Theft, Leaks and Whistle-blowing
A Personal View
The following sources have been used:
- Wikipedia
- Wiktionary
- Dictionary.com
- Collins English Mini Dictionary [ISBN: 0-00-472367-8]
- Oxford English Reference Dictionary [Oxford University Press], 2nd ed. 1996
This webpage will be divided up as follows:
Return to the top of this page
Definitions
- Wiktionary Entries:
- "Dictionary.com" Entries:
- The reader is also encouraged to check out the relevant definitions in the various hardcopy dictionaries, such as but not
limited to, The Concise Oxford Dictionary, The Macquarie Dictionary, etc.
Return to the top of this page
Theft and Stealing
Anyone who steals an item or document (whether classified or not) is a thief and as such is a candidate for arrest, charging,
court appearance and subsequently if found guilty, some form of sentence by the court with the charge and conviction being
recorded against that person thus giving them a criminal record that would follow them for some if not all of the rest of
their life. In most countries, a criminal conviction can lead to the individual not being allowed to enter that country either
as a tourist or to work (ref: TV programs "Border Patrol", "Customs", etc). There may or may not be a "statute of limitations"
on such a ban depending on the nature of the offence, the term of imprisonment (if any), and how long the person has been out
of gaol for at the time of their travels.
I will explain through this page why I believe that the "leaking" of classified documents is theft and as such, while some
say that no crime has been committed by leaking a classified document, a crime can be demonstrated to have been committed. It
all comes down to terminology and the creation of laws that put segments of our society (eg journalists, etc) "above the law".
Return to the top of this page
Leaking
As indicated in the above definitions, if the websites indicated have been inspected, leaking is the process of passing on to
another person a classified document that has been stolen from the lawful owner either as the original document (unlikely),
a photocopy of the document, or a copy of the document in any one of the various digital formats available either by direct
access to a computer within an organisation or by hacking into the desired computer system from outside the organisation and
downloading the document or documents, for unlawful purposes.
Return to the top of this page
Whistle-blowing
Again, as indicated in the definitions, unlike leaking, a whistle-blower is not making public classified documents but rather
after attempting to bring some observations or personal experiences of bullying, or political or corporate, etc, corruption,
misbehaviour or misconduct to the attention of their relevant supervisor and/or manager, etc, and not receiving or observing
any tangible results, has made the brave decision to "go public" and subsequently bring about some form of legal action against
the parties concerned.
Whistle-blowers should have the full protection of the law available to them. This may require the provision of a suitably
trained advocate to be present at job interviews to ensure that the process isn't biassed and if appropiate, to have access to
the subsequent selection process deliberations, not just a copy of the final interview report, to ensure that the deliberations
of the selection panel, in making their final decision, is not biassed against the individual but is fairly based on the merits
of the applicants and nothing else.
A whistle-blower should not have to hide behind the journalistic term "an unnamed source" but should be free to be named if
they believe it may assist their cause and with the full protection of the law, as already suggested above.
Return to the top of this page
Copyright
At a trivial level, any person in possession of "stolen" documents or documents procured via "illegal" means and who makes the
contents of those documents public either via publication in the press or other mode, might also be guilty of a breach of Copyright
as all documents that might be considered in the class of documents that may be prone to being "stolen for illegal purposes" would
also be copyrighted material.
Australian Copyright Law, by not requiring copyright material to be physically registered, implies that regardless of who produced
a document, even the daily or weekly shopping list, it is a copyright document and as such is protected by the (Australian)
Copyright Act.
Return to the top of this page
Conclusions
With all of the controversary currently taking place over the contents of the "WikiLeaks" website, its foudner and those who both
work for, contract to, or use their "product", I hold the personal view that anyone who provides this organisation with stolen
classified documents has committed a crime (ie theft) and that WikiLeaks and the organisations who use these documents either
directly or via WikiLeaks, may be guilty of "knowingly being in receipt of stolen property" which I understand is, in some
jurisdictions at least (eg Australia, as I understand it), may also be a criminal offence.
As such, I can identify at least three (3) laws under which someone might be charged in relation to leaked documents:
- "stealing" a document;
- Passing a stolen document on to a third party (ie being knowingly in receipt of stolen property); and/or,
- Infringing Australian or some other jurisdiction's Copyright Law
So to all those who believe that the founder of WikiLeaks "has committed no crime", I don't think they are casting their nets
far enough in terms of the legal tools that are already available and I support 100% the actions of the US Government's Justice and
State Departments in their search for suitable charges which can be used to bring the founder of WikiLeaks, and others, to justice.
Return to the top of this page
This page © 2010, Paul Myers
