Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#281

Post by kbenson » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:48 AM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #268

kbenson wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Election meddling is not inherently bad. Meddling has a negative connotation, so it's probably not useful to continue using that term if trying to discuss this particular issue as something that may not be negative. Tampering has worse connotations, but if you're "meddling" in something, it's implied you're getting involved where you don't belong. That said, as I noted many people believe it was meddling in this ca…

I'm using the term you used. I'm not concerned with the connotation, I'm concerned with making an argument based in fact. You said that some people make the distinction between "election meddling" and "exposing government actions". What I'm saying is that those two aren't mutually exclusive and you'd be incorrect to make that distinction as a rule. Anytime you expose government actions on a democratic government you'…

> I'm using the term you used.

My point is that it's an imprecise term, and one that carries baggage in the language. If you're going to make a case that it's not descriptive of what's going on because the negative connotation it carries may not be present in the situation, it's worth using a neutral re-wording to clarify the point.

> You said that some people make the distinction between "election meddling" and "exposing government actions".

What I said is people believe wikileaks meddled, and I meant that with all the negative connotations that implies because that's what I was trying to express. That's the point, because we're discussing how some people's opinions changed over time. Ignoring the negative connotation is ignoring the word choice I specifically chose on purpose.

As I noted in the prior comment, when discussing opinion and belief over time, facts are irrelevant. Can meddling (or, to clarify, being involved in disseminating information) in an election not be negative? Obviously. That's not what's being discussed here, and whether Wikileaks did or did not do it is irrelevant to whether people have a rational reason for their beliefs given the information they were exposed to.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#282

Post by roguecoder » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:07 AM UTC

bubblethink wrote: post #277

belltaco wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and that's why intent is important. I fully understand encryption being fully legal, but I don't seen any benefit to legally being able to crack/decrypt other's information without their permission and knowledge, against their will. This has zero implications on crypto-research because it's always legal to try your cracking on your own encrypted data, or on others' data with their permission, like public challe…

> benefit to legally being able to crack/decrypt other's information without their permission and knowledge >privacy and property rights This is precisely the issue with DMCA. It is illegal in the US to decrypt a DVD/blu-ray etc (for reference, see why fedora cannot play dvds). So what should have been a reactive law against piracy is now a proactive prohibition codified in law. That's why, laws around encryption sho…

You can’t break and enter and then claim that it was legal because all you did was read documents you used to write a New York Times article.

Indeed, actual journalists have ethics departments that help ensure they don’t step over the line from accepting information gained illegally into encouraging people to commit illegal acts to get them information, and if they commit illegal acts to get information that is always a crime. It’s not even a grey area here.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#283

Post by msiyer » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

dosy wrote: post #275

msiyer wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> if you're so huffy about war crimes, why do you pay your taxes? because doesn't that make you complicit? No, because I do not have a choice. If I refuse, the system will use violence against me.

pretending you don't have a choice and you're not responsible for your actions is morally bankrupt and a fake justifier of violence and abuse

You make me laugh. You are either naive or a troll.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#284

Post by roguecoder » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:14 AM UTC

pfisch wrote: post #273

eridius wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When you change your gender does it apply retroactively? I assume it doesn't because that is needlessly complicated.

She didn’t change her gender: she is and has been a woman who was in times passed misread.

Besides, in what world would referring to someone by a name they purposefully decided not to use be less complicated than referring to them by their actual name? Regardless of whether or not someone is trans, always call them by their current name: it is polite and also doesn’t cause null pointer errors.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#285

Post by Theodores » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:21 AM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #181

Theodores wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we have a lot of growing up to do regarding the Swedish law concerning equality. My suspicion is that Sweden are 50 - 100 years ahead of the UK and the rest of the English speaking world when it comes to treating women with respect as a society and in law. In our own mis-spent youths we assume some laws don't apply to us, it can be a simple thing like riding a bicycle on a pavement (sidewalk). Then we might f…

> It is not rocket science to create a web page and post documents online, the idea you need Wikileaks for that - to filter it for you - is ridiculous. It seems doing so anonymously might be a bit tricky for folks without technical knowledge. Hell, I'm a programmer and I still would be afraid to publish without the guarantee of anonymity provided by a "trusted" third party. They also provide protection for people who…

Internet cafe - create throwaway account to HN - post.

Job done.

Wikileaks don't guarantee anonymity, that is something you have to take care of yourself.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#286

Post by roguecoder » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:22 AM UTC

abugheratwork wrote: post #110

belltaco wrote: post #3

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?

> What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? 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. I know, I'm laughi…

IANAL, but math is explicitly exempted from copyright law, so “art” wouldn’t apply.

As for the more general “expression”, running a program is a function: it transforms one thing into another thing in a deterministic way. That is applying a tool: you would have to argue that the thing you were doing with it, in this case “breaking a password”, was expression, which, well, good luck with that one: you are back to trying to argue that an explicit crime is actually performance art.

All of this is just facts and tools: there is no creativity involved at any stage.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#287

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:23 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #199

nocturnial wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you read over the part where I said it was illegal. You don't need to invent scenarios, you can use the facts of this case. Manning already had access and didn't need the password to be cracked. Wikileaks already received information from Manning. Someone in the chat log told Manning they would pass the hash to someone else. They then told Manning "no luck so far". Keep in mind, they haven't provided any proo…

>Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, Still a crime. >And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. Still a crime.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#288

Post by bubblethink » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:24 AM UTC

roguecoder wrote: post #282

bubblethink wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> benefit to legally being able to crack/decrypt other's information without their permission and knowledge >privacy and property rights This is precisely the issue with DMCA. It is illegal in the US to decrypt a DVD/blu-ray etc (for reference, see why fedora cannot play dvds). So what should have been a reactive law against piracy is now a proactive prohibition codified in law. That's why, laws around encryption sho…

You can’t break and enter and then claim that it was legal because all you did was read documents you used to write a New York Times article. Indeed, actual journalists have ethics departments that help ensure they don’t step over the line from accepting information gained illegally into encouraging people to commit illegal acts to get them information, and if they commit illegal acts to get information that is alway…

"Breaking and entering" is a well defined thing in the real world. It does not extend well to digital stuff, and if you go down that road, you end up with the failure to decrypt DVDs. There is no digital property per se. It's just a proxy for other things. So decouple the two. There is no breaking and entering in the digital world. There are just actions you take after the fact, and you can rule on the actions.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#289

Post by josteink » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #173

doe88 wrote: post #139

I tell you what, I'm moderate, some might say a bit coward, tonight I will sleep as usual, tomorrow I won't protest, never been in a single protest in my life. But I nonetheless think there is something wrong in our current western democracies. Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video, these are the men and women revealing these facts that are hunted down, for years. Meanwhile, these same people do…

>Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video what..?

Wikileaks uncovered blatant killing of civilians by US military personnel during the Iraqi war.

To my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for these murders.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#290

Post by roguecoder » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:30 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #190

thanatos_dem wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you deeply uncomfortable with the thought of govt jailing you for literally doing nothing? Yes? I’d be concerned for anyone who isn’t. And to be clear... he didn’t crack it. I’ve run password hashes through rainbow tables for shits and giggles. Should I be dragged out of an embassy next?

Sorry if I was unclear, that quote is in continuance of the earlier line, full argument: >Isn't running into and maiming a pedestrian while driving a car at a traffic crossing a matter of actually doing nothing instead of braking? Are you deeply uncomfortable with the thought of govt jailing you for literally doing nothing? >And to be clear... he didn’t crack it. Attempting to commit a crime is a crime even if you fa…

Just because we don’t usually get prosecuted for something doesn’t make it legal.