+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Basement (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: It & Maintenance Department (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+---- Forum: Archive (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=215)
+----- Forum: Third Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+------ Forum: Court of Lazarus (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+------- Forum: Trials (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+------- Thread: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 (/showthread.php?tid=1101)
Pages:
1
2
Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - Wymondham - 12-12-2019
IN THE COURT OF THE REGION OF LAZARUS
CORPORATION OF LAZARUS
CASE NO: #0001
Treadwellia,
Plaintiff
v.
BowShot118,
Defendant
Charge(s):
Count 1: Espionage (§3 of Criminal Code) ON 28/10/19 - 29/10/19 Place: Lazarene Regional Guard Discord
Witnesses:
R.
M.M.
T.
N.R.
[spoiler=Indictment]INDICTMENT
The Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of Lazarus, Region of Lazarus, charges:
Count 1
The defendant, in violation of Section 3(1), committed espionage, punishable upon conviction under Section 12(2), in that on or about October 28 to October 29, 2019, in the Lazarene Regional Guard Discord, Region of Lazarus, the defendant knowingly collected information about military information without the knowledge and consent of T. and spread it in a place where a person could have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and subsequently transmitted the military information contained in the Lazarene Regional Guard Discord in a manner that allowed access to that information via a computer. [/spoiler]
[spoiler=Evidence]Bowshot Evidence Screen 1
Bowshot Evidence Screen 2
Bowshot Evidence Screen 3
Bowshot Evidence Screen 4
Bowshot Evidence Screen 5
Original Evidence Blurred Out
Original Evidence Unblurred[/spoiler]
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - Wymondham - 12-12-2019
I have informed the defence of the above and now invite them to inform the court if they shall appoint a legal representative and if so who their representative shall be. I also invite them to present evidence and/or commentary on the evidence submitted above. per Section 2, subsection (2), clause a of the Criminal Procedure Act they shall have 7 days from the posting of the thread to present such evidence/commentary.
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - BowShot118 - 12-14-2019
I mean this took a while to get up and running but I suppose I'll go make an attempt to defend myself and my actions:
I'll first off state, that the bulk of the evidence there is me sharing public information. Let me explain. The JP was already well known, it tends to become noticed after multiple usages to raid warzones in quick succession.
I'll also state it was fairly poorly executed, my "espionage", which I think is a little bit of an overkill term but oh well.
I never shared a target to anyone, we ignore the fact that I never had access to that information :P
Furthermore, I did state my involvement in the warzones to multiple people while in that discord, I'd gather evidence but it is a bit hard to given current circumstances, and that I likely wouldn't be overly happy with Warzone raids, so it wasn't exactly like I didn't forwarn people.
I'll state it now before I get into the "emotional" aspect of this little comment, I didn't join Lazarus with the intent to spy, and I was approached about joining the military. I wasn't and still for the most part am not interested in R/D, if I'm going to click buttons to make the screen change I'll go do some more card farming, I joined Lazarus to explore more of NationStates as I was curious about different communities in the game.
Onto the "emotional" reason of why I did it:
I stated multiple times to people that I was involved in the Warzones to some extent, and I value the communities I've participated in and the friends I've made there, and this act occurred to almost protect, although that is almost definitely the wrong word for it, the communities I cared for. I'd have done the same if I found Lazarus was attempting to coup/raid others regions I care about.
I was fully aware that it was illegal, it would have been quite the eye opener if it wasn't I'm ngl, but I will not be pleading guilty whatsoever, as I believe I was fully justified in my actions and did not leak fragile information, with no proof that I shared anything directly from the chats, only second hand evidence of me sharing a JP and an update time, as well as the NPA. Enjoy!
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - Wymondham - 12-14-2019
I would just ask the defendant to clarify the following points for the court:
1. Is the defendant stating that they knew what they did was illegal but chose to do it anyway?
2. Is/Was the defendant aware that any material shared in the Lazarene guard discord is in and of itself OPSEC as is the case in any regional military?
3. McMasterdonia states in the evidence, specifically in Screenshot 5, that "it [the jump] was only known by a few people". Is the defendant alleging that McMasterdonia is lying by saying that this was public information?
4. Is the defendant aware that whatever the intent is behind an action, if the action is still illegal they have committed a crime?
I thank the defendant, in advance, for clarifying the above.
