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

391–400 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#391

Post by wybiral »

prepend wrote: post #370
wybiral wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to…

How is discussing cracking a DOD database password relevant to the prosecution? We’re discussing the cracking of a password in this comment thread, does that make us criminals? By nature, I don’t think discussing password cracks, without a ton more context than what has been shared, is not criminal. There are many forum posts with system and programming questions that are purely hypothetical (eg, “so I’m trying to de…

Discussing something and conspiring to do it are legally two different things. Their communications had INTENT to do it. They were planning to do it. Conspiring.

> To my knowledge, Wikileaks has never actively participated in the hacking or cracking required to access restricted info.

But that's exactly what this is about. There are records of Jabber messages where they were conspiring (planning) to crack the password for Manning. I don't know how they determined that Assange was involved and not an unfortunate pawn of his, but whatever evidence they have was enough to convince a grand jury to indict him.

And, btw, an indictment isn't a verdict. He still has a chance to defend himself in trial even if he's extradicted. But this would mean that the US has a chance to prove his guilt.

But now we just wait and see if they have enough evidence to convince the UK to extradite him. And if that happens we'll wait and see how the trial and sentencing plays out.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#392

Post by saalweachter »

paulddraper wrote: post #340
thatoneuser wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, this is how case law is established.

We currently have the notion of exigent circumstances, that if the police have a lawful reason to enter your house without a warrant (such as believing that someone is in imminent danger) and they find in plain sight in the course of that entry evidence of a crime, it's fair game.

A case like this is how we determine if journalists are allowed to hack into government databases. This precedent will be instructive to future activists regardless of how it turns out.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#393

Post by Nasrudith »

Meph504 wrote: post #301
raxxorrax wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. Shouldn't it if that access revealed information about war crimes? Or an artificial conflict that cost about 500.000 lives? That should remain undisclosed because computer sabotage is bad? This is missing perspective left and right.

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…

Too late for that - have you seen what passes for standards of accountability and standards where ignorance of the law is not an excuse - unless you are the police. I think the legal system has already throughly crumbled by those standards.

So much FUD and dangerous hypotheticals to justify /their/ crimes. At this point accountability and transparency need to be held far higher because the alternative is so much worse and corrupted.

If you don't want whistleblowers there is an easy answer - not being so fucking corrupt and they will have nothing to whistleblow on!

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#394

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

tssva wrote: post #38
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.

Does it not also apply to Snowden then?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#395

Post by Nasrudith »

stoolpigeon wrote: post #383
wybiral wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to…

I used to consider grand jury indictments to indicate that something was going on. Then someone close to me was indicted. That's when I learned that it takes almost nothing to get an indictment. In the case I know best it was less than nothing. When the case finally made it to a judge and was heard the judge realized how bad it was and through it out. Those indictments come from a group of people who hear only one si…

Remember grand jury is a very low standard - if the grand jury isn't compromised it is only enough evidence/ unopposed/ to start the process of prosecution. "We have footage of Tom Hanks brazenly robbing a bank" would be enough to get an indict. But as soon as his lawyers get involved the judge throws it out and censures the prosecutor because they lefy out key pieces of evidence - it was from Mission Impossible.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#396

Post by ryanlol »

ABCLAW wrote: post #260
ryanlool wrote: post #97

>Please don't post about how the law works from your gut feelings about the matter. This forum is awash in people just imagining what the law is every time it comes up. Go look at the law itself. There's no requirement as you've imagined there is. I never made any claims about how US law works. Please do not misattribute such claims to me, it's not only dishonest but also quite rude.

>I never made any claims about how US law works. Please do not misattribute such claims to me, it's not only dishonest but also quite rude. >The case against Assange appears to be very weak This is probably the easiest, most straightforward example.

That’s not a legal claim, but a moral claim.

Stop trying to twist my words, you’re deliberately choosing the least charitable interpretation of what I said.

Why would I try to argue about whether or not what Assange did was illegal? We already know the US legal system is fucked, there’s no point in going down that road.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#397

Post by belorn »

belltaco wrote: post #307
jonfw wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that it intends to meddle with the election. Like I said, that isn't inherently a bad thing. I also fully intend on "election meddling" by sharing my opinions on the internet. As should you. It's on you to prove why this is bad for the american people. Here are quotes from the two conspiracy theories you were talking about. Did you even read the articles you linked? he specifically warned in both instances tha…

>Assange is not responsible for the conspiracy theories that other people generate from his information. There's a full video somewhere of this. https://i.redd.it/sbzfk3uw2or21.gif Edit: The video, I think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg He also announced a 20 or 25K dollar reward for information leading to Seth Rich's murder being solved, in order to further imply he was the leaker. >I also fully intend…

If the DNC and Podesta email leaks were probably worth a billion, how much money was the audio tape leaked worth by NBCUniversal? That news reached basically every corner of the world for weeks, which is very expensive thing to buy.

During the election campaign there was also several lawsuits filled, neither which lead to a case reaching a judge. How much election meddling did that cause, how much would such campaign influence be worth if it was possible to buy it?

Lets imagine a future election where media and candidates are bound to only talk political subjects and disagreement on those. No scandals, no leaks, no recent news, and no meddling by outside influences be that other nations, citizens, companies or news papers. Just politicians with different views on how the country will operate in the next few years. If someone have a tape, a email or a lawsuit to announce they can wait until the day after the election.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#398

Post by Nasrudith »

roguecoder wrote: post #290
belltaco wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if I was unclear, that quote is in continuance of the earlier line, full argument: >Isn't running into and maiming a pedestrian while driving a car at a traffic crossing a matter of actually doing nothing instead of braking? Are you deeply uncomfortable with the thought of govt jailing you for literally doing nothing? >And to be clear... he didn’t crack it. Attempting to commit a crime is a crime even if you fa…

Just because we don’t usually get prosecuted for something doesn’t make it legal.

But that usually means there is a problem with the law in either enforcement(insufficient or only existing to be abused via selective enforcement) or basis(it shouldn't be illegal in the first place).

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#399

Post by wybiral »

raxxorrax wrote: post #369
Meph504 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This "holy" law is cleverly circumvented in the quest for war crimes. So any appeal only gets you so far. We are back to square one. Government will hide crimes, people will try to call them out. Law is as useful and error prone, as we want it to be.

The law isn't perfect, in any country, and that's never going to change. We need to vote for leaders who will reform it in the direction that we want.

But the fact that some people get away with crimes doesn't mean we should ignore all crimes and adopt a system of anarchy.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#400

Post by Nasrudith »

torstenvl wrote: post #125
gnu8 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone who isn’t a citizen of the United States, it’s not illegal to fight against the military of the United States. It’s not possible for Assange to have committed a crime here. Would you suggest indicting a drone operator of the US Air Force for violating Afghanistan’s law against murdering people?

Yes. Actually, it is. You have to be a lawful combatant to receive combatant immunity under international law. The U.S. Air Force consists of lawful combatants. They are members of the armed forces and wear uniforms that readily distinguish themselves as combatants, which permits the opposing party to a conflict to abide by principles of distinction and proportionality. They are therefore disanalogous. CIA operatives…

Operatives aren't protected and they don't even need to give the spook a trial - summary execution is allowed for spies and saboteurs but most governments usually find capture and trade more productive.

One thing I have wondered about is why we haven't seen any organized crime trying to claim uniformed combatant protections - they already have several process steps in many cases.

Post reply on HN