Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sites

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the rest-of-the-world-perhaps-you've-heard-of-it dept.

Censorship 316

eldavojohn writes "You may recall the TSA demonstrating how tech-savvy it is by releasing a document with redactions intact. Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document (e.g. Cryptome and Wikileaks). In a letter to the DHS (PDF), Charles Dent (R-PA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Peter T. King (R-NY) asked, 'How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?' And they asked if the DHS is 'considering issuing new regulations pursuant to its authority in Section 114 of Title 49, United States Code, and are criminal penalties necessary or desirable to ensure such information is not reposted in the future?' King is the representative who announcing a probe into Wikileaks after the half million 9/11 pager messages were released."

cancel ×

316 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

NO!! (5, Insightful)

splatacaster (653139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402082)

This is a dangerous road to go down.

Re:NO!! (3, Insightful)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402186)

we're already there.

Re:NO!! (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402872)

And oh so slippery.

Re:NO!! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402928)

Think about it this way though. Now we have the names of 3 lawmakers of which to start probing into their private lives INTENSELY.

This certainly applies to them:

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Once it's out of the bag.. (4, Insightful)

MaerD (954222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402104)

It's kinda hard to put back, if there are criminal charges to be involved, it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.

Re:Once it's out of the bag.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402676)

With regard to DHS and TSA, there probably are. We won't hear about them, especially if the person who 'let them out' has a position of significance. Not that such a thing exists at either of these agencies....

We should all recognize this type of tactic. Attack, and blame the ones holding the data after the fact. Not the idiots who let it out in the first place. This is standard procedure for politicians with regard to agency fuck-ups.

Re:Once it's out of the bag.. (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402930)

it should be against the idiots who posted the document and should have known better.

A government agency responsible for securing billions of dollars in assets and millions of lives yearly now knows the exact scope and nature of a serious breach of security that otherwise wouldn't have been noticed and could have been exploited by people who are a genuine threat to national security, as opposed to a bunch of average americans who get to feel special for about five minutes. Clearly, jailing the people who exposed this is the best route, as opposed to using a little-known fund that the DHS setup to reward private citizens who contribute to anti-terrorism objectives.

The people who exposed this are heroes, not criminals. They've exposed a major security vulnerability before anyone could be hurt. Unfortunately, the reputation the TSA and DHS has when private citizens come forward to report problems with their administration of policy, or the policies themselves, is atrocious. They only option they had was a wide and public distribution -- if it could have been contained, they'd vanish right along with the problem. Moving forward the best thing to do is;

1. Establish guidelines for reporting problems with administration of their policy
    (in the private sector, we euphemistically refer to these as "training opportunities").
2. Establish guidelines for reporting problems with operational security.
3. Modify existing damage control procedures to focus more on problem resolution than image protection.
4. ACCEPTING THAT SECURITY BREACHES WILL OCCUR, and have a reporting procedure and clear chain of command
      (thus far, they've shown a remarkable lack of understanding of this key concept)
5. Stop over-reacting to perceived security breaches -- it desensitizes people and worsens response time should a truly serious situation occur.
      Call it the "I cried wolf too many times" story. Stories about the TSA used to make front page... now they're barely slow news day material.

The overarching objective here is to restore faith in the institution -- because the TSA has become the laughing stock of the media, and the flying public groans at the mention of it. Remember only a few years ago when the TSA was created how people said they'd willingly and happily stand in line for an hour and a half to get through the checkpoint, because they felt safer? Public opinion has dropped considerably since then -- now they're afraid they'll get the greased glove treatment if they so much as look at the equipment. When a flight attendant flips out over someone's request to have orange juice and then receives an official notice that they could be thrown in jail, charged with felonies, and be added to the no-fly list... There is a serious lack of understanding about both what security means, and the public's perception of it. And it's nobody's fault but the TSA's for allowing this to happen.

Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402118)

Corrupt Republicans, like usual, are trying to prevent their constituents from having the actual information about the farce of security that is the TSA. Corrupt republicans feel that security through stupidity is the best way for the country, they fully support the destruction of libertarian ideals and those who support freedom.

Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth (-1, Flamebait)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402190)

Your are completely ideological incorrect in your statement. This should be "Corrupt liberal politicians hate freedom and truth". Both sides of the isle have their share of corruption. These politicians are liberal and that is where the corruption abounds. (They are also known as RINOs).

Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402354)

You are a silly bitch

Wait, what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402370)

I am not from USA and don't know how large the variety is inside your parties (probably quite large as everyone has to choose one of two options). However, why would a liberal politician choose the republican party?

Aren't republicans against gay marriage, drug legalization*, legalizing prostitution*, women's right to abortion and pretty much every other thing that has ever been debated on the "liberal-conservative" axis?

Not trying to bash republicans here (though it might be clear that I wouldn't vote for them were I to live in USA, I acknowledge that some people disagree and the party is no doubt good for them) but I really am interested in why would they be called liberals.

(*I know many or most democrats are against that too, yes)

Re:Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402494)

I really am interested in why would they be called liberals.

Basically because he would prefer a world where everyone equated liberal to bad (or even better, evil). There are two reasons someone would want to do this; to label the opposing party as evil, and to distance politicians he disagrees with from the party he supports. The former goes like this: all democrats are liberal, all evil politicians are 'liberal'. Therefore, all democrats are evil politicians. And as for the Republicans he doesn't agree with, they are all secretly liberal, not real republicans at all. He and he alone defines what makes a liberal/conservative, democrat/republican which makes it much easier to blindly continue forward without being forced to reevaluate decisions made long ago, like which political party is 'right' (as if there is such a thing).

Re:Wait, what? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402896)

Most Americans I know have significant problems with the existing political parties. Specifically, that most Americans I know prefer a financially conservative economic policy, peaceful foreign policy, and liberal social policy. This is a big problem because neither major party embraces all three. The Republicans are very much interested in imposing Christian social policy and generally have a fairly belligerent and aggressive foreign policy. The Democrats are socially liberal and have a more moderate foreign policy. Neither party, regardless of rhetoric, is remotely financially conservative in practice.

Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth (5, Insightful)

Myrimos (1495513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402384)

These politicians are liberal and that is where the corruption abounds. (They are also known as RINOs).

I don't disagree that corruption is party-agnostic, but I take umbrage to terms like Republicrat or RINO that marginalise the centre right and left. They promote a "with us or against us" mentality that was famous with the United States' last president.

Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402420)

"Charles Dent (R-PA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Peter T. King (R-NY)" are 'liberals'?

Somehow I doubt that all three of these Republicans are "liberals'.

A strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

Look what happens if we substitute some keywords in your argument. This shows the straw man bias in your argument.
"Sure both sides of the isle have their share of PIZZA CRAVINGS. These politicians are liberal and that is where the PIZZA EATING abounds. (They are also known as PIZZAEATERS)."

Both parties are bad, so vote Republican! (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402528)

Vote for the party that failed in a two-front war! They're just as bad as the Dems, amirite?

Re:Corrupt Republicans hate freedom/truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402584)

Both sides of the isle have their share of corruption.

Fianna Fáil and the Ulster Unionists?

RINOs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402940)

A majority of that party are RINOs, then. Maybe the small-government members should leave that party and join a small-government party instead. Like it or not, when I think "Republican," I think of people who want a larger, more expensive, more powerful, more authoritative, more FDR/LBJ-esque style federal government than their chief rival in the voting booth.

These people aren't even the fringes of the Republican party; they had a president recently, and his proposals were overwhelmingly supported (by voting on bills) by a strong, near-but-not-quite-unanimity of members in the House and Senate. All of your big guys are liberals. Saying that the Republicans who believe that government (and not just any government, but the federal government) knows what is best for everyone, are Republicans "in name only" is like saying Halo was published by Microsoft "in name only" but was really published by a small Mac gaming company, Bungie.

Wake up, people who use the word "RINO." Conservative Republicans (e.g. fringes like Ron Paul) are the actual Republicans In Name Only. You are members of a party who thinks the Democrats are too timid and slow-moving about making America more Soviet-like. You are members of the party that the "tea baggers" are really complaining about but are too afraid to admit. You are members of a party who would repeal the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments if they could, and also want to subvert the 2nd amendment too, but don't have the balls to actually speak out against that right.

Why do they all want this? One reason is that the bigger and more distant (Washington DC vs state) the government, the more easily to hide corruption. The other reason is that they're scared and want Nanny to save them. Sure, the Democrats do it too, but at least it's to a lesser degree, and without the hypocrisy.

Dear My Government... (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402122)

Dear My Government, It's Officers, Agents, And All Of That:

You do not own the internet. You do not control the internet. You screwed up by releasing sensitive information to the public through lawful channels, via a lawful request, that was not in any way fraudulent or deceiving. Man up to this, and figure out how to avoid the problem in the future like every other self-respecting government would -- instead of trying to throw your citizens to the wolves without a trial, or god only knows what else you're planning.

Sincerely,

A Whole Lot of Patriots

P.S. Those badges look like something out of a cereal box. Take this as an opportunity to make them actually look like something better than what you'd expect from a first year graphic design student. Or use psychic paper. Your choice.

WTF are you doing? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402316)

Wimmins aren't allowed on the internetz. Get back in the kitchen where you belong and let the men handle this.

Re:Dear My Government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402366)

Or use psychic paper.

What do you mean? It's blank.

P.S.: Well said.

Re:Dear My Government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402602)

Or use psychic paper.

What do you mean? It's blank.

Careful! You don't want to out yourself as part of the Torchwood Institute.

Re:Dear My Government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402470)

Dear A Whole Lot of Patriots,

Although our current prison population is higher than some of our smaller states, we feel more can be done. For this reason we are continuing with out policy of trying to create more laws, to fill more prisons, in order to satisfy the needs of private corporations benefiting from your tax money. We certainly could spend that money on better education, but we do not feel this in any way benefits the needs of the private corporations in which we have vested interests.

We also appreciate your arguments about doing a better job in protecting national secrets. We find it much more expedient to prosecute patriots, rather than 'cleaning up our mess'.

A Senator.

Re:Dear My Government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402534)

Freedom of the press. I don't see any way that they could legislate this without the Supreme Court overruling them.

Re:Dear My Government... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402586)

Its Officers, without the apostrophe. "It's" is short for "it is". "Its" is the possessive form.

Re:Dear My Government... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402876)

Dear Messrs, Dent, Bilirakis, and King,

Since your high school civics classes obviously forgot to include it in your course of study, please allow me to introduce you to the First Amendment [usconstitution.net] to the United States Constitution.:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Emphasis is mine).

Thank you.

I would think the first amendment would cover this (1)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402130)

I would think posting words would be covered under free speach. I doubt they are copyrighted. Plus with the internet you can host outside the USA. But I guess that didn't work for The Pirate Bay so who knows.

Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402344)

Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case. As to those who received and posted the documents for the world to see, unless they have a security clearance themselves (and have been appropriately briefed) I don't believe they are liable (obviously IANAL) so I don't see what exactly the congress-critters are asking for in this case.

To me, it sounds like they are saying "B- B- But they're doing something wrong, surely we can lock them up or something". In other words, "I don't know what law they're breaking, but I don't like what they're doing so find one that applies and enforce it." And that, even to someone who doesn't really buy into all the police state fears that go on around here, is a bit scary.

Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t (2, Interesting)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402542)

You are correct.

Only the person(s) covered by a security clearance that disclosed the information are the ones liable, as they signed the documents agreeing to be bound by the rules/laws governing the handling of such classified material.

A person receiving such disclosed material (a third party), is under no obligation to protect or otherwise not distribute the information. Oh, sure, they could turn the material over to the authorities and turn the person in, yeap.

This all sounds to me like certain members of the government are afraid that somethings they do not want disclosed are going to be, and all hell is going to break loose as a result.

I know from reading data about past disclosures, that the security classification system is used and abused to *deny* information to the people that should know what the heck is going on in this country, namely its citizens.

Re:I would think the first amendment would cover t (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402388)

Government works are never copyrighted, but the government has some limited ability to declare information to be so critical to national security that it must be kept secret for our own safety. For example, if you happen to find a nuclear weapon design document, with detail technical specifications, the government can bar you from publishing it.

It used to be that this law only applied to nuclear secrets and information related to the location of nuclear subs (and so forth), but these days terrorism is an excuse to keep all sorts of other things secret.

My email to Gus (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402136)

I know transparency terrifies you & your ilk, but I hope you get a clue & leave Wikileaks alone.

