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

51–60 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#51

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

The indictment alleges Assange induced Manning to do it, which makes it a conspiracy.

I do think that presents big press freedom issues; it'd be easy to see news organizations under fire in this fashion. Convincing a source to hand over stuff isn't much (or at all, really) different than the behavior described in the Assange/Manning case.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#52

Post by ryanlol »

roywiggins wrote: post #49
pytester wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Cracking a password is one thing; cracking a password for someone else so they can commit a crime (and you knew this was what they were doing with it) is a crime. If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car is on t…

Yes, but US seems to like to slap conspiracy charges on people who've done essentially nothing in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Maybe it's a crime in the US, but it's still a ludicrous crime.

> If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA.

This is of course not at all similar to what happened here, a very strange example.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#53

Post by throwawayjava »

wallace_f wrote: post #27
andrewnicolalde wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in this case it is because that key belonged to a US military computer system and was being cracked to access the data it protected.

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?

He took specific steps (cracking a hash) with the clear intent of helping break into a government owned computer system.

I'm not sure what the gray area is supposed to be here.

If I teach you lock picking skills as a fun hobby, that's clearly okay.

If I teach you lock picking skills knowing you aspire to be a house robber, that is grayish legally and wrong ethically.

But if I break into a specific bank vault for you to help you steal stuff, and we talked about stealing the stuff before I helped you, then I'm clearly involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist.

The ethical question here is about whether that crime was ethically jusified. I.e., it's about civil disobedience, not about whether blatant conspiracy should be legal.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#54

Post by Lowkeyloki »

Pxl_Buzzard wrote: post #42
henryfjordan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?

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 classified by inserting an otherwise unrelated footnote containing sensitive info.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#55

Post by belltaco »

ryanlol wrote: post #43
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…

Attempting to crack a hash locally is distinctly different from trying to gain access to someone elses computer.

Intent is very important in the judicial system.

If Assange can show that he was cracking the password of a US military login as a hobby, he might get away with it.

But I don't think even his ardent supporters would buy that theory.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#56

Post by sneak »

> Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden dropped the charges.

This is factually inaccurate - Assange has not been charged with a crime by any country. There was an investigation in Sweden but no charges were brought.

Presumably he will be indicted in the US momentarily.

As yet, not a single country has charged him with a crime.

Edit: yes, the US has now indicted him on a conspiracy charge—his first.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#57

Post by ryanlol »

belltaco wrote: post #55
ryanlol wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to crack a hash locally is distinctly different from trying to gain access to someone elses computer.

Intent is very important in the judicial system. If Assange can show that he was cracking the password of a US military login as a hobby, he might get away with it. But I don't think even his ardent supporters would buy that theory.

I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people, but that's not what happened here.

The only supposed criminal act here is agreeing to help, not actually providing help. This does nothing at all to further the conspiracy.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#58

Post by SiempreViernes »

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #37
henryfjordan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government generated the nuclear launch codes. Do you think you should have access to those?

I never said that all government information should belong to the people. I asked a question. I do believe there's a line. But I don't like where that line is now, in part because the line isn't well-defined. Although, if I did have nuclear launch codes, I doubt I could do anything meaningful with them. As it should be. Simply knowing the codes is not enough to authorize one to launch nuclear weapons. That would be a…

Indeed, you have to be the president too. That person should always be able to launch the nukes at any target whatsoever, and ensuring this is possible is the task of the United States Nuclear forces.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#59

Post by GordonS »

chmaynard wrote: post #2

When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.

Perhaps leaks of war crimes and the like could actually be a catalyst for greater government transparency? The way I see it, the status quo is unlikely to change without a pretty big nudge.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#60

Post by sctb »

wallace_f wrote: post #21
Simulacra wrote: post #6

I use to go back and forth on Julian, but at this point I think he should be punished, but what that punishment should be I don't know. I think Manning stealing the cables was an absolute wrong, and Assange facilitating that shows a level of culpability. He should not be afforded American protection. Crimes were committed, even if they were done with the best intentions, it was still a crime. We all count, or no one…

This comment reads like it was written by an algorithm.

Please don't post like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN