[crimsonzagar]

One question that I saw floating around on Twitter is how could the US Gov charge Snowden on espionage? Espionage doesn't apply or does it?

Let's say you and I share some secret. When I pass that information you trusted in me to a third party (who is interested in acquiring that information) secretly for some favor (cash/kind) only then it becomes a case of espionage no?

When I share facts that were meant to be confidential according to you with everyone through a public channel then how does it become a case of espionage? It's only a revelation albeit a forced one.

How are we placed on this?

[pyre]

Espionage is probably being defined in this instance as "aiding the enemy." It doesn't matter if you secretly divulge information. If you release information publicly that could be used by 'the enemy' then you have helped 'the enemy.'

[smsm42]

They don't charge him on espionage. They charge him under the law that is called Espionage Act, which prohibits a number of things, including revealing classified information to somebody not authorized to see it. Unfortunately, most journalists either don't know the difference or can't resist the temptation of a catchy headline.

[nknighthb]

I haven't seen the indictment, but I assume he's been charged under one or more provisions of 18 USC Ch. 37[1], otherwise known as the Espionage Act of 1917, which covers things like "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information".

Dictionaries are not the final arbiter of criminal law.

[1]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37

Edit: Criminal complaint here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new...

As I expected, there are two Espionage Act charges, specifically:

18 USC 793(d) Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information

18 USC 798(a)(3) Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person

[wavefunction]

"losing defense information"

Funny how none of the defense contractors that were hacked by the Chinese had to face these charges. Some rules for some, other rules for the rest of us.

[nknighthb]

Try reading the actual statute. I even linked to it. It requires gross negligence. Making wild assumptions does nothing to help our cause.

[wavefunction]

I guess I would consider exposing our next-generation fighter plans to the Internet gross negligence. That's all I'm saying.

[nknighthb]

You can consider whatever you want to be gross negligence. The legal system, on the other hand, would look to things like the exact circumstances, the reasons things were done as they were, and whether and to what degree the relevant actions deviated from relevant rules, regulations, and standard practices in similar situations.

And unless you have all of that information, you can't possibly make that judgement.

[wavefunction]

Like I said, it's just my opinion dude, so don't get all worked up. And if you're not getting worked up, my apologies, but that's how your replies seem to me.

For instance, it seems like common sense or widely accepted practice that sensitive materials should be stored on machines that should be air-gapped, and common knowledge informs legal decisions about what is gross negligence or not.

For instance:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligen...

"If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property."

Obviously this is open to interpretation and maybe the contractors responsible leave their own private affairs open willy-nilly to the world, but I would suppose they shouldn't have security clearance then...

[pekk]

So if I want US military secrets, all I have to do is hire someone to infiltrate, dig them up and then transmit them in the clear for me and my friends to read - and then it is not espionage, because it's "only a revelation"?

[crimsonzagar]

Hmm right, that's certainly a catch! But if you consider the situation: why would an enemy acquiring such information would want to come in public domain and shroud it as "a revelation"? It's a useless escape route if the acquiring party is true enemy.

No one would want to lose the advantage of having secretive information by blowing it in the open, right?

Secondly, from what I see from comments above the law makers are using Espionage Act of 1917 to frame/indict all whistleblowers. 1917. Framework of 1917 being applied in the year 2013 :-) That seems bit of a joke in itself.