Security (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402146)

Ah yes, security by obscurity, that always works.

Re:Security (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402496)

worked for the TSA didn't it?

I'll let someone else speak for me... (4, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402160)

"The real meaning of enlightenment is to gaze with undimmed eyes on all darkness." ~ Nikos Kazantzaki

Of course, this is not what the people responsible for it wish to happen.

Headline should read: (2, Insightful)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402166)

Three Lawmakers Ask For Enforcement Against Leak Sources

Re:Headline should read: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402264)

what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?

RTFS

Re:Headline should read: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402296)

Whooosh!

Re:Headline should read: (1)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402620)

Who said anything about removing it? I'm saying they should investigate how the leak happened, and fix the problem at the source instead of running around like a schoolkid trying to catch the pages of his term paper blowing in the wind. Train people to redact properly. Or better yet, to better determine what actually has to be redacted in the first place, and what really belongs to the public. RMFP

Re:Headline should read: (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402766)

Who said anything about removing it?

The article did.

I'm saying they should investigate how the leak happened, and fix the problem at the source instead of running around like a schoolkid trying to catch the pages of his term paper blowing in the wind. ...

Agreed, but I also took your post to mean that the headline of the article did not reflect the contents, not that you disagreed with the contents of the article.

Really? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402196)

If your national security relies on censorship in this day and age, you're just not doing it right.

Nice to know they're on our side (5, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402216)

I've never known a politician to be thick or outdated, so I'm sure these guys are just concerned for our rights. They must be intentionally invoking the Streisand effect upon realizing how important this information is to have spread further across the internet.

Re:Nice to know they're on our side (3, Insightful)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402696)

Hopefully someone will go out of their way to dig up some dirt on Dent, Bilirakis, and King and immediately post it to WikiLeaks. Smells like they have some dark secrets and the idea of WikiLeaks makes them very nervous. All the more reason to put them under a magnifying glass.

Exposure is good. (3, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402224)

Suppressing the exposure is not the solution. It just means any future such leaks will be distributed "below the radar". In the interests of national security the leaks should be made as public as possible so that reactions can done to the leaks if required. Ideally the policies should be secure enough that we are still safe with full disclosure. As we all know security through obscurity is not a good solution.

Better that we know the leak occurred than the leak occurs and we don't know it happened.

not a substitute (2, Insightful)

nten (709128) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402722)

Obscurity is not a substitute for security. But people forget that it *is* a very useful supplement to security in many cases. By all mean publish the plans to the safe, but don't tell people where you put the safe, that serves no purpose. Likewise, if you have a method or technique that you already know is flawed but have not found a way to remedy, keeping the badguys in the dark longer is a good thing. However the real point of this story is that people who really need to know better don't realize leaks are unrecoverable once they hit the internet. The letter seems to hint that they suspect there is nothing to be done at this point, but they aren't sure. Maybe a class on such topics would be useful. Wouldn't it be nice if all legislators used the time they weren't in session to educate themselves on such things?

Like Google CEO Says... (2, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402226)

Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
(of course the fascist said it pertaining to personal privacy, but the sentiment really belongs to government transparency.)
        Now the fat ibogaine addicted swine are mudwrestling and brandishing weapons trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Anything to draw the publics attention away from the fact that not only do they not uphold their constitutional duties, but they have every intention of slowly subverting and perverting the constitution to suit their power hungry needs.
                shutdown -r apocalypse now

Re:Like Google CEO Says... (2, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402302)

Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".

Swing and a miss. If you're going to use quotation marks, take the time to look up what he actually said [slashdot.org] :

'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'

Of course, we'll remove the 'maybe' and the 'don't want anyone to know' and make it sound more Orwellian and before you know it, 640 kilobytes ought to be enough for anybody!

Re:Like Google CEO Says... (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402454)

In addition, "doing it" was a reference to searching for information on the activity that you want to keep hidden. Considering that ALL search engines of any magnitude keep that information, and they are ALL subject to subpoena (which was edited out of the quotes", it's probably a good rule to follow.

