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

Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 432 posts

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#261

Post by belorn »

thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #94
dijit wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I must have missed where anyone in this thread-chain has asserted that statement at all.

WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... >In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who pr…

In 2016 the relationship between Julian Assange and the US is about as hostile as possible. He was seeking asylum against this very extradition process that is ongoing. A big part of that drama was also that the US secretary of state under the previous years, ie the U.S. government's minister of foreign affairs, was a candidate for the 2016 presidential campaign and thus is it likely that there is a personal grudge between Assange and her.

And he was given documents that could hurt her. He used them.

It seems pretty clear that neutrality has not been on the tables for Assange ever since he sought political asylum. As pointed out above, this does not mean he has fabricated documents, or knowingly distributed fabricated documents, but since 2012 he has been in an active conflict against the government of the USA and in particular the foreign affairs side of it and thus leaks should be seen in that context.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#262

Post by tptacek »

nickysielicki wrote: post #18

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…

"Never proven false" is an Orwellian turn of phrase, because WL's concern with accuracy is obviously not overriding:

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/757599082928082944?lang=en

Also: why would I care that Hammond was prosecuted? Hammond was caught dead to rights.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#263

Post by mcs_ »

wonderwonder wrote: post #198
0x8BADF00D wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a public figure you cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s different from saying what should be done with his private medical records.

That makes no sense, he is not a publicly elected official where disclosing health issues is expected. He is a private citizen running a company, the fact that the company is popular and successful should have no bearing at all. Should everyone who starts a company expect to lose all privacy especially health related, or only those that are successful above a set threshold?

People must have their privacy, that is for sure.

If I invest something in your company, and you are sick, should I know it?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#264

Post by jessaustin »

selimthegrim wrote: post #180
jessaustin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I voted for Tulsi.

Tulsi is on the BJP/VHP payroll and if you think Trump has a thing for Muslim bans/camps and cozying up to dictators, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Nobody's perfect. Tulsi was the only presidential candidate to credibly (because we remember the false promises of W, O, and T) speak about reigning in our omnicidal war mania.

If you're referring to her "cozying up" to Assad... a) he's also Muslim, b) [EDIT:] why tell lies? When Tulsi joined the diplomatic mission to Syria, it was entirely appropriate given her service on the House Armed Services Committee. She never said anything to support him. She just said she wasn't afraid to talk with him. Furthermore, the international inspectors who actually inspected the supposed gas attacks [0] determined they were obvious false flags. Then the OPCW home office threw out their analyses and just had bellincat write some bullshit. Of course it's easy to pretend one doesn't know about this because NYT etc. will never retract their cheerleading for war.

[0] https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistl...

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#265

Post by fwklein »

thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #25
nickysielicki wrote: post #18

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…

>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never once published anything that has been proven false. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 He has helped launder edited material from Russian state sponsored hackers in the past. That is one instance, should I find more?

And how does that prove the published contents as false?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#266

Post by ilikehurdles »

nickysielicki wrote: post #18

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…

Wow. I had no idea the guy being HackThisSite was involved in the Stratfor leaks, nor that he was imprisoned for it.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#267

Post by mmcwilliams »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #168
arcticfox wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else. Agreed. > As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.

As a public figure you cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s different from saying what should be done with his private medical records.

This seems to fly in the face of the prevailing opinions on this site about Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex having his full name printed in the NYT.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#268

Post by ReptileMan »

DangerousPie wrote: post #40
nickysielicki wrote: post #18

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…

Real journalists don't just publish anything they can get their hands on with no regards for where the data came from, for what purposes it was given to them and whom their publication might harm.

True. They first ask their editor what the agenda is that week and then selectively and out of context craft the narrative. Case in point NYT in the past decade. Or WaPo. Or Fox in ages past.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#269

Post by fsloth »

belorn wrote: post #261
thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... >In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who pr…

In 2016 the relationship between Julian Assange and the US is about as hostile as possible. He was seeking asylum against this very extradition process that is ongoing. A big part of that drama was also that the US secretary of state under the previous years, ie the U.S. government's minister of foreign affairs, was a candidate for the 2016 presidential campaign and thus is it likely that there is a personal grudge b…

"since 2012 he has been in an active conflict against the government of the USA and in particular the foreign affairs side of it and thus leaks should be seen in that context."

Thanks, I think this the lense that should be used when viewing all the facts. It's very hard to view Assange as impartial, but it's too soon to tell if he's anyones agent but his own.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#270

Post by ardy42 »

nickysielicki wrote: post #26
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my understanding, as well. I was under the impression that Manning already had pretty carte blanche access to a lot of stuff, and that was how she was able to get it in the first place. Maybe one of the items she provided to Assange was encrypted, and he worked to break the encryption, without consulting Manning.

It's so much worse than this. Via instant messenger, Manning asked Assange whether Wikileaks could crack NTLM hashes. Assange said (paraphrasing), "Yeah, we can probably do that." Manning sent the hashes. Assange said he'd work on cracking them. A few days later, Manning asked if the hashes had been cracked. Assange replied that there hadn't been any progress. End of story. That's a federal crime. No hashes were crac…

> Via instant messenger, Manning asked Assange whether Wikileaks could crack NTLM hashes. Assange said (paraphrasing), "Yeah, we can probably do that." Manning sent the hashes. Assange said he'd work on cracking them. A few days later, Manning asked if the hashes had been cracked. Assange replied that there hadn't been any progress.

> End of story. That's a federal crime. No hashes were cracked, let alone sent back to Manning. No additional access was gained. He simply agreed to accept the hashes from Manning, which were freely offered.

That actually sounds like the crime of criminal conspiracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)

> In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future....

> [US] Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act.

> Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime.[24]

You'd crack the hash as part of a plan (i.e. a conspiracy) to get unauthorized access to a computer system (a crime), and exchanging the hash is the actus reus.

There are very good reasons why conspiracy is a crime, and it's very similar to other crimes like attempted murder. If someone plans to kill you, but they're caught before taking their shot, should they go free because no harm was actually done?

Post reply on HN