Hum. Some funny possibilities here: 1) Obtain classified information and make a recording of someone reading it (and if you don't want to incriminate yourself, have a computer read and record it). 2) Take recording to Judge Ellis III's courtroom, or anywhere he will appear. 3) Put in earplugs so you can't hear recording. 3) When Ellis III appears, play recording of classified information over a loudspeaker 4) Send in the cops: By hearing the classified information, Judge Ellis III has just committed espionage. Better yet, do this at a gathering of (insert hated group here) and have 'em all carted away. This fuckwit needs killing. -TD
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> To: cypherpunks@jfet.org Subject: [dave@farber.net: [IP] Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules] Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:09:41 +0200
----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave@farber.net> -----
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:42:39 -0400 To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Reply-To: dave@farber.net
Begin forwarded message:
From: TClaburn@cmp.com Date: August 10, 2006 5:31:08 PM EDT To: dave@farber.net Subject: for IP if you wish...Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/ recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html
Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules
In a momentous expansion of the government's authority to regulate public disclosure of national security information, a federal court ruled that even private citizens who do not hold security clearances can be prosecuted for unauthorized receipt and disclosure of classified information.
The ruling (pdf) by Judge T.S. Ellis, III, denied a motion to dismiss the case of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who were charged under the Espionage Act with illegally receiving and transmitting classified information.
The decision is a major interpretation of the Espionage Act with implications that extend far beyond this particular case.
The Judge ruled that any First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech involving national defense information can be superseded by national security considerations.
"Although the question whether the government's interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government [i.e. not holding security clearances] is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense," Judge Ellis wrote (p. 53).
The provisions of the Espionage Act are not impermissibly overbroad or unconstitutional, the Judge ruled, because they are limited by the requirements that the prohibited behavior be both knowing and willful.
...
Thomas Claburn, Editor-at-Large InformationWeek, CMP Media, Inc. 600 Harrison St., 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 tclaburn@cmp.com 415.947.6820
http://www.informationweek.com http://www.thomasclaburn.com
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]