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

Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#61

Post by henryfjordan »

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #37
henryfjordan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?

I never said that all government information should belong to the people. I asked a question. I do believe there's a line. But I don't like where that line is now, in part because the line isn't well-defined. Although, if I did have nuclear launch codes, I doubt I could do anything meaningful with them. As it should be. Simply knowing the codes is not enough to authorize one to launch nuclear weapons. That would be a…

Ahh, sorry I read your comment as more zealous than it was.

To my knowledge (and I could be very wrong), Manning and Assange released info about then-current troop operations in the middle east. People's lives were endangered by the release of the info. You might not like where the line is, but I don't think they have too much of a leg to stand on either (assuming my understand is correct).

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#62

Post by sigmar »

ryanlol wrote: post #19
sigmar wrote: post #16

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.

Manning was definitely still leaking while talking to Assange.[1] and there is no public information about whether or not Assange cracked the hashes (only that he offered to).

[1] https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/10634797776323747...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#63

Post by ryanlol »

throwawayjava wrote: post #53
wallace_f wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess 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 some law which is practically never really enforced?

He took specific steps (cracking a hash) with the clear intent of helping break into a government owned computer system. I'm not sure what the gray area is supposed to be here. If I teach you lock picking skills as a fun hobby, that's clearly okay. If I teach you lock picking skills knowing you aspire to be a house robber, that is grayish legally and wrong ethically. But if I break into a specific bank vault for you…

>Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist.

But for your bank account comparison to make sense Manning would've already have emptied your bank account before JA broke the law.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#64

Post by acqq »

pytester wrote: post #35
apsec112 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value on behalf of Manning and encouraging him to leak more information (Obama's DOJ refused to make this charge because it's something all journalists do).

> He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value

They don't claim Assange extracted a password. They just claim that Assange said in the chat "no luck so far"! That is, that he wrote to Manning that he tried.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481...

The indictment is "conspiracy" with Manning.

So there's certainly something to back up the claim from this title

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-11...

namely, that "Assange's arrest is 'a vendetta, not justice'"

For more context, at the moment this news from ca one month ago have even more sense:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/08/chelsea-mann...

"Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify to grand jury in WikiLeaks case"

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#65

Post by ryanlol »

pytester wrote: post #35
apsec112 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value on behalf of Manning and encouraging him to leak more information (Obama's DOJ refused to make this charge because it's something all journalists do).

No, he's being prosecuted for allegedly agreeing to extract a password from a hash. Not for actually doing so, massive difference.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#66

Post by pytester »

roywiggins wrote: post #49
pytester wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access In this case it was Chelsea Manning accessing the computer. Assange didn't touch it. >It doesn't matter if you guess the password because you knew the owner's dogs's name and date of birth, it's still intentional access ...by Chelsea Manning, not Assange.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Cracking a password is one thing; cracking a password for someone else so they can commit a crime (and you knew this was what they were doing with it) is a crime. If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car is on t…

In this case it was cracking a password to blow the lid on US war crimes in Iraq.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#67

Post by ryanlol »

sigmar wrote: post #62
ryanlol wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Manning was definitely still leaking while talking to Assange.[1] and there is no public information about whether or not Assange cracked the hashes (only that he offered to). [1] https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/10634797776323747...

Okay, it seems like Manning was uploading the leak to WL when this happened. Did Manning provide any new data after this conversation?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#68

Post by roywiggins »

pytester wrote: post #66
roywiggins wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Cracking a password is one thing; cracking a password for someone else so they can commit a crime (and you knew this was what they were doing with it) is a crime. If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car is on t…

In this case it was cracking a password to blow the lid on US war crimes in Iraq.

I'm not saying anything about whether it was morally here or there, but that it's not at all an unreasonable application of the CFAA.

The guy driving the getaway car from the FBI field-office break-in* (or whoever) is going to be on the hook for burglary, even if the burglary was done for laudable reasons. I think Obama 100% did the right thing commuting Manning's sentence, and was pleased to see her go free. I'm not at all sure prosecuting Assange for essentially the same crime is in the interest of the nation or justice or whatever.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#69

Post by belltaco »

ryanlol wrote: post #19
sigmar wrote: post #16

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.

>Assange didn’t succesfully crack the hash, it’s questionable if he even did anything with it.

So if someone tried to break into your home and failed, that means they never committed a crime?

>At best his crime is agreeing to help hack into the DoD network, not actually doing anything in furtherance of that.

That's why the maximum sentence is only 5 years.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#70

Post by favorited »

sneak wrote: post #56

> Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden dropped the charges. This is factually inaccurate - Assange has not been charged with a crime by any country. There was an investigation in Sweden but no charges were brought. Presumably he will be indic…

He was charged and convicted of skipping on his bail in 2012.
Post reply on HN