
Bradley Manning case stretches credibility of US computer fraud law - Libertatea
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/04/bradley-manning-case-credibility-computer-fraud-law
======
jacquesm
It's interesting he brought up My Lai
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre)),
there are more recent examples from Iraq that could be used just the same.
Immunity from war crimes seems such a weird concept. I think it is the flip
side of aggressively prosecuting whistleblowers, it sends a signal to the rest
of the people in the employ of the government. 'Even if you do this, we'll
protect you' and 'If you do this, we'll hound you forever'. It would be quite
refreshing to see a nation-state prosecute its military and contractors
(mercenaries, really) suspected of war crimes with the same zeal with which
they target whistle-blowers.

Regarding the charges relating to computer fraud: This is like wire fraud.
It's apparently pretty hard to do anything illegal in the USA without getting
a charge of mail / wire fraud attached to it. I figure anything that involves
a computer and that displeases someone in an official position is grounds for
a computer fraud case. So I think the writers assertion that mailing the same
documents in paper form would have had a different effect is wrong. The only
thing that I think would change is that computer fraud would be replaced by
mail fraud.

Manning is being charged with all this mostly because he embarrassed the US
administration, not because of any fraud or real life fall out (contrary to
earlier claims of lives put at risk and deaths related to the leaks no
specific death has been positively linked to the leaks and any such claims
were retracted during the case). The Image of the USA has been damaged, the
recent NSA leaks damage it further. Instead of asking itself how to remedy the
root causes an example is made out of those that stood up. Business as usual,
unfortunately.

~~~
mpyne
> Manning is being charged with all this mostly because he embarrassed the US
> administration, not because of any fraud or real life fall out

The foreign relations hit was real enough. So was the hit to "human
intelligence", and the threat to those collaborating with the U.S. in
Afghanistan, Yemen, and other places.

So is the Arab Spring, which continues to kill people every day in Syria (and
now Egypt, unless things change soon over there).

But either way, though the law is based on the effect of one's actions, the
law is also often based on the actions themselves.

After all if someone were to come at me with a knife, swing and miss, they
could still be charged with attempted murder or aggravated battery _despite_
"no harm" befalling me.

If I drive around without insurance I can still be cited even though I haven't
crashed into anyone yet.

So likewise, even if our allies in places like Afghanistan and Yemen had
managed to be alerted and evade retribution in time that didn't change the
existential threat they were living under.

And that's the problem with intelligence and counter-intelligence. Often the
enemy won't realize that a successful attack against them had intel as a key;
the Nazis went through all of WWII with nary a clue that the Allies were
amazingly well-informed of their capabilities and intentions.

Now we have it on the reverse. The Taliban attack a U.S. base in Afghanistan
and destroy 6 Harrier jets [1] in Sept. 2012. Was the day-to-day operational
intelligence revealed by Manning _completely useless_ for that? It's hard for
the U.S. to tell on the other end.

How about the people killed, scores injured, and damage done to a Forward
Operating Base in Aug. 2012 [2]? Did intel on how the U.S. Army responds to
the many previous Taliban and AQ attacks really not help them at all in
planning this assault?

The problem is that it is hard to conclusively _prove_ that intelligence was
useful for a given attack if you're only on the receiving end, especially if
using the evidence you have would have the effect of divulging your sources.
The same reasoning is behind the rumors behind Churchill allowing Coventry to
be normally defended (and subsequently severely damaged by German bombing),
because he didn't want to tip off the German that their Enigma was sometimes
readable by the British.

But just because you can't prove something doesn't imply the opposite (that
you've proven the intel was _not_ useful). This still helps Manning as far as
his trial goes, but history has shown that skilled opponents can utilize far
less intel than was provided by Manning to great effect. And common sense
would show that there's a reason OBL made an effort to get his hands on the
leaked intel himself. Presumably the fact he still had it meant at least _he_
found it useful.

But even if OBL had found it very useful, he'd hardly have issued a press
release over it, so a lack of crowing about "real life effects" is hardly
evidence in support of Manning, it's simply a lack of evidence to support
either conclusion.

 _Edit_ : I suppose I could at least mention that I agree that using CFAA as a
charge _in this case_ is unfair. The best you can say is that downloading data
for the purpose of divulging it is "exceeding authorized access" but that has
nothing to do with whether you use a web browser or wget, and in any event is
already covered by espionage changes and charges of mishandling classified
data. Even worse, had Manning somehow managed to use that compilation he
downloaded for statistical analyses that aided the Army in their operations it
presumably _would_ have been 'authorized access', despite being the same
actions taken in either case.

[1]
[http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/6_harrier_jet...](http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/6_harrier_jets_destr.php)
[2]
[http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/08/omani_jihadis...](http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/08/omani_jihadist_parti.php)

