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

411–420 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#411

Post by overgard »

croon wrote: post #350
overgard wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thinking of the many other things Wikileaks have revealed, especially in regards to the Chelsea Manning stuff which I think was important. We need governments to be afraid of corruption and terrible acts getting out. If Assange only publishes some of that, at least it's better than none of it coming out. I have little interest in the email dramas. I doubt they really swung the election regardless (I have to imagi…

> (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations) Not relevant to the discussion at hand, but I see this comment a lot. Yes, the Obama administration executed a lot more drone strikes than the Bush administration. However, there has been 2243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump administration, compared with 1878 drone strikes in the entirety (8 years)…

The point was that people were willing to overlook some actions that are at best morally ambiguous and at worst set an extremely scary precedent because the guy was charming and likeable (I liked him too). That an arguably much worse guy gets to use that precedent and expanded executive power makes it even worse. I don’t see how that’s inflammatory when my point is that an email scandal wouldn’t have hurt a stronger candidate if assassinations via drone strikes doesn’t hurt them; and that email stuff really seems like a sticking point when it comes to wiki leaks and the left.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#413

Post by roywiggins »

nocturnial wrote: post #189
roywiggins wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how conspiracies work. Each participant does only a part of the overall conspiracy. If I forge a document and give it to you so you can sneak into a secure area and commit a murder, I am not just guilty of forgery, I am guilty of conspiracy to murder. They guy who drives the getaway car is guilty of murder as much as the people who walk into the building. This is the entire point of conspiracy law. Driving a c…

I think you read over the part where I said it was illegal. You don't need to invent scenarios, you can use the facts of this case. Manning already had access and didn't need the password to be cracked. Wikileaks already received information from Manning. Someone in the chat log told Manning they would pass the hash to someone else. They then told Manning "no luck so far". Keep in mind, they haven't provided any proo…

> Manning already had access

To Manning's account. She didn't have access to the account she was trying to crack. Getting access to accounts that aren't yours ("exceed[ing] authorized access")- or conspiracy to do so- is more or less exactly what the CFAA is meant to prohibit. Maybe that account had exactly the same permissions that her account did, but the fact remains that she was not authorized to log in to that account.

> proof that Assange did in fact try to crack it

Proof is for trial. A grand jury just has to find probable cause to bring the indictment. Probable cause is quite a low burden of proof. You may not like it! but this is extremely normal in the American system. You don't need proof to bring an indictment, just probable cause. Assange is not special here. A chat log of someone saying "brb gonna go do the crime" followed by "no luck so far" seems pretty probable-causey to me.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#414

Post by wybiral »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #361
briandear wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using that logic, we could argue that defective search warrants should be ignored if they uncover a horrible crime. This idea that breaking laws in the pursuit of a supposed greater good could lead to some dangerous places. This kind of thinking leads to things like torturing people to uncover a terrorist plot: the law against torture is broken using the rationale of uncovering a potentially greater crime. As soon we…

"This idea that breaking laws in the pursuit of a supposed greater good could lead to some dangerous places." That's because your formulation of the principle is too general. If everyone acts on their own subjective law then collective law would break down. But no one is arguing for that. Wikileak's defenders would do better to point to the particular conditions that have led to mass whistle blowing: permanent wars i…

> The case for whistleblowing hinges on that reality.

It's not about whistleblowing it's about hacking a DoD account to access classified military intelligence.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#415

Post by mikeash »

freeflight wrote: post #408
mikeash wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It strongly implies that it was a covert action by the US or its allies to cut him off from the world. When it was actually just his hosts getting tired of his shit.

Wikileaks tweeted it was a "state actor" [0], which is not just technically true, it's actually true because Equador is a state actor and there's no reference or implication at all to the US in that Tweet. [0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088

What's the difference between "technically true" and "actually true"?

Just look at the discussion that occurred:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929

Everybody understands that phrase to mean some significant action. I am certain that Wikileaks knew that people would understand it that way. They could have said "the Ecuadorians cut off Julian's WiFi access" and people would have understood the situation. Instead, they used extremely slanted language and caused everyone to understand something completely different from what happened.

Communication is ultimately about creating certain thoughts in other people's minds. "Technically correct" gets you no points at all if you deliberately use language that will create incorrect thoughts in others.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#416

Post by coldtea »

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…

>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.

How about starting with the solid facts, that what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?

>Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence.

We could just say no -- or, if they did find evidence, yes.

This keeps the risk of violating the law, but makes it OK if you indeed unearth something beneficial.

You know, as if we can make rational value judgements given the end result, and not give everyone a free pass, or condemn everyone from the start.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#417

Post by coldtea »

wybiral wrote: post #399
raxxorrax wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not?

Who said it would be worse?

Where you asked before adopting the current system? Or you were just expected to sit and accept it?

Any why would a system that takes into account actual benefit to the public or not, to absolve someone of something that is otherwise a crime, would be tantamount to "anarchy"?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#418

Post by Meph504 »

coldtea wrote: post #416
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…

> 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. How about starting with the solid facts, that what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed? > Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence. We could just say no -- or, if they did find evidence, yes. This keeps the…

Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing.

But as I've said, this is the human element, and is why we have a jury, if the jury feels that his actions though criminal were justified.

They can hold him free of punishment, this is why our judicial system is structured this way, because the letter of the law, doesn't understand the context of a situation, and a jury can.

Who in your opinion makes the choice of "what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?" A judge, a police officer, a prosecutor, or a jury of his peers?

That value judgement you are talking about is literally the roll of the jury, but to get to that point, they have to be arrested, and prosecuted.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#419

Post by amanaplanacanal »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #354
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?

>What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? The whole First Amendment, which explicitly exists to defend the freedom of the press. What sort of person thinks that its legal, desirable, or consistent with a free society for the government to tell individuals at the point of a gun what they are allowed to do or say? What sort of sick society do we live in…

> What sort of person thinks that its legal, desirable, or consistent with a free society for the government to tell individuals at the point of a gun what they are allowed to do

Isn't this the basis of all law?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#420

Post by coldtea »

Meph504 wrote: post #418
coldtea wrote: post #416

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. How about starting with the solid facts, that what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed? > Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence. We could just say no -- or, if they did find evidence, yes. This keeps the…

Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing. But as I've said, this is the human element, and is why we have a jury, if the jury feels that his actions though criminal were justified. They can hold him free of punishment, this is why our judicial system is structured this way, because the letter of the law, doesn't…

>Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing.

Well, that's bad. And it has been known to be bad since the time of Les Miserables at least...

>Who in your opinion makes the choice of "what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?" A judge, a police officer, a prosecutor, or a jury of his peers?

The jury of peers. But we're still on the court of public/pundit opinion, and many are making arguments as if the technical aspects of the law outweigh any benefits -- in fact as if breaking the law itself is morally condemnable whatever the circumstance. So I wanted to counter that.

Besides, are the people which will be jury really "peers" when the act might benefit humanity at large, but they are tied to a particular nation state (one he doesn't even belong to)?

"Peers" original intention was to be people "related to the community/society the accused lives in" with the same public interests (and moral ideas).

Post reply on HN