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - New Rogernomics - 12-14-2019
Admin Notice: Please do not post discussion in the court area. This is reserved for the court, plaintiff, defendant, and legal teams.
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - BowShot118 - 12-14-2019
Wymondham;7809 Wrote:1. Is the defendant stating that they knew what they did was illegal but chose to do it anyway?No Comment
Wymondham;7809 Wrote:2. Is/Was the defendant aware that any material shared in the Lazarene guard discord is in and of itself OPSEC as is the case in any regional military?Is, yes, Was, No.
Using this, literally any information shared in the Lazerene Guard's Offsite holdings is OPSEC, including publicly known regions held by the Military and past raid targets. Does this, therefore, mean anyone in or outside of the organisation has committed espionage by potentially discussing or mentioning said events?
Wymondham;7809 Wrote:3. McMasterdonia states in the evidence, specifically in Screenshot 5, that "it [the jump] was only known by a few people". Is the defendant alleging that McMasterdonia is lying by saying that this was public information?
BowShot118;7805 Wrote:I'll first off state, that the bulk of the evidence there is me sharing public information. Let me explain. The JP was already well known, it tends to become noticed after multiple usages to raid warzones in quick succession.That speaks for itself, I will make no further comment on it.
Wymondham;7809 Wrote:4. Is the defendant aware that whatever the intent is behind an action, if the action is still illegal they have committed a crime?Fully aware.
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - Wymondham - 12-19-2019
At 06:39 PM UTC the first stage of this trial came to an end. The prosecution, whether it be the plaintiff or their consul, now has 3 days from 6:39PM UTC today to present further evidence and commentary on all evidence submitted to the Court thus far. After this, the Criminal Review will conclude.
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - Wymondham - 12-20-2019
The prosecution have informed me that @"TempestShadow" will be their legal consul
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - TempestShadow - 12-21-2019
Your honor, the case here is simple. Per the Criminal Code Act, espionage is the following:
Quote:Section 3. Espionage
(1) Any person who knowingly communicates information contained in a restricted area of Lazarus, in part or in whole, to a person or entity which does not have access to that restricted area, shall be guilty of espionage.
(2) The individual or government body responsible for a restricted area may sanction the distribution of information to another person or entity. Sharing information whose release has been sanctioned shall not be considered espionage.
Thus then, in order for one to be guilty of espionage, two requirements must be met. The first is that said person communicates information restricted to certain people by virtue of access limitations, the second that said communication not be sanctioned by those with the ability to sanction such communication.
I consider the second requirement first, as it is the simpler one. Simply put, no person with the authority to sanction such information sharing has noted that they allowed such, nor had the defendant made any suggestion of such allowance in their statement. It may be concluded then that the sharing of the information was not sanctioned. The second requirement is thus fulfilled.
I will now consider the first required, that the information shared be restricted information on the basis of access restriction. Bowshot has been established at the time of the offense to have been a member of the Regional Guard. Further, the information alleged to have been shared was restricted, as it was only accessible to the ,embers of the Regional Guard on their Discord server. The relevant evidence in this matter is the final linked screenshot, otherwise listed as 'Original Evidence Unblurred.' Firstly, it clearly establishes that the Defendant was the one passing along the information. Secondly, contrary to the claims of the Defendant that the only information shared was of a JP, the actual information shared consists of a time, jump point, participating militaries, potential individual participants, and thoughts on targets. All of these are privileged information in the context of an individual operation. A time clearly allows those opposing it to have preparation time, and is thus always something restricted only to those who need to know. Participants and a jump point are similarly privileged, as they allow others to determine who is conducting the operation, and where from. While thoughts on potential targets are perhaps not always privileged information, the Defendant is clearly relying upon knowledge only reasonably possessed by those in the Regional Guard. Thus, the Defendant has clearly shared information privileged by virtue of access restrictions. This satisfies the first requirement.
As I have demonstrated, the Defendant has fulfilled both requirements in order to be considered guilty of espionage by sharing information privileged by virtue of access restrictions & by doing so without being sanctioned by any authority able to do so. The Prosecution therefore believes the Court will be able to easily find the Defendant guilty of one count of espionage.
Thank you your honor for hearing me, and the Prosecution rests.
RE: Treadwellia v Bowshot118 - New Rogernomics - 12-21-2019
This is also to be added into evidence: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191464/