~~~
AngrySkillzz
I don't know if it's reasonable to identify Syrians rebelling against a brutal
and oppressive regime as "the Arab Spring killing people."

~~~
mpyne
All of these things in the Arab Spring have multiple causes, not just Syria's.
So to the extent that people are going to say that Manning's straws broke the
camel's back, then they should also attribute at least partial responsibility
for what goes along with that.

You're exactly right that there's more going on with these than _just_
Manning's leaks, but all the same no single drop of rain believes that it's to
blame for the flood.

------
steveplace
If you are tryiing to persuade people to join a particular issue, it doesn't
help when you alienate parts of your readerbase.

The first paragraph:

> I'm not just thinking of the country's dysfunctional Congress, pathological
> infatuation with firearms, addiction to litigation, crazy healthcare
> arrangements, engorged prison system, chronic inequality, 50-year-old
> military-industrial complex and out-of-control security services.

Right there you've already excluded persons who are pro-gun _and_ want to
support your cause.

This kind of issue transcends a lot of traditional barriers, so it would help
if they weren't reconstructed around the argument.

~~~
MRSallee
Yeah, the "pathological infatuation with firearms" bit struck me as out of
place among the other issues. I don't own guns, but I'm not afraid of people
that do.

~~~
selectodude
I've found that most people who shoot their peers with guns, don't actually
own the gun.

~~~
smokeyj
It's typically government issued.

~~~
001sky
The nature of war has little to do with guns.

------
dobbsbob
The punishment for leaking classified info has always been a life sentence and
usually in solitary confinement too like the guys convicted of treason and
spying doing life in supermax prison beside the unabomber. Selling weapons to
the enemy, wholesale massacre of civillians and pillaging is a slap on the
wrist. Manning didn't leak anything top secret either, wonder what is in store
for Snowden if they ever catch him. He'll probably get more time than the guy
who got 1000 years + life for running a dungeon.

What's up with the excessive ridiculous sentences in the US? 136 years... do
they keep your corpse in the prison after you die of old age to finish the
time?

~~~
alan_cx
I too wonder about the comedy sentencing in the US, which clearly is not
working it terms of prevention at all.

The only think I can come up with is its some sort of replacement for the olde
gunslinger vengeance of the wild west era which has yet to be civilized.

I also think there is an arrogance that says the US is the best country in the
world, and how could any one possibly act against it since what ever it does
simply must be good, pure and legal. Anything that dents that image to the
rest of the world is treason, some how. It reminds me of extreme religion's
reaction to criticism. Which to me it would do since I view the USA as pretty
much a religion. So, heretics like Manning will be metaphorically burned at
the stake. Such sentences are not justice, they are PR.

Interesting to me that Snowden, having witness the Manning case, still felt he
had to whistle blow. Tell me how much he believed in his actions.

~~~
rayiner
The U.S. does have ridiculous sentences, but maybe by a factor of 2x from what
you'd find in other countries. The maximum sentences quoted in news articles
are just gibberish.

E.g. [http://www.fbi.gov/minneapolis/press-releases/2013/more-
terr...](http://www.fbi.gov/minneapolis/press-releases/2013/more-terrorism-
sentences-imposed-in-federal-court).

Two women were sentenced to 10 years and 20 years, respectively, for raising
money for a Somali terrorist organization. That's probably too harsh by a
factor of 2-4x, but the theoretical maximum sentence for the first case was
probably 100+ years (a dozen counts of providing material support to a
terrorist organization).

~~~
mjn
Is it really only a 2x factor? I'd have to dig up some numbers, but my
impression was more like a 5-10x differential, even going by actual sentences,
not maximums. For example, 98% of sentences in Denmark are 24 months or less;
it's very difficult for the prosecution to get a multi-year sentence except in
exceptional circumstances (serious violent crimes, career criminals on their
3rd or 4th trial, etc.). My impression (possibly incorrect?) is that the U.S.
much more frequently makes use of severe sentences in the 5+ year range, even
for nonviolent property crimes, or drug-possession offenses.

I think I recall a study arguing that the massive disparity in sentence
lengths, rather than rate of arrest/conviction, was the main contributor to
the U.S.'s very large prison population. I.e. Europeans also arrest and
convict people, but they don't keep them in prison for multi-year lengths
nearly as often.

~~~
rayiner
See the chart on page 2 of this report:
[http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents...](http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/sentencing.pdf).

The U.S. is generally less than 2x relative to Australia, 2-3x relative to the
U.K., and 3-5x relative to Finland. The sentences for assaults show the most
differential, I'd imagine because of very strict sentencing for sexual
assaults.

I think the averages skew higher in the U.S. than typical sentences than it
does in other countries. Initiatives like California's "three strikes law",[1]
that result in life sentences for three potentially non-violent felonies
dramatically skew up the averages in the U.S. I don't think any of the major
European countries have anything comparable. If you took out the ridiculous
sentences handed down as a result of those laws, I think the differential
would be much less.

[1] If you want to get worked up about something, read this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle).

------
officemonkey
Here's the thing: Bradley Manning made a promise and signed a contract to
protect classified information. He broke that promise and was found guilty.
Unlike Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg, he was indiscriminate in his disclosure. He
basically grabbed a bunch of secret stuff and mailed it to Wikileaks.

The computer fraud law may need changing, but using Manning instead of Swartz
as the poster boy wins absolutely zero hearts and minds.

