|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 5:14:38 GMT -5
Regarding cyber crime, I think we should look at the core concepts of victim and intent. If there is an obvious victim, then it is reasonable to look at extraditing suspected perpetrators. I don't think the government is a victim though, I think specific harm or risks have to be demonstrated. If a bunch of classified materials are leaked but no one is actually harmed by that? Then they probably shouldn't have been classified in the first place. Secondly intent is very important. Intent to harm vs intent to expose harm that has been covered up is obviously different. Demonstrating intent is a core part of criminal proceedings, it should apply here. But how do you define harm/risk? If you publish secret defense documents for example, that might not harm anyone now directly, but could cause harm when it comes to a future conflict. What the US argued in the case of Assange is that he put people that are named in the documents at risk, meaning the US had to rush to make sure nothing happened to them (this is the argument). Even if someone does not intend to put anyone in harm's way, how do you deal with a potential gung ho or negligent attitude in what you publish/leak thereby putting people at risk?
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 27, 2024 5:14:41 GMT -5
I think in general it's a non-issue. Every country has its own laws regarding theft, fraud, etc, and someone who commits those crimes can be prosecuted in their home country. The US doesn't need to prosecute a UK resident who hacks a US resident's bank account, their actions are also illegal under UK law and the UK can handle the case just fine. Jurisdiction is only an issue in two cases:
1) Countries like Russia, where cyber crime is de facto legal as long as it is committed against an approved enemy. But this is a political matter, not a legal issue, as Russia is never going to extradite criminals acting with state endorsement. And the solution is to resolve it with sanctions or other tools of diplomacy, treating the "crime" as the actions of a hostile foreign power rather than individual criminals.
and
2) Cases like Assange, where powerful people are angry but the supposed crime is questionable at best, evidence of guilt is lacking, or the allowed punishment is inadequate to satisfy their desire for vengeance. And the answer here is for those powerful people to just STFU and deal with the fact that they don't always get everything they want.
In the vast majority of cases prosecuting ordinary crimes is completely uncontroversial. Maybe a country has to settle for a 5 year sentence instead of a 7 year sentence like they could impose if they could extradite the criminal but it's not like the criminal is getting away with it.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 5:17:01 GMT -5
I think there is something to say about scenario 1 though. These criminals are not always the smartest people. They might end up traveling to a third country where they can (and have) been arrested. Thereby the process still has value. You can hold both the state and the criminal responsible.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 27, 2024 5:22:16 GMT -5
Even if someone does not intend to put anyone in harm's way, how do you deal with a potential gung ho or negligent attitude in what you publish/leak thereby putting people at risk? This is already handled by existing laws and essentially it comes down to whether or not the public has a genuine interest in having the information. Leak the name of a random US spy in Russia? Not something the public has any genuine need to know, therefore it isn't protected by whistleblower exceptions and theft/publication of classified information can be prosecuted as normal. Leak the fact that the US illegally used a warrantless search to gain certain information on a suspect? The public has a genuine interest in knowing about the illegal actions of the government so leaking that information is legal even if, as a consequence, that suspect is able to escape because they are aware of the search.
Of course that only applies to a country's own jurisdiction. If someone in another country leaks information that is legal to publish under their own laws then sucks to be you, other countries don't have an obligation to protect your secrets. In fact, other countries may have a compelling interest in publishing those secrets with the specific intent to cause damage.
Possibly, though that argument is not really applicable to the Assange case. He wasn't living in some lawless failed state where criminals run the country and crime is legal as long as it only hurts foreigners, the US simply disagreed with the laws of his country and demanded vengeance.
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Jun 27, 2024 5:27:28 GMT -5
Stealing an original copy of the Declaration of Independence is obviously different to disseminating the contents of said declaration. Which I why I can read the declaration on Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 27, 2024 5:31:42 GMT -5
Stealing an original copy of the Declaration of Independence is obviously different to disseminating the contents of said declaration. Which I why I can read the declaration on Wikipedia.
Yep. And even if it wasn't in the public domain yet publishing copies of it would be a civil matter, not criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 5:32:49 GMT -5
Even if someone does not intend to put anyone in harm's way, how do you deal with a potential gung ho or negligent attitude in what you publish/leak thereby putting people at risk? This is already handled by existing laws and essentially it comes down to whether or not the public has a genuine interest in having the information. Leak the name of a random US spy in Russia? Not something the public has any genuine need to know, therefore it isn't protected by whistleblower exceptions and theft/publication of classified information can be prosecuted as normal. Leak the fact that the US illegally used a warrantless search to gain certain information on a suspect? The public has a genuine interest in knowing about the illegal actions of the government so leaking that information is legal even if, as a consequence, that suspect is able to escape because they are aware of the search.
Of course that only applies to a country's own jurisdiction. If someone in another country leaks information that is legal to publish under their own laws then sucks to be you, other countries don't have an obligation to protect your secrets. In fact, other countries may have a compelling interest in publishing those secrets with the specific intent to cause damage. But what if someone leaks both of the identity of the spy by accident while publishing evidence of illegal activity? Again, this is one of the arguments they used against Assange, that he put people in those documents at risk.[/div][/quote] Agreed, this was retaliation, because the US was also never able to prove anyone was harmed due to any sort of negligence on the part of Assange.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jun 27, 2024 5:45:53 GMT -5
But what if someone leaks both of the identity of the spy by accident while publishing evidence of illegal activity? Then it goes to court to decide whether it was a good-faith attempt at whistleblowing or an indiscriminate dump of information without any attempt to only reveal material the public has a genuine interest in knowing. If the person intended to reveal information of genuine public interest but failed to realize how that information exposed an unrelated spy then they're clear. If the person intended to reveal everything without concern for public interest value (to get the fame of leaking secrets, etc) and just happened to reveal illegal activity along with all the other stuff then nope, go to prison. And, as with everything, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Which is another poor argument by the US. Even setting aside the jurisdiction issues putting people at risk is legal if the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the information, the mere fact that people were at risk or the US had to rush to respond to the leak is irrelevant. But the argument was never about the legal merits, it was about winning in the court of public opinion to justify illegally imprisoning and prosecuting Assange.
