiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 8:51am
  
  Re:
  you are being too kind Ima Fish, i was thinking they are protecting there corrupt A**
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rw (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:35am

Congress
It just underscores how ignorant our current crop of Congressmen are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:46am

I saw on a satirical news show that the TSA has been without an administrator since Jan 2008. I have no way to confirm this one way or not, but the satirical news show discussed that in their effort to fill these positions, entire TSA screening manuals being released on Government job websites.

Now, I never saw the job, nor did I see postings in question. However, I think it's weird when the head of a consolidated set of departments may need to post entire operational manuals online for all to see.

Kinda weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 6:26am

The Leaks...
Some of the posts are suggesting that posting the leaked information is wrong because it is suppose to be secret. I agree ONLY when the information is secret out of true necessity to act on the information.

Plans detailing the next push in our non-congress declared war? Should be kept secret until it happens.
List of names of people engaged in espionage or monetizing activities, names of people undercover? Secret.
List of protected witnesses and their locations? Secret.

The number of people put under wiretaps without court permission? Hell no.
A treaty that will change every aspect of copyright? NO.
Unclassified manual that you want to keep secret anyways? Getting luke warm, at best.
Historical documents that cover the fumbling and panic of the 9/11 attacks? NO.

Unless the information is secret (and classified) to protect the lives of soldiers, witnesses, or undercover workers, or otherwise directly hold the means to kill a person (DIRECTLY, not indirectly like the screening guidelines) IT SHOULD NOT BE SECRET FROM THE PEOPLE.

The problem isn't the leaks of info, it is the fact that there is information to leak. It is the belief that hidden info is the right way to protect against technological failures. And it is the thought that keeping information secret to prevent embarrassment is OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BobinBaltimore (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 6:37am
  
  Re: The Leaks...
  I agree with your sentiment, but there is this pesky issue of the law. Different classifications of government documents are made through a defined process. I am not contending that this process is without politics, errors or deceit, but it is the process. Anyone who knowingly skirts that or releases said documents is subject to the long arm of the law. The misuse of those classifications should also be prosecuted, but rarely is.
  
  I do hope the law and the process changes. But, in the meantime, I also don't want every rogue with access to docs feeling that they, as either smart or stupid individuals (there are examples of both with clearance), can decide which should be released without fear of repercussions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 6:49am

Please explain why leaks are bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 11 Dec 2009 @ 6:53am

Never, wikileaks has found a way stay up and it's almost certain they will always find a way to stay operational.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 7:32am

Any media (including websites) should not be in any legal position to push out secret or secure government documents with impunity. The act of sharing the document is pretty much as bad as the original leaker. In many cases, it is worse, because it means that the document ends up widely distributed.

oh yeah, sorry, 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230! Riiiight!

I agree that WikiLeaks is probably not covered by 230 (since it refuses to comply with DMCA takedown requests, etc.), but I'd say an important part of the first amendment is that the press should be in the position to distribute secret government documents when brought to their attention by whistle-blowers in the government.

In the case that the leak reveals no wrong-doing but is seriously harmful in some way, someone probably ought to be in trouble (but hopefully not WikiLeaks).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  If the government has nothing to hide then why should people be punished for exposing the truth?
  
  It should be clear by now that the U.S. is not good at innovation or doing anything good for its people. The only thing it's good at is lobbying and suppressing the truth and the U.S. has an advanced ability to accomplish these endeavors.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 10:29am
  
  Re:
  "Any media (including websites) should not be in any legal position to push out secret or secure government documents with impunity."
  
  The government, who is SUPPOSED to represent the PEOPLE, should not be allowed to hide information from the public with impunity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 10:48am
  
  Re:
  Section 230 relates to libel/etc., DMCA is for copyright. They're unrelated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 8:16am

Amazing
This is one is really great. So these fools in Congress now want to pass a law (or regulation or whatever) that says "if we fuck up and accidentally post shit on the internet, we can come after you with criminal charges if you pass it along to anyone else."

Of course they don't bother to explain how the public is supposed to know what stuff on a government web site is there by mistake and what stuff is not. I guess you'll find out when they arrive at your home with a warrant and an indictment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 10:04am

Of course, because the politicians don't care about investigating their own crimes, they care about investigating how the public got to know about their crimes and stopping it. Look at mainstream media, true journalism does not exist in mainstream media because important information gets censored. This whole nonsense about not allowing "non-journalists" protection has absolutely nothing to do with what's best for society and it has everything to do with preventing the public from finding out about important information that they should know, just like they have accomplished outside the Internet. They want to stop sites like http://www.thoreau-fda.com/ (which doesn't even work anymore) from presenting important information to the public and to prevent employees from the FDA from reporting the truth to the public anonymously. If an employee from the FDA does report the truth to the public they want to ensure that that employee gets punished so as to discourage anyone else from reporting the truth. Outside the Internet the truth never ever saw the light of day and they want to ensure that truth never sees the light of day within the Internet as well. and so far they are gaining ground and unless we stand up for what's right the Internet will turn into the mainstream media with nothing but lies and censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
., 11 Dec 2009 @ 10:07am

Wikileaks is great
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 11 Dec 2009 @ 11:10am

Study on TSA Manual releases effects on holiday travel
MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 665 Americans viewing a news clip featuring the leak of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) security manual on the Internet. Results found that the percentage of viewers who reported feeling “not at all safe” with air travel drastically increased after viewing the news clip about the leak. In addition, nearly one-third of viewers (28%) reported that they would be less likely to travel on an airplane this holiday season. More in depth results can be seen at:
http://www.mediacurves.com/NationalMediaFocus/J7673-AirportScreeningManual/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 11:25am
  
  Re: Study on TSA Manual releases effects on holiday travel
  So basically the only reason to prevent leaking this information is to help with airline profits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 11:17am

hey... c'mon legal authorities!!!
if youre not doing anything wrong you dont have anything to worry about when it comes to leaked documents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vic, 11 Dec 2009 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re:
  ROFL!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2009 @ 11:33am

Something to ponder...
"I wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for Rupert Murdoch"

-Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
calbo (profile), 12 Dec 2009 @ 5:17am

leaks
it is interesting who does the protesting in these cases. When the pentagon papers were released in the 70's, republicans were apoplectic at the violation of secrecy, while the liberals celebrated those who leaked. Now the leakers have skewered the sacred cow of environmentalism and liberals are screaming the sky is falling and off with their heads. I say we investigate congress for believing the environmental claptrap in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alatar, 12 Dec 2009 @ 2:09pm

"The problems aren't these sites, which are just service providers for the information. The problems are the leaks of info themselves."

And why am I feeling like the leaks themselves aren't a problem either, but are actually one of the guarantees we're still living in a democracy? Leaks and leakers are good for our society, and therefore should be protected, not hunted down.
By the way, aren't these douches so prone to tell us "if you're not doing anything bad, you don't have to fear being watched"?

Leaks guarantee transparency, which guarantees democracy, I challenge you to prove the contrary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]