FourPacketsOfPeanuts @ FourPacketsOfPeanuts @lemmy.world

Posts

8

Comments

992

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think there should be! At all. Also, fuck the Chinese government.

I'm just pedantically interested in exactly how the law works in that area.

For example, you characterise it as "infringing on a nations sovereignty". But as far as I know nothing this guy was doing was affecting the rights of American citizens. That might just be the shortcomings of the article, which is why I said I assume there was more to it. I assume he was up to bad stuff. And acting like a gangster on behalf of another government is plainly wrong. It's just that the article says he wasn't physically intimidating anyone. Nor does it mention he's sharing state secrets or personal info (from, say, a government job). Apparently he was passing publicly available information to the Chinese government and I was just surprised that that crossed a line.

Legally speaking there would have to be some ill intent (and perhaps that's what all his communications show) because sending public info abroad in itself doesn't strike me as illegal. (If someone were, say, sending info to the British government it doesn't seem it would be automatically illegal. I assume there was some evidence that he was planning for harm to come from what he was doing)

"a bit flabby and immensely strong"

"bear like hulk"

"a portly frame composed mostly of muscle"

"round and devastatingly strong"

"It's not your fault" - Good Will Hunting

The West absolutely has a fascist white Christian terrorist problem, that doesn't change anything I said

You're right, Taleb A. from Saudi Arabia sounds like your regular run of the mill European cultural christian..

Library democracy wrings its hands and lets extremist ideologies fester, both through being too weak and placating to act at home and too weak to rein in abuses against Muslim nations abroad. The result is fascism in one form or another is elected to cut out the cancer. Sadly this is often done by cutting deep into the moderate communities tangentially related to terrorist extremists. Ugly the whole thing.

16th October: international draw Muhammad day

Thank you. Sadly people seem increasingly unable to cope with the fact that someone they disagree with is not a troll just a regular person trying to figure things out. I blame twitter.. reddit too.. all of them actually. It's worse by an order of magnitude than 10 / 15 years ago.

Thank you internet stranger!!11!

Lemmy: keep it secret, keep it safe

But it's the "with intention to cause you damages" bit that makes it illegal (I believe).

Saying you saw so-and-so down at the shops is obviously not illegal. Saying that to their ex-partner so they go and beat them up is. (Even then a prosecutor would have to prove you incited or intend harm to come, just the sharing of info itself isn't a crime per se)

That's what I wasn't understanding from the article. Are there very specific limits on first amendment so that what would ordinarily be communication of public information becomes illegal just because the recipient is a foreign government. Or was it illegal because the public information was shared with the known intent of causing physical harm.

The article sounded like the former, which surprised me. I think the latter is probably the actual circumstances though I could be wrong.

This ^

I'm not even sure a mass exodus would have been a good thing. Bring a lot of bad habits it would..

We're not on some profit driven page view dopamine binge here, whatever happened to just c/Aircraft ? If it's too boring for people I wonder how they cope in a library. Or maybe everything needs to get labelled "Awesome" there too like we're all 12?

That would be hilarious

I live in some hope that he renames his holding company "XCOM" so that it can join the likes of Skynet in making our childhoods real..

Being facetious is being not serious about something, or just to being trivial. I'm doing the opposite, trying to specifically understand how the law works. I was surprised that communicating public information elsewhere could be illegal. No-one's cited the law so far on specifically how this guy passing information was illegal. Like I said, if he was going around bullying and intimidating like a mobster it would be perfectly understandable. I was just surprised that this is apparently a limit on the first amendment because it didn't seem clear exactly where the line is.

Thanks, that makes some things a lot clearer.

But just play along with me for a second...

We're in court and that law gets cited and the defence attorney says "surveillance was happening, yes, but that in itself wasn't illegal. In order to break that particular law one has to prove it was being done with the intention that it result in "a well founded fear of death or serious bodily injury"'. And where is the proof that was the intention or the result?

So if this guy's going around like a mobster on behalf of the Chinese government and threatening people on their doorstep I'd get it.

But, reading the law closely, just sending information to another country does not, in itself, seem to be illegal. That's why I was making the point about free speech. The first amendment is literally about communicating legal information freely without persecution from the government, even if that's with people the government doesn't like.

I'm not saying the guy didn't do anything wrong, I just mean I assume there's more to it than the article is describing..

Nice, thanks!

Your presumption is the death of honest discussion, try and take people at their word. Some, like myself, are here to talk out their ignorance and learn.

I'm not being faecitious, but what was the "actual act"? If I was on holiday abroad and heard a fellow Brit, now a naturalised citizen of wherever, boasting about tax evasion and I snitched on them to the tax authorities in Britain, have I now done the same thing as an agent of the British government on foreign soil? Ive done an ostensibly legal act (made a phone call abroad) about something I legally came across as a private citizen, but if one wanted to, could that be cast as "colluding against a citizen on behalf of a foreign government"?

The difference in this case is this person was apparently being paid by the Chinese government. But I'm wondering what specifically about their actions was illegal? Surely if you go about your business doing legal things it doesn't matter whether you're on the payroll of a foreign government or not?