Repub states "A free press undermines our country"

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by uvwpvW
Does the government have privacy rights? I don’t think so. As citizens they do, but not as an institution.  

So you support Klaus Fuchs? The Walkers? The Rosenbergs?

Seems to me the governments "right" to privacy is well entrenched.

[uvwpvW]

You don’t seem to understand the difference between violating privacy, and betraying secrecy. The government has no privacy rights, but they do have the right to keep certain things secret if they so wish. If a government employee divulges secrets he is most likely committing a crime, or at least violating a contract. If a reporter publishes secrets he is not committing a crime as long as the reporter did no crime in obtaining the secrets. I don’t know why some people find this so difficult to understand.

[Nash]

Depends on what he does with the information.

It's not that complicated.

What's wrong with some of you people?

[Holden McGroin]

uvwpvW :
 
 So if one were to keep confidential the number and type of weapons he keeps, is he keeping it private, or is he keeping a secret?

If I were to find out through casual conversation with your wife certain damaging information about you and published it, I would have no responsibility whatsoever for your embarrasment?

[Maverick]

Stringer and letters. Go back to the first page and the first and third post of the thread. Please note the thread was started on the basis of the paper publishing classified information.

As to the privacy thing, the govt. has many things it will keep secret, hence in effect keeping it private for use among those who have need to know to include purely classified info as well as plain old information they don't want spread too far, think ongoing investigations and so on. If you can't make the connection, it's your problem not mine.

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
uvwpvW :
 
 So if one were to keep confidential the number and type of weapons he keeps, is he keeping it private, or is he keeping a secret?

Depends on whether you are a private person or a government, and whether the weapons are personal property or public property.

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I were to find out through casual conversation with your wife certain damaging information about you and published it, I would have no responsibility whatsoever for your embarrasment?

That’s a red herring argument. I am not a government institution, and my wife and I do not have a secrecy contract. Now to answer your question: I am responsible for having done something that can be considered damaging or embarrassing, but if my wife divulged damaging information, accidentally or otherwise, to a reporter – my wife is also in part responsible for my embarrassment. You as a reporter are in no way responsible.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by uvwpvW
That’s a red herring argument. I am not a government institution, and my wife and I do not have a secrecy contract. Now to answer your question: I am responsible for having done something that can be considered damaging or embarrassing, but if my wife divulged damaging information, accidentally or otherwise, to a reporter – my wife is also in part responsible for my embarrassment. You as a reporter are in no way responsible.

I do not consider it a red herring at all. It appears you believe that by publishing personal information, say it isn't socially embarrassing, say it's your banking information, I as a reporter am completely off the hook and your wife would be entirely at fault.

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Maverick
Stringer and letters. Go back to the first page and the first and third post of the thread. Please note the thread was started on the basis of the paper publishing classified information.

In America there is no such thing as “classified information” in the meaning that it is illegal for some people to read. Any and ALL information is legal to publish as long as it wasn’t obtained through illegal means (i.e. breaking into the White House and stealing documents). “Classified” simply means that they want to keep the information to themselves and are taking precautions to keep it from the public. If a “classified” or “secret” or “private” or “insert you favorite adjective here” government document should come into your possession you would in no way be making a crime reading it or publishing it.

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I do not consider it a red herring at all. It appears you believe that by publishing personal information, say it isn't socially embarrassing, say it's your banking information, I as a reporter am completely off the hook and your wife would be entirely at fault.

Yes it is a red herring because you constantly keep changing the topic to discussing the privacy rights of a private person. The government by definition isn’t “private”, has no “personal information” and their “banking information” is public property.

Classic red herring argument.

[Holden McGroin]

You say secret and private are different things.  If your definition is that the difference is that the confidential information owned buy public vs private entities, and that makes all the difference, then I disagree with you.

The making public of confidential information is wrong regardless of it's ownership, unless that confidence was done in violation of law.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by uvwpvW
The government by definition isn’t “private”, has no “personal information” and their “banking information” is public property.

Classic red herring argument.

And by the way, to get the banking information required to access government funds is not  accessable by the public, it is held confidential*. (at least I hope so)


*in this context, a synonym for private

[lazs2]

should there be any classified information and if so... what should it's limits be?

Should they be different in wartime?

Should a newspaper be held as a traitor if they release classified info?

Should we be fighting terrorists and if so... to what extent are we willing to give up freedom for security?

All difficult questions.

For my money I say let em do their worst...  catch em only by accident and let em blow up or destroy a few blue areas a year if it means I don't lose any freedom.

lazs

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Maverick
Stringer and letters. Go back to the first page and the first and third post of the thread. Please note the thread was started on the basis of the paper publishing classified information.

As to the privacy thing, the govt. has many things it will keep secret, hence in effect keeping it private for use among those who have need to know to include purely classified info as well as plain old information they don't want spread too far, think ongoing investigations and so on. If you can't make the connection, it's your problem not mine.

Mav,
I don't have a problem, but you seem to so you can dial that crap down some.

And while you're doing that, show me the law or article within the Bill of Rights or Constitution  that states the gov't has a right to privacy.

You obviously can't make the connection between a right to privacy and an obligation to keep information private.  The distinction, for me, is clear....one is a right guaranteed by our Constitution to protect the individual that cannot be taken away, the other is a duty by those employed by our government to hold sensitive information secret.

Is the Gov't prosecuting the NYT for this?  

Now they could prosecute the leaker of the information for releasing classified information, and I would be fine with that.

[lazs2]

stringer... if the prosecute the leaker then they would have to prosecute the paper too... that would be the only thing that made sense.   If it were classified info then that is the only way the leaker could be prosecuted and.... it follows..... that if a paper published classified info then it should be prosecuted also.

If the info was not classified or.. if no info can be termed classified then.... no harm no foul.

Like I said... I don't care if they can't go after terrorists in secret.   they never catch any in any case and the ones they do are by accident anyway...

and besides... what is the worst a terrorist can do?  kill a bunch of blue voters?  Stopping that is not worth me losing any freedoms over or growing the government (same thing really tho)

lazs

[Stringer]

Lazs,
I'm not so sure about that.  The leaker took an oath not to release classified info, the paper did not.

Under which law would the paper be prosecuted?  Now they could hold the paper or the reporters in contempt if they did not reveal their source, but I don't think they can prosecute them for printing the info.

And to be clear, I don't agree with a paper releasing sensitive documents which could harm our troops or hamper efforts to protect our citizens, but the paper is under no obligation to respect the governments right to privacy, because that right does not exist.

Essentially I agree with your stance on keeping a limit on expanding gov't.