This data is from publicly available information which is unclassified. While I can appreciate the point you attempted to convey, this is the Information Age. It is not a secret where or how we operate, in fact, official U.S. government websites and social media pages routinely release information on assets/operations for messaging purposes (recruiting, etc). I mean, what do you think an air show or fleet week is for?
As for the second half, relax on the fear-mongering. It is counterproductive.
Without going into the Telecommunications Act, which I am sure that every HAM radio operator whould be reasonably familar with -- regarding communicaitons that transmitted over the airwaves and recieved by a radio, scanner, etc.
If you are referring to the espionage provisions in
18 USC 793, here is something that you should consider when reading the black letter law.
(Thanks to Westlaw, unfortunately I cannot link as I have access through my work but the cases and their locations as well as the Westlaw Key is included)
Statute prohibiting anyone with documents relating to the national defense from wilfully delivering them to any person not entitled to receive them applied to conduct of government employee in “leaking” information to a British magazine.
U.S. v. Morison, D.C.Md.1985, 604 F.Supp. 655, appeal dismissed
774 F.2d 1156.
War And National Emergency 1125
Espionage statutes, prohibiting those with access to national defense information from wilfully communicating, delivering, or transmitting the information to a person not entitled to receive it, applied to military intelligence employee who made unauthorized transmittal of satellite-secured photographs to periodical publisher.
U.S. v. Morison, C.A.4 (Md.) 1988, 844 F.2d 1057, certiorari denied
109 S.Ct. 259, 488 U.S. 908, 102 L.Ed.2d 247.
War And National Emergency 1125
Defendant's prosecution for unlawfully disclosing information relating to national defense to a person not entitled to receive it did not run afoul of the First Amendment, even though his oral disclosures of national security information qualified as speech; by virtue of his security clearance, defendant was entrusted with access to classified national security information and had a duty not to disclose that information, the First Amendment did not cloak his breach of that duty, and defendant expressly waived in writing his right to disclose the national security information he obtained while in his government position.
U.S. v. Kim, D.D.C.2011, 808 F.Supp.2d 44.
Constitutional Law 1807;
War and National Emergency 1125
Accused had no First Amendment right to disclose classified information relating to national security, in general court martial for accused's downloading and transmitting information to a website that disseminated it; First Amendment did not protect unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
United States v. Manning, 78 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2018), review denied
79 M.J. 98.
Constitutional Law 2037;
Military Justice 790
Government was required, in action under the Espionage Act, to prove that defendant charged with an oral disclosure of information relating to the national defense (NDI) actually knew that the information he disclosed was closely held by the government and damaging to national security if revealed, and actually knew that the recipient was not entitled to receive the information under the applicable classification regulations.
U.S. v. Rosen, E.D.Va.2007, 520 F.Supp.2d 786.
War And National Emergency 1125