The new Rolling Stone has a pretty decent (long) article about Barrett Brown: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/barrett-brown-faces...
A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of those actions are 'just speech', quite in fact they are punishable through the existing legal framework and in neither case is the crime specifically the speech. The crime is what you use the speech to do , whether it is oppress someone, punish them, or bring harm to them. Pasting a link to the stratfor archive - content that was already available in lots of places - does not do measurable harm to anyone.…
While this is a reasonable opinion, the parent was responding to a claim that "typing out http://some.website should never be a crime. Period." Since the harm supposedly caused by pasting the link is contested, this was presumably meant to mean that the consequences of typing out a link should not be considered, so the parent was reasonable in rebutting it with that example.
My PoV is that the link itself IS irrelevant; you can just look at whether it inflicted harm to the owners of those credit cards, and in this case it obviously did not - the information was already available.
Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#33Obligatory: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
> Obligatory
Really?
http://www.righto.com/2013/09/9-hacker-news-comments-im-tire...
Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#34Obligatory: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
The linked article makes the point that these sentences are used as a tool of intimidation but don't generally reflect actual sentences. I'm not convinced that's a reason to ignore them: it seems to me that the correct response of a less credulous observer would be to attack the system. Piling bullshit charges on to get extra years and extract a plea bargain is reprehensible. Are they trying to serve justice or colle…
The linked article makes the point that the "100 years" Brown faces has no relation to reality. What the NYT is reporting is literally a misreading of the sentencing guidelines.
Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#35Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#36"The article was based on, and linked to, documents that were stolen by Edward J. Snowden..." "...are suggesting that to share information online is the same as possessing it or even stealing it." I find the choice of the verb "steal" rather bizarre, particularly given the slant of this article. If leaking information is theft, then the New York Times is a frequent recipient and trafficker of stolen goods. I'm not ne…
Probably the difference being whether the information taken is considered newsworthy or not. There's a difference between publicly showing documents that suggest illegal activities by the government and credit card numbers.
If the information can be considered newsworthy then there are several legal protections that kick in that make getting convictions difficult and the government isn't likely to bother. Especially if it would hurt the mutually beneficial relationship between government and the news media.
Brown has done things that put him outside of mainstream news media, many of these actions were quite illegal. He's not in trouble for sharing leaked documents. He's in trouble for sharing credit card numbers and information that can be used for identity theft. I'm pretty sure that type of information is not newsworthy and not for sharing.
If he had scrubbed that information then I would imagine there wouldn't be an issue. That and stop threatening FBI agents.
Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#37These types of articles are depressing to me because they mask what could be a good moral and legal question behind claims which border on dishonest. Saying that the Feds are charging Barrett for the crime of "posting a URL" is like saying that the Norwegian police would be charging Breivik for "pulling a metal lever" hundreds of times. I mean sure, he did that, but that's not what the claimed "crime" is. Imagine a g…
>Imagine a guy gets passed the key to a storage locker by his friends, and is told that the storage locker holds stolen trade secrets, credit cards, etc. This guy had nothing to do with the theft itself, but he knows about it. I can imagine, but it's not what happened. LulzSec shotgunned the release out onto the web, where everyone picked it up, not just Brown. >Let's say further that this guy duplicates the key and…
Manning never faced the death penalty. Not for a single day.
This goes back to what I was saying about advocates being near to dishonesty, by the way. You probably read at some point Manning was facing the death penalty, and despite having years and years to correct your initial misperception, you continue to not only remember that incorrectly, but to parrot it as truth.
> Once information is out in the clear, it makes absolutely zero sense to try and claim some sort of retroactive "special inherent legal protection."
When Barrett pasted that link, was that information already publically available? I don't mean "a URL one could theoretically have wardialed"... did all the others in that IRC chat room already have that data, or did they not?
If that data were already out in public and he was simply referencing it I'd probably agree with your interpretation in this case. But if that data were 'news' to the rest of the chat room then it seems that 'hacking and pilfering' would apply, except that no hacking was needed in this case.
But either way involvement in criminal enterprises has always been itself a crime, to avoid diversion of responsibility in the way you would allow.
E.g. a bank robbery, the guy driving the getaway car gets in trouble too even though driving a car isn't illegal, otherwise you could split up your criminal ring in a kind of 'process separation' scheme and have only a few take the risk of the actual crime while the rest aid as much as they can with normally-legal activity.
Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#38Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#39Obligatory: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
The problem is that max sentences are often abused as tool of intimidation to get plea bargains. So even if there is no way in he will get 100 years the possibility scares some people into plea bargains. Ridiculous max sentences which almost never happen do not work well together with plea bargains.
> The problem is that max sentences are often abused as tool of intimidation to get plea bargains.
I get why people are concerned with plea bargains, but I don't understand why people think that defense attorneys are not familiar with the concept of federal sentencing guidelines. Even a public defender (especially a public defender?) should be able to explain the basics of sentencing to their client when their client is considering a plea.
Re: A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Imagine a guy gets passed the key to a storage locker by his friends, and is told that the storage locker holds stolen trade secrets, credit cards, etc. This guy had nothing to do with the theft itself, but he knows about it. I can imagine, but it's not what happened. LulzSec shotgunned the release out onto the web, where everyone picked it up, not just Brown. >Let's say further that this guy duplicates the key and…
Manning never faced the death penalty. Not for a single day. This goes back to what I was saying about advocates being near to dishonesty, by the way. You probably read at some point Manning was facing the death penalty, and despite having years and years to correct your initial misperception, you continue to not only remember that incorrectly, but to parrot it as truth. > Once information is out in the clear, it mak…
> You probably read at some point Manning was facing the death penalty, and despite having years and years to correct your initial misperception....
Manning was charged with "aiding the enemy". This is a capital crime, and while prosecutors stated they would not "recommend" the death penalty, they do not determine sentencing and the military judge could have ignored their recommendation were Manning found guilty.
It entirely true that Manning faced the death penalty.