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

I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

xato.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 229 posts

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#211

Post by pdabbadabba »

downandout wrote: post #208
tptacek wrote: post #3

Barrett Brown was not convicted merely for linking to data on the web. He was convicted for three separate offenses: 1. Acting as a go-between for (presumably Jeremy Hammond) the Stratfor hacker and Stratfor itself, Brown misled Stratfor in order to throw the scent off Hammond. Having intimate knowledge of a crime doesn't make one automatically liable for that crime, but does put them in a precarious legal position i…

>The offense tied to Brown's "linking" was dismissed This masks the scary reality that someone was indicted, arrested, and prosecuted for posting a link (not to mention that it was dismissed as part of a plea - not for lack of legal merit). While in this case there were other charges as well, there didn't have to be - all of the same pre-trial horrors (including possible detention without bail) could have occurred wi…

This assumes, though, that he would have been put through everything you describe even if he had only shared a link. But, as described in detail above, this was only a small piece of the government's case. I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link.

We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. It seems to me that if someone posts a link to intentionally further a criminal conspiracy, it seems like it could plainly, and unproblematically be criminal. Accomplice liability in particular makes lots of other things, that would otherwise be innocent, into crimes when they are done with the wrong sort of intent.

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#212

Post by marksomnian »

elchief wrote: post #111
m8urn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first column is username, followed by a tab, followed by the password.

Know what encoding it's in? Postgres is choking on UTF8 and Latin1

Are you sure it's not choking just because it's postgres?

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#213

Post by downandout »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #211
downandout wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The offense tied to Brown's "linking" was dismissed This masks the scary reality that someone was indicted, arrested, and prosecuted for posting a link (not to mention that it was dismissed as part of a plea - not for lack of legal merit). While in this case there were other charges as well, there didn't have to be - all of the same pre-trial horrors (including possible detention without bail) could have occurred wi…

This assumes, though, that he would have been put through everything you describe even if he had only shared a link. But, as described in detail above, this was only a small piece of the government's case. I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. It seems…

> I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link.

If it can be included as a charge on an indictment, it can be the one and only charge in it as well.

> We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal.

No, we shouldn't. Linking to and/or writing about anything (absent actual participation in a conspiracy) isn't a crime in a country protected by the right to free speech.

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#214

Post by tptacek »

downandout wrote: post #213
pdabbadabba wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes, though, that he would have been put through everything you describe even if he had only shared a link. But, as described in detail above, this was only a small piece of the government's case. I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. It seems…

> I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. If it can be included as a charge on an indictment, it can be the one and only charge in it as well. > We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. No, we shouldn't. Linking to and/or writing about anything (absent actual participation in a conspiracy) isn't…

Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder?

Again, it's not the speech that's being criminalized; it's the intent animating it. Think of the link not as a crime in and of itself, but simply as evidence of Brown's effort to assist in the real crime, which was unambiguously illegal. If you follow the case closely, you'll see that's exactly what's being charged.

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#215

Post by downandout »

tptacek wrote: post #210
downandout wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The offense tied to Brown's "linking" was dismissed This masks the scary reality that someone was indicted, arrested, and prosecuted for posting a link (not to mention that it was dismissed as part of a plea - not for lack of legal merit). While in this case there were other charges as well, there didn't have to be - all of the same pre-trial horrors (including possible detention without bail) could have occurred wi…

That's also a misleading way of framing the issue. Brown wasn't charged with "criminal linking" (an offense that does not exist). He was charged with deliberately and knowingly assisting in the breach of Stratfor, and subsequent maximization of the damage from that breach. And remember, he was convicted of doing that; they just pursued a different vector for it than the link. Keep in mind also, they didn't just work…

While "criminal linking" doesn't exist as a standalone crime, prosecutors have essentially tried to make it exist via other statutes. I don't know the disposition of the case, but a man in the UK was ordered a few years ago to be extradited to the US to stand trial for criminal copyright infringement after operating a site that offered links to copyrighted sports broadcasts [1]. In the Brown case, they tried to use the conspiracy statutes.

In both of the above examples, while not charged with "criminal linking," the actual conduct was linking to something prosecutors didn't like. The loud and clear message they are sending is "link to things we don't like, and we'll find a way to get you". That will have a chilling effect on free speech.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-lo...

