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

241–250 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#241

Post by belltaco »

bubblethink wrote: post #238
belltaco wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is doing math a form of expression? Breaking a password amounts to thinking for a very long time about all the ways you could rearrange some bits, and choosing one. I'd call it an expression of preference for certain possible results over others, by way of saving one and letting the rest go. Isn't shooting a gun at someone a matter of depressing a lever? It's about applying pressure on a lever with your finger. >Sti…

You are reducing the OP's point, which is rather important, to silly analogies about intent. The OP's point is also why, for eg., many govts' attempts to ban encryption are stupid because you cannot outlaw math. Which is why the legality of both having and breaking encryption needs to be detached from intent.

OP's point is that cracking passwords is a form of art, so Assange should be able to claim cracking a DoD Administrator password was a performance of art and thus legal. It's not an important point, it's a silly one.

>many govts' attempts to ban encryption are stupid because you cannot outlaw math

Huh? You can outlaw math. It'd be a stupid idea and quite hard to successfully enforce, but you can outlaw it.

>Which is why the legality of both having and breaking encryption needs to be detached from intent.

This does not make sense at all. Otherwise there would be no legal difference between using a battering ram to break into someone's house and then claiming it was research for materials testing. It also comes down to privacy and property rights.

Case law is well settled in the physical door locks space which also applies pretty well to the digital space with a good balance between research and not breaking into others property. It's perfectly legal to crack your own NTLM hashes, and those of which you have permission to. Imagine someone going around with a saw sawing up doors and then claiming it was their right because the doors weren't properly secured and made of 12 inches of reinforced steel.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#242

Post by kbenson »

microcolonel wrote: post #119
calhoun137 wrote: post #94

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiL…

They believe that partisanship makes them moral people, but really it just makes their party morally bankrupt. When the Democrats got to sit back and watch wars they secretly liked, under cover of Republican administrations, Julian Assange was a hero who would speak truth to big bad Republican power. Now that they think Julian Assange's public service helped Americans choose the current President, they view him as a…

There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so.

To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perceived now.

Ignoring that in favor of narrative where all the Democrats are complete hypocrites is no different than what you were accusing others of in your comment.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#243

Post by belltaco »

overgard wrote: post #240
belltaco wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was doing much more than just releasing information. He was actively aiding and abetting nonsense. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john... Not to mention fueling the Seth Rich nonsense.

Well A) that wiki leaks page directly says it’s speculative and not endorsed directly at the top, and B) that’s related to him being arrested for being involved in this how? Other than character assassination of him? I don’t even think he’s probably a good guy, but I’m amused that most of the criticism of him is ad hominem.

[flagged]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#244

Post by jancsika »

wybiral wrote: post #202
jancsika wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter. 1. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists. 2. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange. 3. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment groun…

Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to…

> The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense.

Please define "hack the government" in a way compatible with what the indictment describes Assange having done.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#245

Post by eridius »

jessaustin wrote: post #183
uryga wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that'd be "encouraging her", unless you're not referring to Manning here?

Good point, but some leniency is probably in order. We certainly want to honor Ms. Manning's wishes, but they weren't yet publicly known at that time.

They are known now, and has been known for a very long time.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#246

Post by bubblethink »

belltaco wrote: post #241
bubblethink wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are reducing the OP's point, which is rather important, to silly analogies about intent. The OP's point is also why, for eg., many govts' attempts to ban encryption are stupid because you cannot outlaw math. Which is why the legality of both having and breaking encryption needs to be detached from intent.

OP's point is that cracking passwords is a form of art, so Assange should be able to claim cracking a DoD Administrator password was a performance of art and thus legal. It's not an important point, it's a silly one. >many govts' attempts to ban encryption are stupid because you cannot outlaw math Huh? You can outlaw math. It'd be a stupid idea and quite hard to successfully enforce, but you can outlaw it. >Which is…

My point is that analogies from the real world do not extend very well to digital things, and you can end up with some extremely broad laws that are misused. We already have problems like DMCA because of that. Ultimately, it's very difficult to have consistent laws around encryption.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#247

Post by FireBeyond »

belltaco wrote: post #104
ryanlol wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. Ah great. Did I ever suggest that? >The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if you do not succeed. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime. This is correct, but doesn't mean that it's right .

So if someone tried to poison you to death, but failed because he mistakenly bought sugar instead of poison, there was no crime committed? Is that how it works in your country? Is that right ?

Similar to A Few Good Men, my brother's high school suspended him for selling oregano as weed.

"He's selling it as weed, not oregano, so we're punishing him as if he was selling weed".

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#248

Post by mikeash »

freeflight wrote: post #233
dragonwriter wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. That's strictly true, though misleading.

What about it is misleading?

It strongly implies that it was a covert action by the US or its allies to cut him off from the world. When it was actually just his hosts getting tired of his shit.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#249

Post by boomboomsubban »

txru wrote: post #128

Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to thank…

>Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0].

There is no proof that Assange knowingly cooperated with Russia, meaning it would be unlikely that he would have any idea what data they had.

On top of that, Comey and Clapper are not trustworthy sources.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#250

Post by msiyer »

dosy wrote: post #169
calhoun137 wrote: post #94

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiL…

they can't break there law and get away with it. what gives them the right to decide what's secret or not? the state is not wholly good, nor are people. but that's okay, a lot of good still gets done. attacking such a system is wrong. attacking it under delusion of moral righteousness, then continuing to live in the shadow of the freedom it provides, is morally bankrupt. it's also stupid. I totally have the authorita…

You sound like an agent of the system. The authoritarian mindset is the reason why the whole system is so violent and morally bankrupt.
Post reply on HN