More on the “Incomprehensible” Espionage Act of 1917
The Espionage Act is “in many respects incomprehensible,” wrote Harold Edgar and Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. in a definitive law review article (large pdf) three decades ago which explored the potential use of the Act to prosecute leaks to the media.
The espionage statutes are “so sweeping as to be absurd,” they argued (previously noted in Secrecy News, 10/19/05).
“If these statutes mean what they seem to say and are constitutional, public speech in this country since World War II has been rife with criminality.”
Now a scan of that 1973 paper is available online.
See “The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information,” Columbia Law Review, May 1973, vol. 73, pp. 929-1087 (a large 6.3 MB PDF file).
Though it remains the best account of the legislative history of the Espionage Act, the Edgar/Schmidt article is not the last or the latest word on the meaning of the Act. In particular, the prosecution of Samuel L. Morison in 1985 for providing classified satellite photos to Jane’s Defence Weekly established that the Espionage Act could be used to successfully prosecute leakers.
An article in the current issue of Commentary Magazine now calls for the prosecution of the New York Times for disclosing the NSA warrantless surveillance activity.
Though many experts consider the NSA program to be illegal because it violates the clear language of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Commentary author Gabriel Schoenfeld argues that disclosure of the program is the crime that should be investigated and prosecuted.
That perspective is examined in “Bill Keller in Chains: Commentary’s case for prosecuting the Times under the Espionage Act” by Jack Shafer, Slate, March 9.
In the current environment of declining trust and magnifying strategic competition, banning debris-creating tests is a concrete step towards stability that favors interests of all states seeking to conduct space activities.
Often negotiations between data center developers and local officials are conducted behind closed doors, protected by NDAs. How can we have an informed debate, when we don’t know what’s on the table?
As federal data policy nerds, the question we get asked all the time is “How much data has the current administration terminated?”
Google’s motto famously used to be “don’t be evil.” However, its latest feature has just made being evil a whole lot easier.