Re:Like Google CEO Says... (3, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402456)

It's really cool, all I have to do is post and instantly I have a cast of volunteer secretaries to correct syntax, research, and post supporting links.
      See what happens when you send Bob $30, the slack just starts pouring down on you.
http://www.subgenius.com/scatalog/membership.htm [subgenius.com]

Re:Like Google CEO Says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402310)

That's not what the CEO of Google said. If you're going to put quotes around something, make sure what's between the quotes is at least close word wise to what the person said.

Re:Like Google CEO Says... (-1, Flamebait)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402392)

What, are you the quote police or something? A retired pedantics professional? Maybe your daddy didn't touch you enough, or maybe too much?
If your issues increase, try getting back on your meds.

Re:Like Google CEO Says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402564)

I dont think that you can be addicted to ibogain....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine#Treatment_for_opiate_addiction

I can answer that for you (5, Informative)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402238)

what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?

Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States. So, none.

Re:I can answer that for you (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402408)

And according to their FAQ, they are mirrored in a fashion that would make them very, very, very hard to actually take down.

Re:I can answer that for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402462)

Wikileaks is hosted outside the United States. So, none.

Surgical air strike?

Re:I can answer that for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402530)

More like, "Operation Wiki Freedom"

Re:I can answer that for you (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402608)

They can remove the wikileaks domains and compel ISPs to filter all traffic to and from any IP addresses that resolve to the wikileak servers.

You can't remove it from the web completely but you can make it incredibly hard for anyone in the US to access.

Re:I can answer that for you (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402752)

Are the Republicans proposing the US to license Big Firewall of china ? :-D What a wonderfull time to live :D

Re:I can answer that for you (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402922)

A) That’s what Saddam said. Look how well that worked out. ;)

B) That’s what Osama said. And he was right. ;)

C) What if it’s in a darknet. With many copies. That will be next to impossible to attack.

D) I say, if they want to take the hoster down, then host it on their own servers and watch them taking themselves down. :D

Falls under freedom of press (3, Interesting)

Xeoz (1648225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402244)

The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.

Re:Falls under freedom of press (4, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402824)

"The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it."

That's not exactly true. If documents are an *actual* security risk, the publication can be suppressed. The Pentagon Papers case wasn't about the ability of the government to prevent the publication of material that threatened national security; it was about how the government classifies such information. The court found that the government cannot simply declare document "Top Secret" for no reason, or because the are embarrassing.

In practice, the press can get away with a lot because they use the Pentagon Papers case as an invincible shield, when it's not. In the Valerie Plame case, Bob Novak KNEW she had a TS clearance and was still under cover, and he published anyway. He should have been prosecuted along with Armitage. And if that lead to the VP and others, so be it. Instead we got Scooter Libby for lying to the FBI. Lots of justice there, yessiree.

They posted what was released (3, Informative)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402260)

How are the web sites at fault? The TSA gave them the information. If the TSA didn't want it posted they shouldn't have released the information.

The TSA's lack of technical skills is not a crime on the web sites part?

Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (5, Insightful)

rwv (1636355) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402280)

When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?

Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?

Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402414)

Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?

This

Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (4, Insightful)

Raisey-raison (850922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402598)

When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?

Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?

Republicans only care about less government when that means lower taxes and the government not providing services to it's citizens - especially the poor ones. But when it comes to a police state, defense spending and going to war they don't give a crap about liberty.

There really is no option (with respect to a viable political party) for someone who believes in liberty in all areas. The democrats want to take away economic liberty.

And both major parties don't seem to have common sense, eg we cant run deficits year after year since 2001 without severe consequences, IP is out of control and the gini coefienient is way too high. And except for a few on the hard left, there seems to be serious brain damage in the American political system when the majority of people think that you can have an effective health care system delivered by the free market. The free market doesn't work for health care.

Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (1)

minderaser (28934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402770)

When I was young Republicans wanted a less powerful government who couldn't regulate anything. Why is there a call by three Republicans for more government control? Do they not remember the values of their party?

Maybe they only want a powerful government when it's convenient for them?

Did you just figure this out?

Re:Republicans for Powerful Government!!! (1)

robw810 (819414) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402786)

The Democrats and Republicans are only different with respect to how *far* they want to crawl up your ass and what they want to do once they get there.

