Puolustusvoimien edustaja Sumit Agarwal kirjoitti perustelun Wired-lehdelle:
“I think of it as being analogous to MP3s or a copyrighted novel online — widespread publication doesn’t strip away laws governing use of those,” he writes. ”If Avatar were suddenly available online, would be legal to download it? As a practical matter, many people would download it, but also as a practical matter, James Cameron would probably go after people who were found to be nodes who facilitated distribution. It would still be illegal for people to make Avatar available even if it were posted on a torrent site or the equivalent.”
“With minor changes to what is legal/illegal re: classified material vs a copyrighted movie, doesn’t the analogy hold?” Argawal asks. “One person making it available doesn’t change the laws re: classified material. Our position is simply that servicemembers ought not to use government computers to do something which is still completely illegal (traffic in classified material).”
Wired-lehden Danger Room-blogi huomauttaa, että analogia ei toimi. Samalla logiikalla James Cameron kieltäisi työväkeään katsomasta Avataria sen jälkeen kun elokuva on ladattavissa netissä. Sotilaiden silmien peittely ei vaikuta siihen miten Yhdysvaltojen viholliset käyttävät tiedostoja.
Nyt puolustusvoimien tarjoamat verkkopalvelut estävät "Wikileaks" sanan sisältävät osoitteet.
No comments:
Post a Comment