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

81–90 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#81

Post by Lowkeyloki »

henryfjordan wrote: post #61
Lowkeyloki wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ahh, sorry I read your comment as more zealous than it was. To my knowledge (and I could be very wrong), Manning and Assange released info about then-current troop operations in the middle east. People's lives were endangered by the release of the info. You might not like where the line is, but I don't think they have too much of a leg to stand on either (assuming my understand is correct).

TL;DR: I do think some of what Assange did was morally wrong, but not nearly as much as what he's legally guilty of. I feel that way because the way the US government weilds the information classification system makes it far too blunt a tool.

---

Thank you for rereading and acknowledging. The then-current troop operations information is a great example of sensitive information that shouldn't be public for obvious reasons. (Although I don't want to tug at that thread too hard because it leads to opinions on the validity of the war in the first place. It's complicated. ;-)

That's a well-reasoned view of the specific thing that was done wrong. However, our government doesn't seem to want to draw the line there. There was a lot of other stuff in that dump. Some of it was embarrassing. Much of it was banal. But the US government doesn't want to make that distinction. It was classified information, whether that made sense in every case or not.

I can't say with any certainty, but I doubt the troop operations information was intentionally released. If, hypothetically speaking, all the other information in the dump was declassified, I don't think Manning and Assange would have wanted to release information that would endanger lives.

I think they were just overzealous and didn't have the time or want to take the time to comb through it all first. Look how long it took journalists to do it.

So if they were being specifically prosecuted for the troop ops info, that would be one thing in my book. It's quite another thing to be accused of high treason for disseminating embarrassing things and things that are only considered sensitive because that's the default classification.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#82

Post by ryanlol »

belltaco wrote: post #69
ryanlol wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they didn’t hack into the DoD network. Manning had already leaked everything by the time this happened. Assange didn’t succesfully crack the hash, it’s questionable if he even did anything with it. At best his crime is agreeing to help hack into the DoD network, not actually doing anything in furtherance of that. That’s a ridiculous thing to prosecute someone for.

>Assange didn’t succesfully crack the hash, it’s questionable if he even did anything with it. So if someone tried to break into your home and failed, that means they never committed a crime? >At best his crime is agreeing to help hack into the DoD network, not actually doing anything in furtherance of that. That's why the maximum sentence is only 5 years.

>So if someone tried to break into your home and failed, that means they never committed a crime?

If someone acquired the same lock as me, tried to pick it in the privacy of their own home and never actually broke into my home I would sure hope that they wouldn't face criminal charges.

>That's why the maximum sentence is only 5 years.

10 for what he's being charged with, no? I could very well be wrong here, but I thought that's what the 1030(a)(1) carries.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#83

Post by belltaco »

pytester wrote: post #66
roywiggins wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In this case it was cracking a password to blow the lid on US war crimes in Iraq.

Robbing or attempting to rob a bank to donate to the local food bank is still a crime.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#84

Post by rayiner »

nabla9 wrote: post #31
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?

> 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil? It seems to do so. >The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourt…

No. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/259/

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#85

Post by dragonwriter »

ryanlol wrote: post #57
belltaco wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people

It does, in fact, have to allege such an act in order to charge conspiracy (but the act in furtherance can be by any party to the conspiracy; that's how conspiracy works.)

Three such acts are charged in the indictment; two by Manning, one by Assange.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#86

Post by belltaco »

ikeboy wrote: post #5
hsnewman wrote: post #4

Why would a Australian be provided the rights of an US citizen?

Everyone has constitutional rights, not just US citizens.

Depends. A foreign citizen visiting or working in the US is not allowed to own guns regardless of the 2nd amendment.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#87

Post by ABCLAW »

ryanlol wrote: post #74
ABCLAW wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?

Yes, but where I'm from you need to actually do something in furtherance of the conspiracy to face prosecution. I'm not trying to make a legal argument, this just feels fundamentally wrong to me.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b

"(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section."

Seems pretty straightforward.

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.

This was a bit snarky before my edit - please excuse me.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#89

Post by rayiner »

apsec112 wrote: post #9
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?

Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.

The First Amendment probably does not apply to non-Americans with respect to their conduct abroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...

> The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply where United States agents searched and seized property located in a foreign country owned by a nonresident alien in the United States. Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the people of the United States, and that the defendant's "legal but involuntary presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the Constitution for protection.[1]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#90

Post by icelancer »

syntaxing wrote: post #75

When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under. Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1]. [1] https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-fir…

This is what Bush/Obama/Trump would like you to believe (as most Presidents would, I'm sure), but this is definitely not true in all cases... or even most.
Post reply on HN