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

US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#11

Post by Dylan16807 »

duxup wrote: post #10
Dylan16807 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're punished for what someone did with your password, that's obviously unfair. Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. I adjusted the wording a little, is that clearer?

>Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. What qualifies as punished to you? It's possible that this person's life career could have been ruined if Manning was able to hide behind this other account and the actual owner of the account was blamed... Is that fair?

If they got scapegoated, that would not be fair. I don't think Manning using their account would have caused that.

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#12

Post by Dylan16807 »

jfk13 wrote: post #8
Dylan16807 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're punished for what someone did with your password, that's obviously unfair. Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. I adjusted the wording a little, is that clearer?

Using an easily crackable password is unwise, yes. And it increases the risk that it may be cracked and misused - and therefore the risk of having to deal with the fallout of a crack. But I would suggest that even so, the only criminal in the picture is the person doing the cracking. The victim may have been foolish to have a weak password, but should that really be a punishable offence?

If part of your job is security, and you don't secure something obvious, then it qualifies as a punishable offence. Not a criminal one, a workplace one.

That doesn't mean you need to get punished, but failing to do your job is not nothing.

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#14

Post by vkou »

equalunique wrote: post #13

Hacking computers shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Fraud, theft, etc. are the types of crimes many "hackers" could be charged with, but computer intrusion itself shouldn't be counted among them.

Invading a space is a crime, even if no other crime has been committed, be it in facilitating the invasion, or afterwards.

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#15

Post by emaginniss »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #11
duxup wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. What qualifies as punished to you? It's possible that this person's life career could have been ruined if Manning was able to hide behind this other account and the actual owner of the account was blamed... Is that fair?

If they got scapegoated, that would not be fair. I don't think Manning using their account would have caused that.

I don't know if that's scapegoating so much as it is framing

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#16

Post by duxup »

cjensen wrote: post #9
duxup wrote: post #2

I think it is pretty well understood that they weren't successful. At least to me as far as if he deserves protection as a journalist, I don't think it matters if he was successful. You can help someone try to commit a crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime. If a journalist is given information that is one thing, offering or even helping someone commit a crime and their role has changed dramati…

Yep. There are ethical rules for Journalism, which are enshrined in law in many places. One of the rules is that a Journalist may receive stolen information and publish it. But a Journalist may not themselves steal the information, or participate or aid in obtaining private information. Right now, it looks to me like Assange lied that he was going to help hack anything. I don't see how this is a crime under US law. I…

It will be interesting to see how / if this plays out in court.

I don't really trust Assange to tell his own story honestly as it is so I kinda want to see what anyone can prove when the rubber hits the road.

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#18

Post by Dylan16807 »

emaginniss wrote: post #15
Dylan16807 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they got scapegoated, that would not be fair. I don't think Manning using their account would have caused that.

I don't know if that's scapegoating so much as it is framing

I don't think pivoting into a different account goes all the way to "framing".

Not that it matters what we call it, since everyone seems to be in agreement that they shouldn't be punished for what the account was hypothetically used for.

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#19

Post by cabaalis »

duxup wrote: post #6
torstenvl wrote: post #3

"Admits?" This was clearly communicated by the very fact that he was indicted for conspiracy. By definition, conspiracy is an inchoate crime. It's a bit disingenuous for Vice to paint this as some kind of revelation or admission. For further reading: https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/

"admits" seems to be a frequent weasel word these days. You identify the issues with someone's story that you don't like and then you make a story about how they 'admit' those things. God help anyone who actually 'admits' anything these days as to some people that must be instantly discrediting.

"Claim" is my favorite of these words.

Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done"

It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement.

Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a "big old but" coming. Even if you never produce the but, they still have the feeling what was just stated is about to be refuted.

Re: US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

#20

Post by duxup »

cabaalis wrote: post #19
duxup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"admits" seems to be a frequent weasel word these days. You identify the issues with someone's story that you don't like and then you make a story about how they 'admit' those things. God help anyone who actually 'admits' anything these days as to some people that must be instantly discrediting.

"Claim" is my favorite of these words. Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done" It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement. Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a "big old but" com…

A while ago "allegedly" was very popular with some TV news networks.

They'd take some pure BS story from the internet that aligned with their politics and report it as "allegedly" to sound fair... and then list out the lies word for word as they came from some conspiracy site and then just move on. They'd sprinkle their whole broadcast withe these tidbits. You couldn't help but get the impression that controversy and scandal was surrounding whomever the target of the day was, despite no evidence of any kind being offered.

Post reply on HN