I am reminded of HL Mencken's quote - The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
This is the part that worries me the most - how the hell did we end up in a situation where exposing war crimes by a western nation is likely to have the whistleblower tortured and left to rot in solitary confinement for the rest of their life?
And how the hell did we get to a place where few people seem to even care about the war crimes, and where the powers that be have been able to spin this so most people think the whistleblower did wrong?
The whole situation says a lot about the current state of the US and the rest of the 5-eyes. Honestly, it's fucking terrifying.
The question of whether he is a journalist is irrelevant to me. What I do see is that he was a highly partisan actor involved in the affairs of nation states. His behavior around the 2016 election further moved him in the direction of willing accomplice to election interference. His selective publication of data also makes me highly suspicious of his behavior. It all had a very clear slant and focus around the election. He even supposedly solicited information from Russian intelligence agents at one point.
Maybe somewhere in all of Assange's partisan hackery, I can see an argument that he didn't actually do anything wrong. And, since he is very polarizing, you would have to stick to strong principles to still support him and what his legal plight represents. However, I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press, which is honestly his biggest problem. No one cares about another partisan hack going by the wayside of a potentially corrupt prosecution. "You get what you deserve". I don't believe that, because I think the actual case against him has merit.
In reality, the accusation, which I believe is credible, is that he was an active conspirator in an effort to steal state secrets, and not just a mild mannered clearing house that published what it got through highly clean and legal means. He broke his own operational "security" code of staying above the fray by being such an active participant in the acquisition of state secrets. The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning. He has a hard time telling the truth and based on the facts is morally and ethically bankrupt.
People like Glenn Greenwald managed to handle things like Snowden much more cleanly and without the obvious bias and legal/ethical concerns of an Assange figure.
> I don't believe that, because I think the actual case against him has merit.
> He broke his own operational "security" code of staying above the fray by being such an active participant in the acquisition of state secrets. The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning.
Enough with the hand waving. This is a technical forum where you're writing for people who are familiar with things like NTLM and hashing. Let's talk facts. Assange is being charged due to the following instant message conversation.
> Manning: any good at lm hash cracking?
> Assange: yes
> Assange: <continuing conversation, goes off on a short tangent about wikileaks funding>
> Assange: we have rainbow tables for lm.
> Manning: 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c
> Manning: I think it's lm + lmnt
> Manning: anyway...
> Manning: need sleep :yawn:
> Manning: not even sure if that's the hash... I had to hexdump a SAM file, since I don't have the system file...
> Assange: what makes you think it's lm?
> Assange: its from a SAM?
> Manning: yeah
> Assange: passed it onto our lm guy
> Manning: thx
Then, 2 days later after a long discussion about wikileaks and intelligence agencies and other leaks.
> Assange: any more hints about this lm hash?
> Assange: no luck so far
And that's the end of it. Whole conversation here: https://emma.best/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2010-03-05-to-2...
Is this a CFAA violation? No hashes were cracked. No additional access was had. He maybe put in a half-hearted attempt to crack a hash. To me, this is not being "actively involved" in "hunting for government secrets."
edit: I think it speaks volumes that this is the best thing they can find to stick him with.
Your post is a red herring as it is obvious the prosecution is using more than this one conversation make its case.
And he is being charged with much more than conspiracy to intrude into govt computer systems so again your post is way too narrow.
For me personally, HN has failed to show how this case is uniquely more perverse than the run of the mill "he stole a pencil when he was a youth" vs "he talked about reading generals' emails at 17" (for Assange) - it's the norm in the US legal system.
Is this the first case that awakened HN to how unjust our legal system is? I can't help but feel that is where most of the outrage comes from. Not the specifics of this case, which look terrible for Assange (not saying it's his fault they look terrible but they do).
Protestors are being charged with a possible sentence of 6 mo to 99 years right now. That kind of discretion and ambiguity is disgusting but it is a feature. They can get Assange for anything just like an "hacker" could be jailed for bypassing an API.
I'm sorry but the legal system and our laws are unjust. But don't channel everything through Assange and make it seem like this is anything new.
They have him in their crosshairs, you and I are lucky it's not our turn. Why is it Assange's? Maybe to chill future dissent and fact based journalism, maybe this executive branch has something specific to fear.
-----
Wikileaks canary dumps' dencryption keys were never published. In 2016-2017 something happened. Idk why Assange never published them, but it's possible wikileaks was comprised by the US govt early on in the Trump admin or late Obama admin. Maybe someone has more knowledge on this part.
