--- On Mon, 12/6/10, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > From: Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> > Subject: Re: Donations > To: "Fred Elwood" <fred.elw...@yahoo.com> > Cc: misc@openbsd.org > Date: Monday, December 6, 2010, 1:42 AM > > PayPal's terms of use do not > permit soliciting crime. > > Paypal's terms of use are just that; terms of use. > The account was > being run by the German charity WHS. > > Noone has said that wikileaks has commited a crime. > What statute > are you talking about? > > > Wikileaks > > solicits the > > holders of US security clearances to violate their > > non-disclosure agreements. > > That is a crime. > > I hereby ask anyone who holds secrets that the world should > know > of, which may contain indications of real crimes having > been commited > should send them to wikileaks. > > Did I just commit a crime?
No. > Oh, remember I do not live > in the US. Hypothetical cleared US personnel who took you up on this request WOULD be committing a crime. > > > Some people think it should not be a crime. But it > is. Some people > > think that it matters that WIkileaks says that they do > not ask for > > submissions. That matters about as much as a mob > boss saying that he > > didn't ask anyone to shoot so-and-so, just that > wouldn't it be > > fortunate if someone > > did? Wikileaks model is predicated on breaking > > NDAs, and based on what their > > cite on their front pages, breaking NDAs > > on US classified information is their > > biggest product center. > > You think it should be a crime. You just justified > skipping due process. > Against whom? Due process rights exist in criminal and civil proceedings, not in business arrangements. Wikileaks has no more due process rights against PayPal than Wim has against you; they might be able to sue for breach of contract, but that's it. "Due process" has nothing to do with this case. The nickel summary is that "due process" is not in play if the cops are not directly involved. The crime I am talking about is the crime of the cleared individuals disclosing the classified information. PayPal did not terminate Wikileaks for committing a crime, but for using PayPal in support of their soliciting crimes (unlawful disclosure/conveyance of classified information), which is against their terms of service.
