Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 432 posts

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#421

Post by ClumsyPilot »

thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #409
monocasa wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it specially does not equal an official position of the UN I don't know how you cans ay that, when the UN press briefings literally refer to them as a "UN expert". Yes it's a financially independent position to remove as much bias as possible, but it is very much an official UN position.

>I don't know how you cans ay that, when the UN press briefings literally refer to them as a "UN expert". His claim: >Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. It's not the UN's position, its a position of a Special Rapporteur for the UN. Thats why I can say it. You are arguing a different subject, if he is a UN expert. Notice I'm not debating his affiliation with the UN. A position of the UN would be a decision m…

See my comment above. This argument is a total red herring.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#422

Post by mikeyjk »

DEADBEEFC0FFEE wrote: post #401
BFatts wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally against Assange on all of this. Hacking is an illegal activity that results in the disclosure of information that the hacker does not own. This is theft of information and a federal offense. Anyone engaging is nefarious hacking should be jailed, if caught, and never allowed to use technology again. We have very lax laws when it comes to hacking - they need to be stronger.

Is criminal hacking such a awful crime that the punishment should include a custodial sentence and never having access to technology. A lifetime ban seems completely inappropriate. Which specific technology did you have in mind?

Consigned to a fate only understood by the Amish

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#423

Post by gerland »

nickysielicki wrote: post #18

> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…

I will give you a upvote and it will clean my conscience, so I don't have to do anything about this anymore.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#424

Post by SkyBelow »

krapp wrote: post #402
SkyBelow wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if there was something larger than just what that one billionaire was involved in. Kinda like how when stories about the Catholic Church broke there were just a few high level Bishops involved until much more work was done to pull back the curtains. Now imagine some of that gets leaked in a partisan fashion. Maybe on purpose. Maybe by chance. A cover up could be attempted, but that might bring in more investi…

"I'm not saying it's true, but what if it was true enough?" You could speculate that about literally anything. It's meaningless conjecture.

It isn't meaningless anymore when we have found that there are multiple national level or greater conspiracies involving some of the most vile things known to mankind. We are 2 for 3 with these three cases and we have seen how corrupted the media and legal system is with handling those two cases (yes, the media eventually did report on them, but go back and look at how the media treated reports on the Catholic abuse before the main story broke and how many individual reports were silenced).

It is like if you catch someone gas lighting you twice, and now this time they are telling you they really didn't do it and are definitely not gas lighting you again. At some point their demand to prove their gas lighting becomes part of the attack itself.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#425

Post by gus_massa »

henearkr wrote: post #167
gus_massa wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This articles is not about journalists, but it is somewhat related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

You are saying France did bad shit, and that's true, you forgot Napoleon slaughters throughout Europe, Nazis collaboration and Petain, colonial rule and enslaving of American, African and Asian nations, nuclear tests, and I forgot a lot. Still, you are hardly touching the subject. We are speaking about the here and now, how we should abide by the international law when responding to cyber threats, in the context of a…

This was like 35 year ago [1]. I'd say this was already a "transparent and globalized world".

[1] Suddenly, I'm feeling old.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#426

Post by sanderjd »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #109
sanderjd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted this comment because it is dizzying how quickly you moved the goal posts from "the whole Russia thing was a scam" to "of course Russia meddled".

I've got to say, when I hear 'the whole Russia thing' I assume people mean that the Trump administration broke the law to co-operate with Russia. That is a very different question from whether Russia decided to throw it's weight behind a candidate. Doesn't look to me like a shifting of goal posts at all.

Interesting. That is not what President Trump means when he talks about "the Russia scam". He still maintains (in conflict with his own intelligence apparatus) that there was no active campaign to meddle in the election at all. If he had been making the argument from the start that yes, there was meddling, but that his campaign was completely uninvolved in it, and that even if it may have benefitted him this time, we should take defensive steps for the future because that is in our nation's best interest, then I would be a lot more sympathetic to your argument here. But that is not what happened; he has maintained that the whole thing is a scam, so I think a more narrow reading of what scam we're talking about is extremely over-charitable.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#427

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #418
mindslight wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already admitted my assertion is a heuristic - I find it more useful than not. The standards I used my preceding comments were "analogous", "overall result being similar" and "overwhelmingly marketed the war". So no, I have not been arguing that the two are "effectively equivalent" or "just like", nor that the government (whatever that may be) has an iron grip on the press - just that the press successfully propaga…

You're right about one thing: I'm not generally going to be receptive to the arguments of people who believe in genetic intellectual superiority of white people over black people, not to mention, for this discussion, people who believe that democracy itself is a mistake, and with it the free press. I'm surprised to see you warmly referencing an authoritarian white supremacist, and won't forget you did. Unlike Yarvin,…

meh. Truth can be found anywhere, and it's foolish to close your mind based on who is speaking.

FWIW reading Moldbug's analysis of left versus right is what made me return to self-identifying as liberal.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#428

Post by henearkr »

gus_massa wrote: post #425
henearkr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying France did bad shit, and that's true, you forgot Napoleon slaughters throughout Europe, Nazis collaboration and Petain, colonial rule and enslaving of American, African and Asian nations, nuclear tests, and I forgot a lot. Still, you are hardly touching the subject. We are speaking about the here and now, how we should abide by the international law when responding to cyber threats, in the context of a…

This was like 35 year ago [1]. I'd say this was already a " transparent and globalized world ". [1] Suddenly, I'm feeling old.

No, this is just a different topic. What I brought up was an example of good response to a cyber threat. You bring up some bad things, be it old or new it does not matter, it still is a different topic.

My point was to illustrate what I call a good response. The bad ones just illustrate the bad responses, that's all. Good for contrasting, maybe. But the way you bring it does not seem to make clear anything, to the contrary. And it is not even remotely about "cyber" anything, nor about journalism or the right to know the truth about anything. And for contrasting we already have the example at hand, the case of Julian Assange!

So I really don't understand your point.

Sounds like you hate France and you disliked that I used a French example as a good response to a cyber threat. I don't know why you want so much to avoid giving a nice role to France, personally I don't care, but I am a positive person, so I'd like you to find a good response example by an other country (easy, there are plenty) to balance my comment, instead of balancing it trying to find a bad cyber-response from France (which you failed to do).

Also, the world was hardly as transparent as today. No social media, hardly any internet, newspapers in different languages but few people knowing anything else than their mother tongue...

Years after, there was investigation by news agencies in France about the Rainbow Warrior tragedy. The government did not throw them in jail! So that, too, is really different from the Assange case.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#429

Post by balls187 »

jessaustin wrote: post #342
balls187 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of the Press has limitations. Example, as a journalist you cannot just walk into a US Army base and start reporting.

Gee, that sounds problematic. We give them $750B/yr, they kill innocent people around the world, and they don't submit to public oversight? I wish we lived in a free society...

The Senate Committee on Armed Services is the public government "group" charged with oversight of the US Military.

I don't know if that meets your definition of public oversight.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#430

Post by jessaustin »

balls187 wrote: post #429
jessaustin wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, that sounds problematic. We give them $750B/yr, they kill innocent people around the world, and they don't submit to public oversight? I wish we lived in a free society...

The Senate Committee on Armed Services is the public government "group" charged with oversight of the US Military. I don't know if that meets your definition of public oversight.

Congress is infamously bad at overseeing anything. For that reason, from time to time journalists have helped the public to make direct policy recommendations. Of course the bureaucratic state prefers not to accommodate that form of oversight.
Post reply on HN