
A Journalist-Agitator Facing Prison Over a Link - Thereasione
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/a-journalist-agitator-facing-prison-over-a-link.html
======
dnautics
I sympathize with Barret Brown; the NY times article unfortunately is rife
with the attitude that 'journalists' (as in 'the class of people that gets
that special 1st Amendment protection 'of the press') have certain
characteristics or accreditations - whereas, his actions should be protected
by the 1st amendment regardless of whether or not he is a journalist.

~~~
crb002
A constructionist view of the Constitution is that "press" is short for
"printing press". Ben Franklin is probably rolling in his grave at this cheap
attempt to limit expression to a few "legitimate" journalists.

------
throwaway_yy2Di
_" 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
necessarily _criticizing_ their decision to steal the Pentagon Papers, but I
think it would be cool if they returned them.

~~~
talmand
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.

------
danso
> _But keep in mind that no one has accused Mr. Brown of playing a role in the
> actual stealing of the data, only of posting a link to the trove of
> documents...And the magnitude of the charges is confounding. Jeremy Hammond,
> a Chicago man who pleaded guilty to participating in the actual hacking of
> Stratfor in the first place, is facing a sentence of 10 years._

I was surprised to see Aaron Swartz's name not mentioned once...the parallels
between Brown's and Swartz's cases -- at least in the post-indictment phase
and the seemingly disproportionate charges -- are hard to ignore.

------
tptacek
Obligatory: [http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-
sentence...](http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-
eleventy-million-years/)

~~~
jeltz
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.

~~~
mpyne
> 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.

------
smoyer
Why does this feel like Aaron Swartz all over again? In this case, I'm not
even sure I see the crime, but in both cases the government chose to jump on
"people they didn't like".

------
ColinWright
Single page:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/a-journalis...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/a-journalist-
agitator-facing-prison-over-a-link.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all)

------
ageisp0lis
[http://freebarrettbrown.org/donate/](http://freebarrettbrown.org/donate/)

~~~
aspensmonster
An anonymous donor was willing to match 20,000 dollars in donations, but only
if 20,000 dollars were donated by others. The deadline for reaching the mark
is September 22 2013. As of August 30 2013 they had 3,000 dollars toward the
goal; though this was prior to the recent burst of news thanks to the gag
order.

[http://freebarrettbrown.org/fundraising-
drive/](http://freebarrettbrown.org/fundraising-drive/)

I don't know how far they've gotten in the meantime, but I'm happy to see this
issue getting more attention.

Meanwhile, the new Project PM website --wiki.project-pm.org-- appears to be
back up! I'm hoping to do some cross-referencing of the various releases of
the past few years. See if anything has been missed or passed over.

------
davvid
If someone posts that same link on HN, and we all comment on it, are we all
guilty? This seems like a very slippery slope. Wake up America, please!

------
mpyne
These 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 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.

Let's say further that this guy duplicates the key and mails it to a gang to
do with as they will. If providing that gang access to that locker is illegal
then homeboy here has certainly "aided & abetted" in that behavior, even
though he did nothing more himself than a) duplicating a key (normally legal)
and b) using the mail (normally legal).

The author brings up the point that newspapers have to deal with this issue,
but it's not really as much of an "issue" for them at all, as being passed
classified data is not inherently illegal, and newspapers still make an effort
to avoid printing information which would be dangerous if publically-
available. Even the NYT/Guardian's recent reporting about NSA capabilities
with regard to crypto didn't spill _all_ the beans, and what links _were_
posted by the newspapers were to documents that the newspapers screened for
safety instead of a link to "all the goods".

But certainly the papers wouldn't publish credit card numbers of victims of an
identity theft scheme, would they?

Likewise our intrepid, noble and completely objective storywriter uses the
maximum legally-possible sentence as a FUD factor without so much as a single
reference to the sentencing guidelines which would be used to determine an
actual eventual sentence.

There _is_ a question to be asked here: Should these types of forcibly-
exfiltrated secrets have any special inherent legal protection? If no, then
posting a link to that data should be fine (assuming no other legal protection
category applies). If yes, then posting a link to protected data would
certainly be a no-no.

The answer isn't obviously "no" either, by the way, otherwise our current
protections against identity theft could hardly apply, not to mention the
Privacy Act of 1974, medical record protections, etc. But it deserves a better
answer than what we have now, which seems to be "throw whatever vague law
might fit at it".

~~~
guelo
Bullshit. Typing out [http://some.website](http://some.website) should never
be a crime. Period. Look up the first amendment.

~~~
mpyne
So if I should find out someone is HIV positive and looking for employment, I
should be able to type out the preceding sentence to the HR departments of all
prospective employers due to my First Amendment rights?

How about inciting a lynch mob (you know, the kind that hang 'uppity' persons
off of trees)? It's just speech, right?

~~~
reginaldjcooper
Inciting a lynch mob is conspiracy to commit murder, so it's not a restriction
on free speech that would prevent you from doing so.

Telling everyone an applicant has HIV is disgustingly immoral but I don't know
if/why you should be barred from doing it. That's a much better question than
the lynch mob.

~~~
mpyne
> Inciting a lynch mob is conspiracy to commit murder, so it's not a
> restriction on free speech that would prevent you from doing so.

On the contrary! The inciter doesn't explicitly call for the killing, rather
they froth the crowd up into a frenzy by lies and emotion and then ask what
that crowd is going to do about it... right about the time that a convenient
victim from the "oppressor group" (Jews/blacks/etc.) comes into the scene.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement)

------
eli
The new Rolling Stone has a pretty decent (long) article about Barrett Brown:
[http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/barrett-brown-
faces...](http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/barrett-brown-
faces-105-years-in-jail-20130905)

------
segmondy
I suggest representing "dangerous links" as numbers. use goo.gl or bitly, get
the URL. turn it into a hex, turn it into one long integer. turn that integer
into a series of simple mathematical equations involving additional and
multiplication. one day the government is going to have to outlaw even simple
numbers if they want to restrict information.

~~~
mpyne
You could always do what Phil Z. did with PGP and write a book. :)

I would point out that the charge itself doesn't have a problem with the
_link_ per se, as much as the data located _at the link_. If the link pointed
to something completely innocuous (such as Wikipedia's front page) then even
our overbearing prosecutor here would be laughed out of the courtroom if he
tried filing charges.

------
Fuxy
Yes that was a mistake on his part you should never threaten you should only
do. Back on topic...

So the take away from this is security by obscurity is now officially
protected by law and linking to leaked information is illegal according to the
government.

My America how far you have fallen.