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#216

Post by tptacek »

downandout wrote: post #215
tptacek wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also a misleading way of framing the issue. Brown wasn't charged with "criminal linking" (an offense that does not exist). He was charged with deliberately and knowingly assisting in the breach of Stratfor, and subsequent maximization of the damage from that breach. And remember, he was convicted of doing that; they just pursued a different vector for it than the link. Keep in mind also, they didn't just work…

While "criminal linking" doesn't exist as a standalone crime, prosecutors have essentially tried to make it exist via other statutes. I don't know the disposition of the case, but a man in the UK was ordered a few years ago to be extradited to the US to stand trial for criminal copyright infringement after operating a site that offered links to copyrighted sports broadcasts [1]. In the Brown case, they tried to use t…

I think you may be oversimplifying the O'Dwyer case.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4153824

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#217

Post by pdabbadabba »

downandout wrote: post #213
pdabbadabba wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes, though, that he would have been put through everything you describe even if he had only shared a link. But, as described in detail above, this was only a small piece of the government's case. I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. It seems…

> I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. If it can be included as a charge on an indictment, it can be the one and only charge in it as well. > We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. No, we shouldn't. Linking to and/or writing about anything (absent actual participation in a conspiracy) isn't…

> If it can be included as a charge on an indictment, it can be the one and only charge in it as well.

I think you've lost track of the context. The point is that nobody here was arrested and had his "life ruined" solely on the charge of having posted a link. Nor would the government ever be likely indict someone on only that basis (unless the case was very compelling, see below), given the significant likelihood of the sole charge being dismissed.

> No, we shouldn't. . . . (absent actual participation in a conspiracy)

That's not too different from what we're talking about , is it? Actual participation in a conspiracy (which, no doubt about it, can be accomplished by posting a link) or, I would add, acting as an accomplice.

But while I'm at it, your broader claim is also incorrect. How about perjury? You can do that in writing. Slander? Intentional infliction of emotional distress? Threatening the president? Mail fraud? Criminal contempt? Murder for hire? All crimes accomplished by writing about something that exist, yes, in a country protected by the right to free speech. There are many more.

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#218

Post by downandout »

tptacek wrote: post #214
downandout wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I seriously doubt the government would ever have brought charges if all it had was the posting of a link. If it can be included as a charge on an indictment, it can be the one and only charge in it as well. > We should also think a little bit harder, I think, about whether posting a link is never criminal. No, we shouldn't. Linking to and/or writing about anything (absent actual participation in a conspiracy) isn't…

Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder? Again, it's not the speech that's being criminalized; it's the intent animating it. Think of the link not as a crime in and of itself, but simply as evidence of Brown's effort to assist in the real crime, which was unambiguously illegal. If you follow the case closely, you'll see that's exactly what's being charged.

>Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder?

Nope. Ordering a murder is a crime. Sharing a link is not.

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#219

Post by [deleted] »

downandout wrote: post #218
tptacek wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder? Again, it's not the speech that's being criminalized; it's the intent animating it. Think of the link not as a crime in and of itself, but simply as evidence of Brown's effort to assist in the real crime, which was unambiguously illegal. If you follow the case closely, you'll see that's exactly what's being charged.

>Couldn't you employ the same "free speech" logic to someone ordering a murder? Nope. Ordering a murder is a crime. Sharing a link is not.

[deleted]

Re: I Am Releasing Ten Million Passwords

#220

Post by presumeaway »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #165
presumeaway wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, nope. I'd have to be attacking the character of the person making the argument, and do so in an attempt to undermine their argument, for it to be ad hominem. I'm questioning the motives of someone who just released a data set that's going to cause very real harm to very real people, who've done nothing to deserve it. For the record, given his credentials, it's highly unlikely that he didn't fully appreciate th…

Yeah, I wish people would quit using "ad hominem", it's turning into a tell for "people who spend too much time online and still don't know how to disagree". Still, I think you're really overstating the risk here. The data set doesn't have email addresses and it doesn't list the specific services involved. How would you propose causing real harm to these real people using the data here, in a way that hasn't already b…

Do think it might cause harm if the domain names were retained?
Post reply on HN