Obligatory H2G2 (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402292)

You're a jerk, Dent. FWIW, there is a difference between a reputable organization publishing these, where the address, employees, and funders are all known, and some anonymous group. If you want media shield protections, announce yourself, and retain counsel to ensure it.

Retards in office. (4, Insightful)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402304)

Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country? Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet.

Re:Retards in office. (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402444)

People achieve office based on their ability to convince enough people to vote for them (and rigging elections). Sadly, and obviously, it says nothing about their ability to responsibly and intelligently govern.

Re:Retards in office. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402502)

"Am I the only person that believes we have certifiable retards running our country? Like, seriously I think you have to be retarded if you actually think you can remove data from the internet."

We have plenty of retards relentlessly electing the "retards" who run the country.

We really need to admit that most of the American public are, to be polite, stupid, superstitious, willfully ignorant, and vicious.
Smart, clueful people will always be a tiny, often beseiged, minority.

Re:Retards in office. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402700)

We really need to admit that most of the American public are, to be polite, stupid, superstitious, willfully ignorant, and vicious.

That's a bit of a distortion. You missed out "fat".

Re:Retards in office. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402732)

Many of us feel the people in charge of our country are not the best to be doing so, unfortunately we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Ultimately WE are not making enough noise. WE are not putting those actually capable of doing the job. Additionally, many of those same people vote along party lines, if at all. How can you expect anything different?

Interesting question: Why do we force leaders to step down from a business at 55-60? I suspect it's because we don't think they're fit to represent the interests of the company. So why do we take the same people we say can't run a company, and let them run the country?

Is anyone really surprised that these people don't understand technology, and don't care about the future of the country? They'll all be dead in 15 years.

The usual... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402380)

The problem doesn't get fixed, instead the whistle-blower gets to be treated as a criminal.

WOW! Pass the message: the U.S. isn't intent on fixing problems, instead they're intent on suppressing free speech!

More important question is who TSA fired for this (2, Informative)

Tangential (266113) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402390)

Seems to me that the Congress ought to be more concerned about the levels of security and training maintained by the TSA than with sites that replicate publicly available information. Sounds to me that in addition to firing the redactor of the document for incompetence, several heads should roll in their IT, security and training organizations.

I agree. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402618)

More heads inside TSA need to roll. Don't punish the citizens for wanting to know WTF their security theater troop is doing to protect them.

Grammar Appears Correct To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402500)

The grammar in the OP's quote was correct, it is in the present-perfect tense. Read it again without [sic] in the middle and it will sound fine:

How has the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites, and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?

Link for reference: http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/prperfectense.htm [about.com]

Re:Grammar Appears Correct To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402734)

I think it should be "have" instead of "has". Plurality and all that stuff...

Re:Grammar Appears Correct To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402738)

The subject is "Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration", i.e. plural, so "have" should have been used instead of "had". (English isn't my native language, so don't take my word for it, but the document you referred to agrees: "The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject".) HTH

Re:Grammar Appears Correct To Me (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402746)

I think he was referring to the use of 'has' with a plural subject (due to there being two agencies involved).

Re:Grammar Appears Correct To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402862)

From the link you provided:

The auxiliary verb--has or have--changes to agree with its subject

In this case the subject is plural and you want "have", not "has". Consider this:

How have/has the dog and the cat been doing?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402504)

I don't think Congress will ever understand the nature of the internet...

Sic? (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402574)

From the summary:

How has [sic] the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration...

Why was the sic added to this statement? I'm not an English major but I don't find that sentence to use any archaic or incorrect spellings nor do I find the grammar to be wrong.

Re:Sic? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402702)

"has" in that sentence should be "have".

How has Jon and Bob been acting?
How have John and Bob been acting?

[sic] Heil!

Signed,
  - Goermer, proud member, local Grammar Nazi Union #242 :)

Re:Sic? (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402720)

Since it's two organizations being referred to (DHS and TSA) it should be plural: "how have ..." If it was only one, "How has ..." would have been correct.

Re:Sic? (1)

macaddict (91085) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402810)

The sentence is referring to two separate agencies: DHS and TSA. Rewrite the sentence to "How has they addressed the repeated posting..." vs. "How have they addressed the repeated posting...", and you'll see the error.

Re:Sic? (1)

babblefrog (1013127) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402822)

I'm thinking that should have been plural: "How have..."

