21–30 of 465 posts
I use to go back and forth on Julian, but at this point I think he should be punished, but what that punishment should be I don't know. I think Manning stealing the cables was an absolute wrong, and Assange facilitating that shows a level of culpability. He should not be afforded American protection. Crimes were committed, even if they were done with the best intentions, it was still a crime. We all count, or no one…
If you do it to a privately held company, it's whistle-blowing. If you do it to the government, it's treason.
Is anybody arguing he shouldn't? To my knowledge that's never been seriously questioned. What is he being charged again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone asking for your help in hacking a DoD network doesn't seem like jay-walking.
But they didn’t hack into the DoD network. Manning had already leaked everything by the time this happened. Assange didn’t succesfully crack the hash, it’s questionable if he even did anything with it. At best his crime is agreeing to help hack into the DoD network, not actually doing anything in furtherance of that. That’s a ridiculous thing to prosecute someone for.
What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others? Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?
As a layman on the subject, I guess cryptographers are attempting to crack keys every day... With house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up either far-reaching…
Sure, but context matters. I drive a car every day. If I drive off in someone else's car without permission, I've stolen it.
When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.
If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a layman on the subject, I guess cryptographers are attempting to crack keys every day... With house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up either far-reaching…
I believe in this case it is because that key belonged to a US military computer system and was being cracked to access the data it protected.
Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up some law which is practically never really enforced?
When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.
When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people? If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.
What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others? Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?
Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.
Is anybody arguing he shouldn't? To my knowledge that's never been seriously questioned. What is he being charged again?
He already has first amendment protection. You have an article above that explains the charges... you don’t even have to google and you’re lazy