Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 08:51 PM Aug 2013

On the issue of "stolen" documents . . .

The rightful owners of all information possessed by the government are the people that elected that government. The government holds a proxy ownership of the information. While it is legitimate, in some instances, for a government to classify certain information in the interest of public safety, when an agency of the federal government is caught lying to the elected body charged with overseeing that agency, when questioned directly by that elected body, then any claim to proxy ownership by that agency has been rendered illegitimate (even if not technically illegal). So claims about Snowden "stealing" documents are seriously overblown. Just my opinion, of course.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On the issue of "stolen" documents . . . (Original Post) markpkessinger Aug 2013 OP
It's also just an antiquated notion at this point. DirkGently Aug 2013 #1
Very good point! n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #2
I think it's two parts, one is stealing them, two is disseminating them. JaneyVee Aug 2013 #3
And three is reporting on it. Paulie Aug 2013 #4
That would fall under number 2 most likely. JaneyVee Aug 2013 #5
Nope. That's a recent occurrence. Paulie Aug 2013 #6
That would fall under freedom of the press, most likely. DirkGently Aug 2013 #7
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #8
For good reason. You don't learn the things you need to know DirkGently Aug 2013 #9
J. Random Citizen isn't under much legal obligation from classification Recursion Aug 2013 #10

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
1. It's also just an antiquated notion at this point.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 10:26 PM
Aug 2013

The digital cat is way out of the bag. No one is smuggling da dia-munds at this point.

Paulie

(8,462 posts)
6. Nope. That's a recent occurrence.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 10:34 PM
Aug 2013

The reporter was not under obligation of a security clearance. It's not like receiving stolen goods. It's reporting, that whole 1st amendment thingie.

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
8. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past . . .
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 10:35 PM
Aug 2013

. . . that publishing leaked classified information is not, per se, a crime.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
9. For good reason. You don't learn the things you need to know
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 11:04 PM
Aug 2013

... asking the people who don't want you to know it.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
10. J. Random Citizen isn't under much legal obligation from classification
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 11:09 PM
Aug 2013

So, I have this safe at work. I can't take the stuff in it outside of the locked part of the office. If I do, I break the law. If I copy it and hand it to you, I break the law. But once I've handed it to you, in general you don't have much of a legal obligation. Obviously we'd like it if you destroyed it or sent it back to us and didn't tell anybody, it deserves well of the Republic, etc., but since you haven't been read into it you aren't really obligated. That said, the police will almost certainly do everything they can to get it back from you if they have the opportunity -- possibly even lie to you (police have been known to do that).

(And obviously if you're deliberately trying to get me to hand it to you, that's a whole nother kettle of fish and involves the espionage law.)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»On the issue of "stolen" ...