~~~
IsTom
Yes, because war crimes need to be hidden.

~~~
officemonkey
Yes, because blunt analysis of the Mexican government is a war crime.

>U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual left Mexico in May 2011 amid furor over leaked
cables that angered the Mexican government. Mexican President Felipe Calderon
had publicly criticized a cable in which Pacual complained about inefficiency
and infighting among Mexican security forces in the campaign against drug
cartels.

[[http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130801/NATION/308010053...](http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130801/NATION/308010053#ixzz2b0MzYVBF)]

I would actually care what happened to Manning if he just released war crime
stuff. But he's a goofball who deserves what he got.

------
alan_cx
To be uncharacteristically charitable to the US government, Im not sure any
government has credible computer/internet policies. Certainly not here in the
UK at least.

Partly, I think this is because of the general ignorance of the population.
And that is because the mass media see the internet as a threat to it's
businesses and demonize the internet at every opportunity. So the general
population see shed loads of scare stories which they believe because the have
(or had) more trust in the mass media than the internet.

How often have we heard the sarcastic phrase: "It must be true, its on the
internet"? (Of course my reply is always an equally sarcastic: "It must be
true, I read it in a newspaper".)

------
scotty79
"I'm not just thinking of the country's dysfunctional Congress, pathological
infatuation with firearms, addiction to litigation, crazy healthcare
arrangements, engorged prison system, chronic inequality, 50-year-old
military-industrial complex and out-of-control security services. There is
also its strange irrationality about the use and abuse of computers."

Wow. He pretty much summed all what's wrong. He didn't mention rampant
software patents and copyright explicitely but I guess that can be in the
"irrationality about the use and abuse of computers".

------
coldcode
What bothers me most about this case is the total absence of responsibility of
his superiors. Private in the military do nothing by themselves, should have
no access to anything or make any decisions without someone telling them what
to do. Basically if a private screws up, the chain of command screwed up. Of
course in reality the big guys get away with it, but still someone was in
charge of this private and gave him access to top secret information and
failed to pay attention to what he was doing. That is the definition of
dereliction of your duty as a leader. Yet I've heard nothing about anyone
else's punishment (which could be the press simply sucks).

~~~
mpyne
That's true. But the problem is that this particular failing goes essentially
all the way to the top.

There was a _massive_ pressure to get people with Manning's skills into the
military jobs that required clearances. This was such that even the process of
getting a clearance got oursourced to contractors (witness the furor around
the company that handled Snowden's screening).

Even if Manning's immediate supervisor had tried to get him stripped of his
clearance for any of the many "red flags", his supervisor would simply have
got in trouble instead for doing something to get rid of a warm body in a seat
that needed filled.

------
D9u

        50-year-old military-industrial complex
    

I was disappointed to read that part, as it omits the _Congressional_ portion
of the equation as well as fails to make note that said _complex_ is a lot
older than 50 years.

~~~
gaadd33
Really? I'm under the impression that it really became a "complex" and gained
power post WW2, hence Eisenhower's warning about it. Previously there wasn't
that large of a standing army nor that large of a defense contracting industry
afaik.

~~~
D9u
The "complex," which could not operate without the collusion of Congress, was
in place prior to the first world war.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_Big_Business](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_Big_Business)

[http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2012/04/rudimentry-
be...](http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2012/04/rudimentry-beginnings-
of-military-industrial-complex-from-inception-to-full-blown-
world-w-2039403.html)

USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler warned us about it in his book, _War is a
racket._

[http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html)

~~~
gaadd33
The military industrial complex isn't "corporatism" specifically. It addresses
the relationship between defense/arms companies and the military/congress.
Prior to WW1 the US was very isolationist and furthermore, lacked arms
manufacturers on a large scale (as percent of gdp) so it seems unlikely they
were able to direct significant policy or spending via contributions and
bribes.

I'm not really seeing any evidence that it predates WW1 (and in significant
size, WW2) in the United States from the links you posted. Butler's book
appears to be more of an attack on profiteering and the futility of war in
general. Given "beforeitsnews" also has "Reptilian Caught Hissing On MSM TV"
as its top story, I'm inclined to wonder about the factual basis for what it
says.

------
bayesianhorse
The alleged treatment Bradley Manning had before the trial stretches the
credibility of US law, period...

------
icantthinkofone
It seems like the whole extent of the internet's education is based on
articles about the US from the UK newspaper, "The Guardian".

