Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

Post by Lowkeyloki » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

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.

Post by ryanlol » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #33

wallace_f wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by roywiggins » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

maccio92 wrote: post #39

wallace_f wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by ryanlol » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

maccio92 wrote: post #39

wallace_f wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by roywiggins » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

pytester wrote: post #46

roywiggins wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access In this case it was Chelsea Manning accessing the computer. Assange didn't touch it. >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 ...by Chelsea Manning, not Assange.