Re:Sic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402894)

Because the subject is so long, it is easy to lose track of the fact that it is plural: "the Department of Homeland Security" and "the Transportation Security Administration". The auxiliary verb should be "have", not "has". If, for example, you replace the subject with something simpler but grammatically interchangeable, it becomes easier to see, thus:

How has Bob and Mike addressed this?
How have Bob and Mike addressed this?

Re:Sic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402912)

Editor/submitter may see DHS as a plural (a collection of individuals), thus changing that 'has' to a 'have'. Personally, I'm not sure which is grammatically correct, but it looks alright to me.

What about news orgs? (1)

joeszilagyi (635484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402592)

Why don't they say anything about going after news agencies that reposted the documents? Or is that a battle they don't want to fight? I don't get it.

So think pre-computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402626)

So if a government agency sent a printed press release out with Post-It notes stuck over sensitive bits, would they be surprised if someone pulled off the Post-Its and read what was underneath?

How do they feel about the CRU leaks? (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402664)

So, Republican representatives... when WikiLeaks is being used to post information you object to, you want it investigated.

I trust the same outrage applies to the emails stolen from the CRU and posted on WikiLeaks? Or does your interest in privacy only apply to issues you care about?

Re:How do they feel about the CRU leaks? (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402712)

Maybe document stolen from England need enforcement action from England rather than promoting the US as the World Police Force(tm).

CNN, FOX, etc...? (1)

xirusmom (815129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402672)

I first learned about the leak on CNN. They may have not showed the text on TV (I did not look on their site for it), but they sure talked about some of the contents and now I know that if I have a prosthetic leg I can bring, say, some maple syrup from Canada. If Wikileaks is hosting the content, so is CNN, and FOX, and....

It doesn't matter that we screwed up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30402710)

Just don't let anyone talk about it.

A wikileaks not covered by US laws(?): (1)

kandresen (712861) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402800)

By having one wikileaks in a place not covered by US laws and another covered by US laws. What is the law for placing subdomains with a separate hosting provider broad by the way? Lets say us.wikileaks.org was hosted in France and www.wikileaks.org was hosted in the USA?

Another option might be to place a wikileaks on Freenet, and simply place references to the content on the wikileaks website.

Very Dangerous (2, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402806)

This equates to Digital Book Burning. This is an essential liberty.

Hey here's an idea... (1)

Lord Dreamshaper (696630) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402828)

Now three Republican lawmakers are asking what's being done to prosecute those hosting the document

Why don't you ask what steps are being taken to make us trust our politicians and corporations so that sites like Wikileaks become moot?

Hint: Going after Wikileaks et al. ain't one of those steps and shows a shocking lack of understanding of the purpose of the first amendment or the ephemeral nature of the internet...

that was predictable (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402844)

And there I was, thinking I was funny:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470306&cid=30363244 [slashdot.org]

And now they're doing it.

Can we please re-introduce the death penalty for stupidity? Back in the days, before the whole "civilization" nonsense, fuckers like these wouldn't have survived long enough to demonstrate that there is a perfect vaccuum in this universe - inside their heads.

So if you fail... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402864)

...you prosecute others because they laugh at you?

You know what’s great about this?

1. That way, they won’t ever learn from it, and continue to make stuff available for us.
2. Since they can by definition never remove it from the Internet, once it’s out in the public, their chase will never stop.

The stuff is already floating though the P2P nets. Just wait until someone creates a distributed Wikileaks site inside a darknet. Try to shut that down! ^^

I hope they get even more arrogant, and start putting their whole database in the open, with a redaction system based on black rectangles. ^^

Better process is the solution, not censorship (2, Interesting)

valderost (668593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30402932)

The genie is out of the bottle on this one. The document won't disappear, and even if it becomes illegal to host it, it'll continue circulating. The legislators need to accept this as a "teachable moment" and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring, perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content.

Beyond "use better redaction", process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing.

The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience. The administrative review was undoubtedly done, but not a technical review. It's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data, whether it's redacted or whether it's document metadata, and there's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process.

The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience. If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices, then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it.

And now that some of the TSA's security practices are public knowledge, we'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns. A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater, but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics, something's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>