Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 577 posts

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#491

Post by stef25 »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #482
stef25 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, how is it even possible to verify the authenticity and completeness of leaked emails unless by the owner or the hoster?

this is a good question, see rester's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18466194 DKIM DomainKey Identified Mail, obviously diplomatic communications must prevent spoofing (!), so those mails are signed anyway, ensuring provenance of the emails

Thanks for the link. Aside from provenance, can it be proven that the contents of the leaked emails is valid and untampered with? Like one would use hashes for file verification.

I have to admit I have no clue as to what is the format of "leaked emails".

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#492

Post by foldr »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #127
foldr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, nothing suggesting they are knowingly working with the Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow

OK, there is evidence that Assange sold the broadcast rights of a show to a Russian controlled news organization. Do you think that Jesse Ventura should also be prosecuted?

I don't think Assange should be prosecuted for appearing on Russian state TV. (Does anyone?)

While it may be technically true to say that he "sold the rights" to Russia Today, that's arguably a little misleading, as the show first aired on RT, and RT had exclusive initial rights to it.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#493

Post by matt4077 »

josteink wrote: post #462
matt4077 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite get what the argument is supposed to be. Possibly that the charges should be dropped because so much time has passed. Because there is just no logical reason why an accused should have the option of getting all charges dropped because somehow being prosecuted for them violates his rights? The analogy with shooting someone is obviously different, in that shooting someone tends to be a violation of their…

What charges? Uncovering massive war-crimes committed by the US? (And how many have been charged as the result of those?) Are you saying it’s ok to let people off the hook for war-crimes, but reporting them should put you in prison? What kind of society would that be? Certainly not one I would want to live in.

The danish rape charge, which would have probably been resolved with a few months of probation or some mandatory training.

Somehow, Assange managed to turn that prospect into the self-inflicted and unlimited golden cage that is the Ecuadorian Embassy. Guy's a true genius...

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#494

Post by DoctorOetker »

stef25 wrote: post #491
DoctorOetker wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a good question, see rester's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18466194 DKIM DomainKey Identified Mail, obviously diplomatic communications must prevent spoofing (!), so those mails are signed anyway, ensuring provenance of the emails

Thanks for the link. Aside from provenance, can it be proven that the contents of the leaked emails is valid and untampered with? Like one would use hashes for file verification. I have to admit I have no clue as to what is the format of "leaked emails".

signatures are evaluated over the hash of the contents protecting integrity, the associated public key proves the provenance...

I do remember some of the diplomatic mails being scrubbed of identifying information of individuals (say names). This would have a low entropy, so it would seem easy to download the archives from WL, take an email with a singlle censored name, then bruteforce over alphabetic characters, and verify the hash signature. Unless WL has taken the precaution to censor at least x unpredictable bits (i.e. a single character in a name or word does NOT equate to 8 bits) where x is an infeasible bruteforce depth, in theory it should be possible to recover redactions by WL.

Edit: I may be conflating the scrubbing of names with the Snowden leaks, but I believe WL has also scrubbed some individual's nammes...

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#495

Post by narag »

raverbashing wrote: post #472
codedokode wrote: post #420

As I understand, Assange is not an US citizen. How can they prosecute him? Wikipedia page [1] says: > Opinions of Assange at this time [2010] were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal," but the police said that he had broken no Australian law. United States Vice President Joe Biden and others called him a "terrorist". Some called for his assassination or execution. Tha…

> Assange is not an US citizen. How can they prosecute him? So if I go to any country I'm not a citizen of I'm free to commit crimes? That's obviously not how it works. Not being a citizen is a nonissue

So if I go to any country...

If you go and commit the crime there.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#496

Post by marcus_holmes »

jacobush wrote: post #466
marcus_holmes wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, I don't really understand how someone dedicated to upsetting the authorities got painted as a tool of right-wing US politics. Or maybe my left-leaning echo chamber is portraying him as that, and the alt-right bubble sees him as a Russian agent? It'd be interesting to compare notes... is there a service for matching up people in different bubbles so we can compare facts?

You need to step up your game mister! Currently, the alt-right does not see him as a Russian agent, because Russia doesn't meddle in elections and stuff. That's just crazy talk propaganda. They are dangerous with some nuclear stuff so we have to build more nukes. But they are good in Syria and we need to either step away completely from that shit-show or give them a hand and fight on their side. It's complicated. The…

haha awesome. Good to hear the other side :)

I'm wondering why the downvotes though? Do we not understand that we inhabit bubbles?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#497

Post by narag »

stavros wrote: post #483
narag wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you read the article you linked. Please review carefully the chain of comments, because it seems there could be some misunderstanding there: consumer451 was answering to darawk, not to you. Maybe instead of "to textbook whataboutism" was meant to be "with textbook whataboutism"? Otherwise this thread is total nonsense to me. No surprise either...

He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.

That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#498

Post by [deleted] »

codedokode wrote: post #420

As I understand, Assange is not an US citizen. How can they prosecute him? Wikipedia page [1] says: > Opinions of Assange at this time [2010] were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal," but the police said that he had broken no Australian law. United States Vice President Joe Biden and others called him a "terrorist". Some called for his assassination or execution. Tha…

[deleted]

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#499

Post by StavrosK »

narag wrote: post #497
stavros wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was responding to them, saying that they, in turn, were responding to textbook whataboutism, ie my comment.

That's what it seems, but I refused to believe it because then his mind process is totally impenetrable to me.

Yeah, I don't know. I have decided I don't like it when people drop Wikipedia links and leave, at least explain why you think that is.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#500

Post by GlenTheMachine »

pessimizer wrote: post #455
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acting as an undeclared agent of a foreign government is absolutely a crime.

If all non-Americans that work for non-American governments have to declare that fact to America, then there are a lot of criminals in the world.

Has nothing to do with whether he’s American. An Australian living in, I don’t know, the UK or Sweden, but on the payroll of the government of Russia, has to declare that fact to the government of the country in which he resides. Otherwise he can be considered a spy. And no, “being on the payroll” is not limited to being an official employee of or even receiving payment from Russia. Depends on the laws of the host country but in most places it implies simply “working at the direction of” or “receiving compensation from”, including non-monetary compensation. Like, say, hacked emails that you can use to promote your organization.

Look, I am a US civil servant. When I travel internationally I have to use a special passport. It’s maroon instead of the usual blue, and it has a stamp in it that states that I am a representative of the US government and am on official business. And this is exactly why. When I present it at a border crossing, that is an official legal declaration to the country I am visiting that I am a declared agent of a foreign government. If I attemp merely to enter the country using my personal passport I am committing an arrestable offence.

Post reply on HN