Nobody in the world cares about "stolen" NSA documents

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 02:14 PM - Edit history (2)

The whole "stolen property" thing vis-a-vis Snowden is some bizarre, jail-house lawyer, "sounds enough like a legitimate argument somebody might fall for it" notion that seems to have become popular god-knows-why.

It is fine to toss around terms like "stolen" for their emotional effect but to try to bootstrap the term into legal argument is embarassing.

The issue with Snowden making digital duplicates of data files is not that he stole a bunch of electrons the NSA was saving for it's retierment. (He didn't even do that... he rearanged electrons he already had.)

And it is not like he downloaded NSA files of some Brittany Spears song without paying for them... though that is a litle closer to being apt

The issue is that the information is CLASSIFIED.

Nobody was interested in Miranda "carrying stolen goods." There are no analogies to smuggling stolen diamonds that pass the legal giggle test.

The NSA still HAS all the documents. They have not been deprived of the use of the documents. There are not facing a shortage of documents because some were stolen.

The issue is improper accessing of, copying of and distribution of classified information. The files have no intrinsic value as files, but only for the information they contain.

And this is not a civil intellectual property dispute. The NSA is not worried about the Guardian making money from publishing NSA docs that the NSA was hoping to cash in on when they published their own expose of themselves. Snowden did not 'steal' the NSA's idea for a cool fantasy trilogy.

And everyone in Heathrow with a copy of the Guardian newspaper under their arm would be as guilty as transporting "stolen" documents as Miranda... if "stolen" meant anything in this context. (Publishing "stolen" information could not magically make it less "stolen.&quot

Classified Information. That is the issue. And laws regarding classified information (not files, but the information the files contain, which would be the same information if one transcribed it by hand and then deleted the file) are the pertinent laws. (Motive and circumstance can bootstrap such an offense to espionage or even treason, but it will never be a sensible larceny case.)

If it helps, think of what Snowden has as photographs of documents. (Like in old movies where a spy takes pictures of documents with a little spy camera and then returns the paper documents to the file cabinet.)

Photographs of documents is not less serious that paper documents. People have been executed over photographs of documents. But they were not executed for larceny.

And we don't even need a camera. If Snowden had a photographic memory and took nothing tangible from the office but dictated his memory of the files to a reporter he would still be disseminating classified information.

Thank you.

[Recursion]

1. This is a good point, and gets to a larger issue

Like with a lot of things, our classification laws have not quite caught up with the digital world.

Oddly enough, depending on the set-up of their classification, they may actually no longer even be classified once they're copied onto a thumb drive. (In Iraq, I had information that was unclassified when it was written in my notebook, but magically became classified when I put it on the platoon laptop -- sometimes it's the information itself, sometimes it's the document containing it. We should really simplify and rationalize this.)

But, yes, the whole "stolen documents" thing is a frankly misleading oversimplification. If the NYT is to be believed (and there's still some question about that), Miranda may have been carrying sensitive originator-controlled documents in contravention of law, but -- here's the really fun part -- even granting that, that doesn't necessarily mean Miranda was himself breaking the law by doing so.

We really, really need to fix how we do INFOSEC. Today.

[davidpdx]

2. File sharing is good analogy

Which is also illegal. Though the Britney Spears song might be more determinantal to your health.

[joshcryer]

3. Obviously copying data is not theft.

Even in the case of a pirated Britney Spears song.

[cascadiance]

4. If they consider document being copied as "stolen", then how about how much they've STOLEN from us!

With all of this broad warrantless spying where they are copying OUR private data from various parts of the web and from phone conversations, then arguably the NSA and those in their camp are far more guilty of theft than Snowden and Beck are of what they have "stolen"...

And I think Snowden have more of a purpose serving the public in doing what they did than the NSA has in doing WARRANTLESS data gathering of our private information, where no crime is suspected.

Of course the 1% can have laws protecting their online data by claiming copyright and patent ownership of it, even if it is something sitting on other people's servers. Can't we also claim that we have copyrights on private data that we and our compatriots create together in a similar fashion that they are violating when they grab this data?

[newfie11]

6. Exactly

[Kablooie]

5. And the UK barged in and destroyed the Guardian's drives as if that would fix the problem.

Of course there are copies all over the world so the Guardian will continue to release the data while the government becomes famous for stupidly, and futilely, acting like buffoon gorillas.
This isn't going well for the governments.

[cthulu2016]

9. But stomping on something breakable is so CLASSIC

It's so ressonant... alive with the archetypal.

Like a boot stomping a human face, forever.

[randome]

7. It's a minor point.

Spies used to make microfilm copies of classified documents. If that doesn't meet your definition of 'stolen', it is at least theft and it is still illegal.

And for those claiming the NSA 'copies our data', that's more fear-mongering. No one has shown evidence that the NSA is systematically copying our personal data other than the phone metadata and you already know where that argument ends up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[cthulu2016]

8. LOL. Yeah, *my* definition of stolen.

"it is at least theft"

No, it is not.

But thanks for sharing.

[kentuck]

10. If their files are secret and protected??

Then why should mine be different.?

[cthulu2016]

11. Because YOU are not the Great and Powerful Oz.