1993-03-30 - FWEE!: Supreme Court news

Header Data

From: Joe Thomas <jthomas@access.digex.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 72abe9e7981f25c73b55e483780066aa02eb40276e30baefbc7f7bf2e7dce5f9
Message ID: <Pine.3.05.9303301347.A3561-c100000@access.digex.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-30 18:49:27 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 10:49:27 PST

Raw message

From: Joe Thomas <jthomas@access.digex.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 10:49:27 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: FWEE!: Supreme Court news
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9303301347.A3561-c100000@access.digex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

In the ÒWhy We Need an Anonymous Whistleblower GroupÓ department, I
quote the last few paragraphs of a story in todayÕs paper (ÒJustices to
Rule on ÔPretty WomanÕ Parody,Ó but thatÕs not what this is about...)
The Washington Post, page A4, Thursday, 30 March 1993, reproduced
without permission:
   Separately yesterday, the justices refused to hear an appeal by two
   former defense contractors who were convicted in 1991 of illegally
   obtaining Pentagon information in the fraud scandal known as
   ÒOperation Ill Wind.Ó
   Thomas D. McAusland and Christopher M. Pafort, former executives at
   Litton Data Systems, which was seeking Navy contracts, were
   prosecuted under federal statutes that bar theft of government
   property.  In their appeal, they argued that government information
   is not ÒpropertyÓ and that no statute or published regulation
   actually barred dissemination of the information.
   Their lawyers said an appeals court ruling in the case, _McAusland v.
   U.S._, could make any leak of government information, even to the
   press, the basis for criminal liability.
[The defendants are apparently typical sleazy contractors who managed to
get some inside information on a contract they were pursuing.  Obtaining
such information was made a crime _after_ they got the information, so
the government charged them with the Òtheft of government propertyÓ
crime -JGT]
And, from an editorial in the Post (Ò. . . Custom and CrimeÓ), page A20:
   It is not necessary to make a judgment on the defendantsÕ conduct to
   be appalled by the use of the theft statute to prosecute them.  There
   should be a presumption that government information belongs to the
   people unless specifically protected by law, as national security
   data have been for some time and as contracting information now is.
   The Washington Post joined other media organizations in filing a
   brief in this case to make exactly that point.  The high courtÕs
   failure to review this case leaves in place a ruling that would make
   it possible to prosecute journalists who receive tips from government
   sources about corruption or public advocacy groups that listen to
   whistleblowersÕ charges about waste and inefficiency.  It is not
   enough to say, as the government does, that this probably wonÕt
   happen.  The court should have reversed these convictions to make
   clear that it cannot happen.
Version: 2.2
Joe Thomas <jthomas@access.digex.com>
PGP key available by request or by finger.
PGP key fingerprint:  1E E1 B8 6E 49 67 C4 19  8B F1 E4 9D F0 6D 68 4B