~~~
mtgx
If only US media were better, so we didn't have to read UK or even Russian
media for real journalism.

------
ToothlessJake
Compare information (metadata) collected on criminal scofflaws working under
the cloak of US government contract against the acts the government finds
reason to prosecute others of.

I highly recommend ProjectPM[1] started by folks including the US government
prosecuted Barrett Brown[2]. As well as Blue Cabinet[3], started by Telecomix,
the folks that strove to provide free dial-up to dissidents under
digital/physical attack[4] while leaking[5] gigabytes upon gigabytes[6] of
BlueCoat surveillance/ISP proxy logs from equipment illegally acquired by
Assad.

Both sites work under the same premise, from ProjectPM: "Project PM operates
this wiki in order to provide a centralized, actionable data set regarding the
intelligence contracting industry, the PR industry's interface with
totalitarian regimes, the mushrooming infosec/"cybersecurity" industry, and
other issues constituting threats to human rights, civic transparency,
individual privacy, and the health of democratic institutions."

From Blue Cabinet: "The Telecomix Blue Cabinet is a working wiki project to
document vendors and manufacturers of surveillance equipment that are used in
dictatorships and democracies around the internets."

Stored within is a wealth of information of the US government and others
hiring mercenaries to spy on children as an example of technical skill for a
deal with private entity US Chamber of Commerce as retaliation against
Wikileaks[7], amongst other things.

The data sources involved include the aforementioned BlueCoat leak as well as
the HBGary leak[8]. The data being the excuse to prosecute Barrett Brown of
ProjectPM[9]. So do be careful unless you like being on an absurd amount of
lists.

Activity such as deploying exploits on an unknowable amount of users, hacking
of dissidents, _the government itself referring private entities like US
Chamber of Commerce/Bank of America to the same firms it uses for surveillance
work, as to target journalists like Glenn Greenwald[7]_. Makes using wget to
ex-filtrate files quicker seem downright saintly.

[1] [http://wiki.project-pm.org/wiki/Main_Page](http://wiki.project-
pm.org/wiki/Main_Page)

[2] [http://www.thenation.com/article/174851/strange-case-
barrett...](http://www.thenation.com/article/174851/strange-case-barrett-
brown)

[3]
[http://bluecabinet.info/wiki/Blue_cabinet](http://bluecabinet.info/wiki/Blue_cabinet)

[4]
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/07/telecomix-...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/07/telecomix-
arab-spring)

[5] [https://en.rsf.org/syria-syria-using-34-blue-coat-
servers-23...](https://en.rsf.org/syria-syria-using-34-blue-coat-
servers-23-05-2013,44664.html)

[6] [http://bluesmote.com/](http://bluesmote.com/)

[7]
[http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/11/143669/chamberle...](http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/11/143669/chamberleaks-
primer/)

[8]
[https://thepiratebay.sx/search/hbgary/0/99/0](https://thepiratebay.sx/search/hbgary/0/99/0)

[9] [http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/doj-issues-
subpoe...](http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/doj-issues-subpoena-for-
info-on-barrett-browns-project-pm-site/)

~~~
ToothlessJake
Pardon the esoteric* nature of the commentary, hard to avoid given the highly
focused niche of actors involved.

*Esoteric content may trigger filtering depending on jurisdiction and I do apologize for such if it occurs.

------
mdt
Ask HN: What are we doing here, guys? We're just going to submit anything
anti-NSA, no matter how shit it is?

>Do you think that, as a society, the United States has become a basket case?

You ... do not live here, nor do any of your readers, nor is it reasonable to
diagnose entire societies, though I'm sure it makes you feel smart. How do you
work for the media and not understand how the media works? Everything you know
about the United States, somebody wanted you to know. Which is what makes your
list of grievances so disturbing... it reads like the UK media's primary
objective is to boost the national ego.

~~~
mcphilip
I'm an American and agree with the basket case diagnosis.

In general, I don't take seriously any comment that quotes the first line of
an article and then rages against that one line. It makes me suspect that you
haven't read the article and have no business dismissing the entire thing
since you found the first line inappropriate.

~~~
mdt
You can agree with whatever you want; any such claims are inherently flimsy.
No matter who you are, you are one person.

I don't care, Philip. Nobody cares what you take seriously on the internet.

>inappropriate

Oh, yeah, reduce my epistemological claims to mere childish offense. Thanks,
MC.

~~~
sillysaurus
Guys, he's trolling. Let's ignore him rather than dignity this further.

