Law Prof Smacks Down CNN Chris Cuomo’s Claim That It’s Illegal To Possess Wikileaks Emails

[rangerrebew]

Law Prof Smacks Down CNN Chris Cuomo’s Claim That It’s Illegal To Possess Wikileaks Emails
by Rachel Stockman | 10:39 am, October 17th, 2016
155

A statement made by CNN’s Chris Cuomo regarding Wikileaks has drawn quite a bit of attention, especially online in talks forums like Reddit. Cuomo said the controversial remarks while introducing a segment discussing some of the emails hacked from Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta.

“Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media,” Cuomo said.

WATCH HERE:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/law-prof-smacks-down-cnn-chris-cuomos-claim-that-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-emails/

[txradioguy]

Sorry Chris...as a member of the media myself...it's not different...you're still subject to the law where these documents are concerned.

[Longmire]

Sorry Chris...as a member of the media myself...it's not different...you're still subject to the law where these documents are concerned.

Amazingly you're wrong on both counts.

1) the media does indeed have an exception (see Bartnicki v. Vopper)

2) Downloading Wikileaks or reading them online is not a prosecutable offense.

[driftdiver]

Sorry Chris...as a member of the media myself...it's not different...you're still subject to the law where these documents are concerned.

But its ok to publish Trumps tax returns????????

BWAHHAHAHAHAAAA

[txradioguy]

Amazingly you're wrong on both counts.

1) the media does indeed have an exception (see Bartnicki v. Vopper)

First off there is a difference in taping a conversation and reading and/or broadcasting documents that are classified by the government with a security marking.

In your zeal to try and prove me wrong...you just made the case for why Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted with that court ruling that has nothing to do with what Cuomo is talking about.

You need to fast forward 11 years and update your talking points....as well as your case law.

The ACLU has already tried to do what you wrongly claim is legal...and they got smacked down for their efforts by a Federal Judge.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Federal District Court in Washington ruled that the State Department had acted correctly in withholding more than half of 23 classified diplomatic cables sought by the A.C.L.U. — all of which had been posted on the Web months earlier by WikiLeaks.

Now...read carefully...move your lips as you read this next critical piece if you have to.

The judge ruled, in effect, that a document remains classified until it is officially declassified by the government, even if it has become public through unofficial channels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/government-documents-in-plain-sight-but-still-classified.html

See how that works there Skippy?

And what happens to people without the proper clearance who read or distribute said documents?  U.S. Code has that covered.  Again...read closely.

(a)  Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1)   concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2)   concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3)   concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4)   obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b)   As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

2) Downloading Wikileaks or reading them online is not a prosecutable offense.

Ummm...yeah...about that...hate to break it to you but that's a damn lie.

[txradioguy]

But its ok to publish Trumps tax returns????????

BWAHHAHAHAHAAAA

Is there a security level on Trump's tax returns?  Something about the Privacy ACt of 1974 apply?

No?

Then whatever point you were trying to make is invalid.


But FWIW...I've never seen the point in releasing them anyway.  Not sure how that trend got started...but it's kinda dumb.  It's a trick of the left in their class warfare BS.

[Neverdul]

The same sort question comes up with respect to copyrighted materials. 

Is it legal to watch what you know to be, or have reason to believe is a pirated movie on-line if you are only streaming it?

Is it legal to provide a link to said pirated movie posted on-line, either to your social media account or a website like TBR for instance so that others can stream and view it?

Is it legal to download a copy of a pirated movie to your hard drive if only for your own personal use and viewing?

Is it legal to upload or otherwise disseminate a copy of a pirated movie that someone else has already uploaded?

The latter is definitely illegal. The third is likely illegal. The first two are questionable and I’ve seen legal opinions going both ways.  I’ve also read some articles that copyright holders, mostly movie and music companies are getting more aggressive going after not only those who upload copyrighted materials but also those who download or provide a stream. And they’d like to go after those who watch the pirated streams if they could find a way to identify them.

Of course a movie or song isn’t a matter of great public interest nor is it “classified” but it does bring up some interesting legal arguments.

[driftdiver]

Is there a security level on Trump's tax returns?  Something about the Privacy ACt of 1974 apply?

No?

Then whatever point you were trying to make is invalid.


But FWIW...I've never seen the point in releasing them anyway.  Not sure how that trend got started...but it's kinda dumb.  It's a trick of the left in their class warfare BS.

Why yes there is, there are privacy laws which protect that information.   If the information comes from the IRS there are government regulations and security laws.

There are a lot more laws that govern govt data then the privacy act.   Tens of thousands of pages of them.

Most of which don't apply to the average joe going to wiki to read stuff on the internet.  Only those who have signed an agreement with the government.

[txradioguy]

Why yes there is, there are privacy laws which protect that information.   If the information comes from the IRS there are government regulations and security laws.

