Comments on: Wikileaks, IT pro not ‘in any danger’ in Coleman leak, lawyer says

By: Wikileaks Presents New Legal Questions « Media and Communications Law Society

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:10:51 +0000

[...] Jennifer Granick, the civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation told the Minnesota Independent that the actions of Richards and Wikileaks were not illegal because the information was in an [...]

By: Wikileaks, IT pro not ‘in any danger’ in Coleman leak, lawyer says | Security Hero

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:08:59 +0000

[...] Source – The Minnesota Independent [...]

By: Eman

Eman — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:49:41 +0000

During the Presidential election, it was the Republicans who whined that then-Senator Obama was not releasing ALL of his contributors.

The Republicans boasted about how they had a national searchable database of all contributors.

For the Coleman campaign and small contributors to whine now about releasing their names is both ironic and stupid. Their national party made that decision months ago. As usual, Norm just didn’t read the memo.

Kinda like Norm whining that Franken should concede when all the votes weren’t in on election night and Norm thought he was ahead. Why doesn’t Norm take both his own and his party’s advice.

By: texxs

texxs — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:17:37 +0000

Besides, these aren’t contributions to a political campaign are they? Aren’t the contributions in question for his legal fund?

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:49:33 +0000

I can see a problem where proving the database was left unprotected requires showing the information. Maybe if there was a trusted third party who could confirm that a media organization has the information it says it has, then it could be withheld from the public, but I don’t know who Wikileaks could use as a trusted third party. On the other hand, other than the credit card numbers, I question whether the information was confidential. Does the legal requirement to reveal donors donating over $200 mean smaller donors have an expectation of privacy, or just that the campaign is breaking no laws by not revealing them? On the other hand, I can understand that some people are in circumstances where they want to keep a donation anonymous, whereas the campaign can’t just take an anonymous envelope of cash.

By: BJ

BJ — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:33:16 +0000

so Bob notCollins – He, MPR’s Bob Collins, did not say he would not investigate, he said he would not publish name of the donors – finding the leak and reporting it is one thing, releasing names addresses (city, sst zip) of donors is an ethical choice that he said he would not cross. Was releasing the data really needed to prove the story? It was grand standing to get noticed, and maybe in todays world that is what passes for media, but it by most standards not ethicial. I say most because several people have said that they would have published the donors that were over $200.

By: Bob notCollins

Bob notCollins — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:06:35 +0000

So BoB Collins of MPR is so ethical he would not investigate. Well, maybe that is why Madoff and
Normy’s pal Kazeminy got away with it all this time.

So just keep not investigating Bob, you do not want to compromise your ethics.

By: PJN2112

PJN2112 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:35:05 +0000

Paul: OK that makes better sense. One could probably still quibble with the definition of small donors as “anonymous” because an individual who donates numerous small amounts must still be accounted for in the event those small donations eventually exceeed $200 during the cycle… But the point you make stands, all else is semantics.

Thanks for the clarification Paul.

By: Paul Schmelzer

Paul Schmelzer — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:31:21 +0000

PJN: That’s my error, not Ms. Granick’s. I’ve altered the post to include mention of FEC laws, which say donors who give more than $200 total over a cycle have to be disclosed. Small donors do, essentially, give anonymously. Thanks for pointing it out so I could fix it.

By: PJN2112

PJN2112 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:59:42 +0000

“It’s a really serious privacy concern… because many people perhaps contributed to the campaign anonymously or confidentially.’

How does one go about contributing anonymously to a political campaign? Jennifer Granick makes sense in everything except that statement.