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

331–340 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#331

Post by roguecoder »

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #54
Pxl_Buzzard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. So in his proposed system, we would define the procedure for making that information protected. The failure of our current government in this regard is that the default for any information is to classify it. There is more burden to create open documents than classified.

Or, better yet, a given set of information is automatically classified or not by virtue of what it is and what it's about, rather than an opt-in/opt-out system. Of course, that's just the first step. Next we'd have to define who or what makes the determination for a given document. And we'd have to define the granularity. Otherwise the system could be gamed in such a way that you could cause an entire document to be…

I have worked on classified systems. We would have rules drawn up for what was classified and what was not. If you can draw up clear rules with no edge cases, no missed possibly-leaky information, where decisions are unambiguous and 20 people would always make exactly the same decision for every piece of information, you should go file a patent for that method because it is a truly novel invention. And we were only covering a single tiny domain of data, not trying to build a rules set for all possible data that could ever exist.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#332

Post by thatoneuser »

txru wrote: post #128

Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to thank…

Afaik assange said he didn't have anything on trump that was worse than what trump had said himself. Trump was hardly beloved by the rnc, so what would it have done to leak rnc docs assuming they existed?

You almost seem mad that the dems suffered damage from a politically motivated revealing of their behavior. Maybe if they didn't do the bad things they would have had nothing to worry about.

I personally think his actions did align with the best interests of the American people. And I think the people who disagree mostly just are sour that Clinton rightfully lost.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#333

Post by Meph504 »

thatoneuser wrote: post #328
Meph504 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we start with the premises that if people think that something is a crime, they can commit a crime to try and prove it, our legal system will quickly crumble. Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence. Should the fact that the information released, put many lives in danger when it compromised many people aiding our government? Morally his actions can be debated, but not fro…

So how exactly would you have the people informing themselves? We just sit and wait for the benevolent government to tell us what it deems is good for us to know? We don't need to make a whole new set of legal principles where people automatically get off for claiming journalism. In this case the people (here and around the world) were able to learn a lot of valuable information. Assanges actions are justified.

You have every right to your opinion about if you feel his actions were justified.

But that doesn't excuse him from the framework of our laws, if you break the law, even for a good reason, its a jury that decides.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#334

Post by jplayer01 »

toofy wrote: post #187
ng12 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong but there's nothing to be done about it. You either have freedom of speech/press or you don't, you can't have "freedom of speech as long as you're fair".

What people seem to be missing here is, the ideals the community held when we lined up behind and helped propel Wikileaks forward went far beyond freedom of speech—it was deeply anti-propaganda, it was deeply anti-power, the releasing of all information— Julian made a conscious choice to become the monster we were all fighting, a propagandist who selectively hid information or selectively amplified certain informatio…

This sums up the whole problem and it's concerning that so many people aren't able to grasp it.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#335

Post by roguecoder »

pfisch wrote: post #326
roguecoder wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). MOS:MULTIPLENAMES calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. This is needlessly comp…

But she didn’t father a child, since she isn’t a father. The expectation that one be accurate is not “complexity”: it’s how you avoid saying things that are wrong. It is often simpler to be wrong. “Pi is 3” simplifies infinite complexity, in fact. But that doesn’t make it acceptable.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#336

Post by carnagii »

mejari wrote: post #171
carnagii wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we could have political candidates who aren't criminals so then foreign powers couldn't tilt our elections by revealing the truth about them.

What was revealed in the 2016 election wasn't criminal, so what exactly are you talking about?

In politics perceptions matter more than reality. Partisans on both sides are quite convinced that the other side's candidate is a criminal.

Democratic partisans believe the other candidate was involved in a criminal conspiracy with foreign powers and/or engaged in criminal conduct to cover it up, and Republican partisans believe that the Wikileaks emails are full of proof of criminal activity by the other side's candidate. (they have probably never actually read any of the emails, but they believe it, which is all that matters)

Neither of those beliefs are strongly supported by evidence but both result from the fact that both candidates have a long history of dubious conduct that their detractors reasonably believe would be criminal if the laws were equally enforced without regard to wealth and political power.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#337

Post by acqq »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #191
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.

That’s true, but you don’t get clicks from outrage by just saying the boring truth. I’ve also been reading rants from people who think the US is going to throw a bunch of other charges at him when he gets here, which is just hilariously wrong. In general a state can’t request extradition on charge A then throw B-Z into the mix when the plane lands. The only way to expand on the original charges are with permission fr…

> In general a state can’t request extradition on charge A then throw B-Z into the mix when the plane lands. The only way to expand on the original charges are with permission from the country which received the original request on the basis of new information.

Does anybody think UK would not give all the permissions when asked?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#339

Post by Joakal »

drewmol wrote: post #269
wybiral wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of not confusing things here, forget about the data they leaked, they already had access to it. They were trying to crack the password of DoD accounts to cover up where they got the data and possibly access more data. But that's not important, from a legal perspective. Cracking those passwords with the intent to use them for unauthorized access seems like conspiracy, and that's what WikiLeaks was offerin…

>And I'm pretty sure the charge of conspiring to hack defense systems is also a crime in the UK so the grounds for extradition aren't so shaky. The jurisdictional overreach of my government (US) in this case concerns me. Some questions we should consider: Is it a crime in the UK for an Australian citizen residing in Sweden to offer help cracking a password over online chat to a US citizen residing in Afghanistan and…

US government extradited an Australian citizen from Australia to USA. A country he had never been to. After his release, he was arrested for being an illegal alien. Then deported and banned from USA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths

If you're Australian, don't expect the government to give a shit unless you're rich. I expect the Australian government to offer as little as they can to Assange.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#340

Post by paulddraper »

thatoneuser wrote: post #328
Meph504 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we start with the premises that if people think that something is a crime, they can commit a crime to try and prove it, our legal system will quickly crumble. Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence. Should the fact that the information released, put many lives in danger when it compromised many people aiding our government? Morally his actions can be debated, but not fro…

So how exactly would you have the people informing themselves? We just sit and wait for the benevolent government to tell us what it deems is good for us to know? We don't need to make a whole new set of legal principles where people automatically get off for claiming journalism. In this case the people (here and around the world) were able to learn a lot of valuable information. Assanges actions are justified.

Are you proposing a double-standard?

Can cops be justified breaking into your house without a warrant, so long as they find evidence of a crime?

Post reply on HN