There are a lot more laws that govern govt data then the privacy act.   Tens of thousands of pages of them.

Most of which don't apply to the average joe going to wiki to read stuff on the internet.  Only those who have signed an agreement with the government.

You're making an apples and oranges argument you realize that don't you?  And if you had bothered to read what I posted about what U.S. Law says...nothing in the section I posted says anything about signed agreements.

Feel free to try again to make an argument using facts that actually relate to the Wikileaks documents dump and the illegality of you or I reading them.

[txradioguy]

The same sort question comes up with respect to copyrighted materials. 

Is it legal to watch what you know to be, or have reason to believe is a pirated movie on-line if you are only streaming it?

Is it legal to provide a link to said pirated movie posted on-line, either to your social media account or a website like TBR for instance so that others can stream and view it?

Is it legal to download a copy of a pirated movie to your hard drive if only for your own personal use and viewing?

Is it legal to upload or otherwise disseminate a copy of a pirated movie that someone else has already uploaded?

The latter is definitely illegal. The third is likely illegal. The first two are questionable and I’ve seen legal opinions going both ways.  I’ve also read some articles that copyright holders, mostly movie and music companies are getting more aggressive going after not only those who upload copyrighted materials but also those who download or provide a stream. And they’d like to go after those who watch the pirated streams if they could find a way to identify them.

Of course a movie or song isn’t a matter of great public interest nor is it “classified” but it does bring up some interesting legal arguments.

If you go by the opinion of the RIAA the answer to all of the above is yes.

[Neverdul]

If you go by the opinion of the RIAA the answer to all of the above is yes.

True that. 

But, aside from the legal risks, I also have an ethical problem with knowingly stealing copyrighted materials whether it be streaming or downloading.

FWIW, my niece and her husband got a nasty notice from Comcast last year after her teenage stepson was downloading (and I don’t recall if he was also uploading) movies from a bit torrent site. They got off with a warning and no legal action was taken but IIRC, Comcast threatened to shut off their internet if it happened again.  Her stepson was in mucho trouble with his parents - his dad and both his mom and his stepmom, his computer and internet and smart phone privileges taken away for at least a month along with other punishments.

[Longmire]

See how that works there Skippy?

What I see is your reliance on legal contortions and fictions to uphold your position.

Needless to say no one is going to be prosecuted for reading or downloading Wikileaks. 

[driftdiver]

You're making an apples and oranges argument you realize that don't you?  And if you had bothered to read what I posted about what U.S. Law says...nothing in the section I posted says anything about signed agreements.

Feel free to try again to make an argument using facts that actually relate to the Wikileaks documents dump and the illegality of you or I reading them.

You're the one that brought up privacy laws.   Funny how you defend those who are trying to keep their corruption secret.

[txradioguy]

You're the one that brought up privacy laws.   Funny how you defend those who are trying to keep their corruption secret.

Not trying to defend anything. Just trying to separate the bluster going around in this thread and the factual information I listed earlier.

[endicom]

Funny how you defend those who are trying to keep their corruption secret.

C'mon, you're going to take the word of a law prof. over that of some guy on the internet?

Another law prof., Eugene Volokh, also debunked Cuomo. There are probably others but I'm too lazy to look.

[Oceander]

Why yes there is, there are privacy laws which protect that information.   If the information comes from the IRS there are government regulations and security laws.

There are a lot more laws that govern govt data then the privacy act.   Tens of thousands of pages of them.

Most of which don't apply to the average joe going to wiki to read stuff on the internet.  Only those who have signed an agreement with the government.

The sections of Trump's returns that were disclosed were state returns, so federal law doesn't apply.

[Oceander]

Amazingly you're wrong on both counts.

1) the media does indeed have an exception (see Bartnicki v. Vopper)

2) Downloading Wikileaks or reading them online is not a prosecutable offense.

As I read summaries of Bartnicki v. Vopper, that case does not provide an exception for the media, what it provides is that a person or organization that was not involved in the initial illegal acquisition of a document or communication cannot be convicted for broadcasting or publishing the illegally obtained document or communication.  I'm just reading a summary, but as I read it, that exception applies to anyone who comes into possession of a communication or document that was illegally obtained - provided the person in question wasn't involved in committing the act of illegally obtaining the item in the first instance, that person is not guilty of illegally obtaining the item.  Whether this is just limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act I don't know.

At any rate, the case itself doesn't hold that there is a media-only exception to anything.

[txradioguy]

What I see is your reliance on legal contortions and fictions to uphold your position.

Needless to say no one is going to be prosecuted for reading or downloading Wikileaks. 

So in the purple sky unicorn how exactly does citing U.S. law from the Cornell University Law department website equate to "legal contortions and fiction" ?