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

31–40 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#31

Post by nabla9 »

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?

> 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?

It seems to do so.

>The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#32

Post by chiefalchemist »

First, I want to say I'm not dismissing the validity of the sexual assault charge. That's a serious change, and it should be addressed via proper legal channels.

That said, having watched (the film) "Untouchables" for the Xth time, it's certainly possible given the powers involved he could be getting the Al Capone treatment.

Put another way, how or why he ends up in jail isn't nearly as important as him ending up in jail. The 1A issue is a non-issue in the sense it's also part of the reason for getting him locked down for some other reason(s).

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#33

Post by roywiggins »

wallace_f wrote: post #14
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?

As a layman on the subject, I guess cryptographers are attempting to crack keys every day... With house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up either far-reaching…

It's illegal if someone "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains... information from any department or agency of the United States; or... information from any protected computer". It doesn't matter that much how you try and do it, cracking a password would seem to naturally count. It doesn't matter if you guess the password because you knew the owner's dogs's name and date of birth, it's still intentional access (and it doesn't matter if you failed because the password was too tricky, attempted crimes are still crimes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#34

Post by ceejayoz »

slg wrote: post #29
apsec112 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.

Non-Americans are certainly protected by the Constitution while in the US, but I thought there was still a legal debate about whether the US Constitution fully applies to foreign nationals while outside the US. Hasn't that long been the legal excuse used for things like international mass surveillance and what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?

The First Amendment doesn't apply to anyone while outside the US. A US citizen in Saudi Arabia doesn't have First Amendment protections there.

For the US to prosecute Assange, they have to prosecute him in the US, where he does enjoy First Amendment protections, as the First Amendment limits what Congress (and via the Fourteenth, state/local as well) can do.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#35

Post by pytester »

apsec112 wrote: post #9
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?

Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.

He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value on behalf of Manning and encouraging him to leak more information (Obama's DOJ refused to make this charge because it's something all journalists do).

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#36

Post by roywiggins »

wallace_f wrote: post #27
andrewnicolalde wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in this case it is because that key belonged to a US military computer system and was being cracked to access the data it protected.

I guess with house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up some law which is practically never really enforced?

He's charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#37

Post by Lowkeyloki »

henryfjordan wrote: post #28
Lowkeyloki wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people? If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.

The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?

I never said that all government information should belong to the people. I asked a question. I do believe there's a line. But I don't like where that line is now, in part because the line isn't well-defined.

Although, if I did have nuclear launch codes, I doubt I could do anything meaningful with them. As it should be. Simply knowing the codes is not enough to authorize one to launch nuclear weapons. That would be a catastrophic single point of failure.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#38

Post by tssva »

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #22

This wasn't mentioned specifically in the article, but this reminds me how we have some legal protections for whistle-blowers in the United States (not nearly enough, IMHO) but none of those protections extend to government employees. It's as if the government thinks they're incapable of breaking their own laws. If you do it to a privately held company, it's whistle-blowing. If you do it to the government, it's treas…

This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in 2012.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#39

Post by maccio92 »

wallace_f wrote: post #27
andrewnicolalde wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in this case it is because that key belonged to a US military computer system and was being cracked to access the data it protected.

I guess with house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up some law which is practically never really enforced?

I would say a more accurate distinction is breaking into someone's home vs trying to break into a military base. In the first case you're likely to get arrested, in the second they'll probably shoot first and ask questions later

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#40

Post by [deleted] »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #32

First, I want to say I'm not dismissing the validity of the sexual assault charge. That's a serious change, and it should be addressed via proper legal channels. That said, having watched (the film) "Untouchables" for the Xth time, it's certainly possible given the powers involved he could be getting the Al Capone treatment. Put another way, how or why he ends up in jail isn't nearly as important as him ending up in…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN