Obligitory opening post to start the major flame/anti-flame thread. So the topic is:
Why the hell would slashdot post something that seems pretty darn illegal on the front of their site? If it's not illegal, it's just plain irresponsible. I recognize that the folks who run Slashdot are often characterized as kids with no journalistic integrity, but come on...
Since I submitted this story to/., I bite the flamebait.
Personally I have no clear opinions on the Calipari case, because in this cases all information that slips to civilians is of course filtered and in the best case only a pale approximation of the truth. There is too much truly classified information about this, like about anything relating to a war. Truth will perhaps eventually arise, but it's matter of years.
About illegality/irresponsability, well, you have to question not me nor CmdrTaco integrity, but the journalistic integrity of all major Italian media. All sites of prominent Italian newspapers and even Italian national television broadcast service are highlighting this scoop with great fanfare. The link to the unclassified document comes from and is hosted by the Corriere della Sera website, the major Italian newspaper.
So it's plain silly to think/. should have silenced this. If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else to post this.
Moreover someone already pointed out in comments that is better for people that may risk something by this disclosure to know they risk something. The vulnerability was there. It should have been an advantage for someone if it was secret. Being that much publicized, such info it is not an advantage for any enemy more.
I don't think it could be construed as anything but a violation of the DMCA. The government distributed all the information in an unclassified document.
"Ineffective protection" is a viable defense against the DMCA's anti-copy protection provision. Since you can crack the PDF in question with a "Save As..." type.txt, the protection would certainly not be construed as "effective" by a jury.
What they don't want you to know was that the car was on a secure road, where there should not have been a checkpoint at all, since Iraqi resistance forces have no way to access this road. It's a highly secure road. The Italians had no reason to expect a "checkpoint" on this road; the fact that they there was one is highly suspicious, to say the least. Wake up and smell the coffee, people!
Well it is not clearly illegal. While distributing calssified documents is criminal, it is only criminal for people without security clearances if it could reasonably be seen as esponage. I don't think anyone thinks/. is a spy hangout.
In addition courts tend to allow infromation released, even unintenionally, to be reported. In http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/ cox.html [bc.edu] Cox Broadcasting v Cohn the supreme court found that the first admendment protected the publication of the name of
I would normally not react to a silly remark like yours but for the fact that some have even moderated it as 'Insightful".
Even though Slashdot is hosted in the USofA it still is an international 'news'/discussion site that -should not/can not- be subject to the rules of a single legal system.
Besides, had you read just the submission, not even TFA, you could have known this stuff is already published world wide, there IS no more confidentiallity to break.
I'm biting, too, since I also submitted the story.
I did so mainly because I believe that in order to avoid such moronic mishaps it's best if you ring a few bells. Not to mention the fact that the trick has been extensively exposed all over the country.
I do agree that publicly exposing names of soldiers or intelligence agents can be dangerous, as can be revealing detailed assets locations and checkpoints procedures. But I'd be careful here: someone might argue that publishing the Abu Ghraib photos has hurt
"Nature is very un-American. Nature never hurries."
-- William George Jordan
Irresponsible to post this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the hell would slashdot post something that seems pretty darn illegal on the front of their site?
If it's not illegal, it's just plain irresponsible. I recognize that the folks who run Slashdot are often characterized as kids with no journalistic integrity, but come on...
Re:Irresponsible to post this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since I submitted this story to /., I bite the flamebait.
Personally I have no clear opinions on the Calipari case, because in this cases all information that slips to civilians is of course filtered and in the best case only a pale approximation of the truth. There is too much truly classified information about this, like about anything relating to a war. Truth will perhaps eventually arise, but it's matter of years.
About illegality/irresponsability, well, you have to question not me nor CmdrTaco integrity, but the journalistic integrity of all major Italian media. All sites of prominent Italian newspapers and even Italian national television broadcast service are highlighting this scoop with great fanfare. The link to the unclassified document comes from and is hosted by the Corriere della Sera website, the major Italian newspaper.
So it's plain silly to think /. should have silenced this. If it wasn't me, it would have been someone else to post this.
Moreover someone already pointed out in comments that is better for people that may risk something by this disclosure to know they risk something. The vulnerability was there. It should have been an advantage for someone if it was secret. Being that much publicized, such info it is not an advantage for any enemy more.
Re:Irresponsible to post this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Irresponsible to post this. (Score:2)
Re:Irresponsible to post this. (Score:2)
We aren't being told anything close to the truth. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1957 [antiwar.com]
First Admendment Issues (Score:1)
Re:Irresponsible to post this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would normally not react to a silly remark like yours but for the fact that some have even moderated it as 'Insightful".
Even though Slashdot is hosted in the USofA it still is an international 'news'/discussion site that -should not/can not- be subject to the rules of a single legal system.
Besides, had you read just the submission, not even TFA, you could have known this stuff is already published world wide, there IS no more confidentiallity to break.
You stupid.
Re:Irresponsible to post this. (Score:2)
I'm biting, too, since I also submitted the story.
I did so mainly because I believe that in order to avoid such moronic mishaps it's best if you ring a few bells. Not to mention the fact that the trick has been extensively exposed all over the country.
I do agree that publicly exposing names of soldiers or intelligence agents can be dangerous, as can be revealing detailed assets locations and checkpoints procedures. But I'd be careful here: someone might argue that publishing the Abu Ghraib photos has hurt