Bradley Manning Faced Harsher Prosecution Merely Because His Leaks Involved a Computer

0 Shares

This post, written by surveillance, free speech, and government transparency expert Trevor Timm, was originally published on July 31, 2013 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

We wrote yesterday about the dangerous “hacker madness” strategy used by the prosecution in the Bradley Manning trial, a tried-and-true tactic that attempts to scare judges into sustaining convictions based on a defendant’s knowledge of computers. However, another interesting fact of the Manning trial is being overlooked by the media: this is the first time we know of where the government has sustained a conviction under a controversial section of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) known as (a)(1).

Manning’s conviction under this provision looks to be yet another example of prosecutors leveraging the CFAA to force more prison time on computer users while using other, almost identical laws to punish the same acts.

Though his ultimate sentence may be significantly shorter, Manning faces a maximum of 136 years in jail for the nineteen counts on which he would found guilty. Most significantly, he was found guilty of six counts under the Espionage Act and two counts under the CFAA. But when you read both of the statutes closely, they are completely redundant except for one aspect: computers.

In fact, as the Judiciary Committee Report on the 1996 amendment to the CFAA makes clear, Congress explicitly based (a)(1) of the CFAA off 793(e) of the Espionage Act. “The bill would bring the protection for classified national defense or foreign relations information maintained on computers in line with our other espionage laws,” the report says. The original CFAA, written in 1984 was modeled on another part of the Espionage Act, section 794, which has never been used in leak cases. But Congress wanted it tailored after 793(e), a statute that in recent years has been used to prosecute a record number of leakers. (Compare the text here and here.)

The statutes are so similar, in fact, it’s hard to tell them apart even when reading the Judiciary Committee’s explanation about how they differ:

Although there is considerable overlap between 18 U.S.C. 793(e) and section 1030(a)(1), as amended by the NII Protection Act, the two statutes would not reach exactly the same conduct. Section 1030(a)(1) would target those persons who deliberately break into a computer to obtain properly classified Government secrets then try to peddle those secrets to others, including foreign governments. In other words, unlike existing espionage laws prohibiting the theft and peddling of Government secrets to foreign agents, section 1030(a)(1) would require proof that the individual knowingly used a computer without authority, or in excess of authority, for the purpose of obtaining classified information. In this sense then, it is the use of the computer which is being proscribed, not the unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over the classified information itself.

Did you get all that? The Judiciary Committee basically copy-pasted the Espionage Act into the CFAA, but forbid “use of the computer” rather than accessing the documents. So there you have it: they specifically wanted to make the isolated act of using a computer a separate crime.

In the government’s mind, the Espionage Act can be used to punish a leaker of information, and if that person merely used a computer to get that information, they are guilty of an additional felony. So someone who emails documents to a journalists it got off a government computer will face ten more years per charge, than a government official who photocopied documents he got off a shelf and physically mailed them to the same journalist.

Of course, leaks to the press should never be equated with espionage, regardless of what statute is used. But this is yet another example of the government using knowledge of computers to unjustly ratchet up penalties on a crime that caused little or no harm.

Personal Liberty

Personal Liberty News Desk

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Elton Robb

    “And they put the righteous in prison, and let the criminal go free.” Anyone believe that our government is still under control yet?

    • chris

      We have lost our government to the special intrest

  • Paul Anthony

    In light of this, I’m hesitant to leave a reply using my computer. Could I just send you a postcard? LOL

  • Chester

    They used the same sections of the law to punish a college student for accessing his school’s library and posting information that was already in the public domain. His crime, unauthorized access by computer.

  • billybob

    It won’t be long before anything we say against our government can and will be considered treason. They are moving towards this as I write. I’m sure that people like us will soon be in violation of causing some form of treason. You will find out that you have been captured and you are no longer free to say what you want! Especially on a computer. They will start by making an example of the GI. They can’t get to Snowdon so they will show all of us what will happen to you if you engage in this “CRIME” what ever that is?

    • chris

      that’s why there preparing the fema camps for people like us that are trying to get this information out about what are govemrent is doing. There proubly red flagging all of us, you know there looking at everything were writing on line, things are really getting scarey!!!

  • chrisnj

    There’s the crime of assault, which is somehow worse if it can be shown that you “hated” ( a thought crime) the person you assaulted.
    All other things being equal.
    This ridiculousness is no different.
    Sort of like killing someone with a firearm is somehow more dastardly than killing them with a knife. They’re just as dead. The crime is no different.
    Justice is supposed to be blind, but we have a whole class of legal and political predators and parasites who take that blindness as an opportunity to stab her in the gut.