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jun 27, 2024 6:37:52 GMT -5
And, again, is it even an actual crime to put the foreign agents of a foreign state at risk by the exposure of classified documents by a foreign national? It is for an american citizen or someone in america, because of their laws put in place to protect the interests of the state. But those are national laws, they have (or should have) zero legal power beyond the borders of that nation. Obviously it is morally wrong for the guy in the russian FSB who is trying to warn everyone about the Russians using Novichok to be exposed and killed, but that doesn't mean it is illegal for their criminal activity (in this example sharing classified information with foreign agents) to be exposed because the Russian government will kill him for treason.
Like, if an American released docs which exposed Russian spies who then were rounded up, there is zero chance the US would extradite that person to Russia to face charges of espionage.
And the whole thing only gets murkier when you consider that "public interest" will vary from country to country. If you are a multinational news organisation with independent editorial branches in multiple countries, the public interest will vary by country. It might not be in the public interest of the US readers that a high ranking government official in the Congo is a foreign agent of the US who has repeatedly torpedoed attempts to address overreach by foreign mining companies, for example, but it is for your Congo readers. So what do you do then? Not run the story because it will put that official at risk, effectively granting the foreign relations of the US greater importance than the democracy of the local people affected by it? Or run the story because the people of the Congo deserve to know that a member of the government is corrupt, even if that puts that person at risk and makes the US look bad?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 6:58:20 GMT -5
What the US argued in the case of Assange is that he put people that are named in the documents at risk, meaning the US had to rush to make sure nothing happened to them (this is the argument). Which is another poor argument by the US. Even setting aside the jurisdiction issues putting people at risk is legal if the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the information, the mere fact that people were at risk or the US had to rush to respond to the leak is irrelevant. But the argument was never about the legal merits, it was about winning in the court of public opinion to justify illegally imprisoning and prosecuting Assange. Sure, but as long as some form of 'harm' is taken into the legal equation, countries like the US will abuse it in these cases. Which returns to the fact that extradition procedure shouldn't involve locking someone up for years while deciding if the country holding the person even considers it worthy of extradition.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 7:03:25 GMT -5
And, again, is it even an actual crime to put the foreign agents of a foreign state at risk by the exposure of classified documents by a foreign national? It is for an american citizen or someone in america, because of their laws put in place to protect the interests of the state. But those are national laws, they have (or should have) zero legal power beyond the borders of that nation. Obviously it is morally wrong for the guy in the russian FSB who is trying to warn everyone about the Russians using Novichok to be exposed and killed, but that doesn't mean it is illegal for their criminal activity (in this example sharing classified information with foreign agents) to be exposed because the Russian government will kill him for treason. Like, if an American released docs which exposed Russian spies who then were rounded up, there is zero chance the US would extradite that person to Russia to face charges of espionage. It is usually considered a crime by the country in question that is affected through espionage laws. The only problem is capturing those responsible if they reside abroad. It does enable them to request third parties to extradite them (more so for the US than Russia), thereby limiting their future use. The Russians just solve this 'problem' by having them murdered.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 811
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 27, 2024 7:18:44 GMT -5
Again, the internet muddies things here in terms of jurisdiction and the law keeping up with technology. And there’s the legal argument had Wikileaks not touted for documents? The leak wouldn’t have happened, as Chelsea Manning wouldn’t have had anywhere to deliver them to.
Now. Is that a strong argument? Ask a suitably qualified and experienced lawyer. But it exists whatever you or I may think about it.
That any extradition is agreed is on the government agreeing it, as they’re a matter of negotiation, including agreeing charges, and taking certain punishments - such as execution, off the table. And they can include being tried in a neutral country under an agreed legal code.
What Assange did was high risk, so in my book, you don’t get to play the victim of the big nasty bully when you insisted on picking the fight in the first place.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 811
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 27, 2024 7:28:13 GMT -5
As for Blasphemy Laws?
Did I blaspheme in a country with said law? If not, does the location I blasphemed in have its own, roughly comparable, blasphemy law? What is the overall context of my activity? Did I simply call the Christian God a big smelly poo head? Or did I hack into a TV station and broadcast an anti-Christianity rant to as many channels and screens as possible?
What is the punishment proposed by the country seeking my extradition? Can they demonstrate actual harm was caused, to the satisfaction of my own country’s government? Becuase it all depends so much upon context, from which we can look for possible existing precedent, like a lawyer would. And as both sides would be doing the same, it boils down to who can make the most persuasive argument that their example of precedence is best applied in the situation.
No. I’m not a lawyer. But ny career still revolves around law, regulation, the gathering and interpretation of evidence and arguments, and offering an opinion. So after 12 years, you could say I’m fairly well versed.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jun 27, 2024 8:14:22 GMT -5
I don't think you want to criminalize revealing illegal activities such as war crimes, I don't think that is picking a fight. Shining a light on these things might at least lead to changes in the future.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 811
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jun 27, 2024 8:37:30 GMT -5
It’s not the content of the info that’s my problem. Because that’s not the only thing Wikileaks distributed. At all. Hence my previous analogy that mugging a drug dealer doesn’t make up for mugging little old ladies. An older article, but still relevant - nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.htmlThis is why I have absolutely fuck all sympathy with Assange, especially due to his rank hypocrisy that everyone but him is fair game. That such a loose cannon, who has praised the rise of fake news, has a cult of personality I find deeply worrying.
|
|