Its obvious why they go after every single leaker, to prevent anyone else from following their example. 'You want to be a hero? You will end up like Snowden, or Assange or tortured in prison outside of US soil.
To me the question is, is that conspiracy? Even if he made only a half hearted attempt, wasn't it still an attempt in case he got lucky with the password hash?
Granted, IANAL, but 18 USC 1030(b) does have language for conspiracy [1]. It's worth noting that conspiracy can exist whether or not there was any actual trespass.
This is similar to conspiracy to commit murder, e.g. The murder does not need to have happened in order to be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. And that appears to be the way the law is written here.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/l...
Makes it all the more frustrating when people try to defend what the United States Government has done to hide their crimes for which they have yet to be held accountable.
When groups like the ACLU have pushed issues via lawsuits its often with a very specific, media attention perfect client like Rosa Parks who cannot be vilified or attacked for a past criminal record or documented issues with society and law enforcement. Not because those people don't deserve representation but because their cases were too easy to strike down and prevent progress on the underlying issue. We see this today with so many validating the killing of George Floyd because of a past criminal record or recent behavior without eve considering if those actions deserved a death sentence or night in jail. It's sad but it's true.
The Swedish rape case would have made it more difficult for the US to extradite Assange, as that case would have had priority in the UK (since it was first in time, and more importantly, actually proceeding when Assange went into isolation), and Sweden is less likely to extradite to the US than the UK.
When groups like the ACLU have pushed issues via lawsuits its often with a very specific, media attention perfect client like Rosa Parks who cannot be vilified or attacked for a past criminal record or documented issues with society and law enforcement.
I see that you are unfamiliar with the actual history of the ACLU, which has also defended neo-nazis/white supremacists, Larry Flynt, self-described terrorists, and other degenerates in precedent-setting cases.
This ignores the 30 times Assange offered to be extradited to Sweden if Sweden provided some assurance that they wouldn't extradite to the US. It also doesn't account for the incredibly strange ways the case was handled, like Assange checking with prosecutors for permission to leave the country, and then those prosecutors issuing an arrest warrant the day he left.
And regardless of whether or not you believe that, if he had been extradited from the UK to Sweden, the UK would have to consent to the onward extradition to the US. He would've had the ability to fight it in two legal systems, both of whom would have to agree the extradition were legal, rather than just one.
So while things got a little better later, it looked very bleak at the time.
Cracking hashes alone is not a crime or I'd be in jail.
Did you crack a hash as some part of a computer contest?
Or were you helping someone crack the hash with the intent to get access to a US DoD government computer?
The way the law is apparently written, the first is not illegal. The second would be conspiracy.
Of course you could. Any journalist that participated in the years-long character assassination to make Assange appear "less sympathetic" is a less sympathetic character themselves...
You'd only do that if you were stupid enough to not already understand that the accusation was setup, with a little US pressure into an anyways willing subordinate government (Sweden), to get you to a circus trial and then extradition.
Fortunately Assange was not that naive.
Assange being an unsympathetic figure is largely a result of the fierce media campaign to paint him as one. Most of us have never met him, have only read about him in hostile media. Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker made the point well, I think:
> When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments don't typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us...
You write:
> The manning case in particular is an area where I believe he crossed the line and was actively assisting and encouraging Manning.
Have you read the testimony of experts about this? See for example Eric Lewis, a practising US attorney and former law professor:
> [Prosectuor] James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a government insider who leaks classified information may be prosecuted?
> Eric Lewis: Yes.
> James Lewis QC: Do you accept that a journalist may not aid such a person to break the law?
> Eric Lewis: No. It is normal journalistic practice to cultivate an official source and encourage them to leak. Seymour Hersh would have to be prosecuted under such an idea.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
Here's investigative journalist Nicky Hager:
> [Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information?
> Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
Around the 2016 Guccifer and DNC leaks I don't accept he was acting as a mere journalist. He was, at best, and I think this strains intellectual credulity, an unwitting Russian asset. In reality, he was likely a willing Russian asset based on the evidence. It walks and quacks like a duck based on its behavior. If he wasn't an active and willing Russian asset I would be surprised. He played a key role in the DNC hack. Here he may, possibly, be ethically clean, but his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party. I don't see how anyone can support that sort of behavior. There isn't enough evidence in the public sphere to convict him of crimes, so I think that is a miscarriage of justice and the legal system, but the continued white knighting of Assange in technocratic circles continues to amuse me.
I don't believe that the comment to which you replied mentioned disinformation.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed if my email was splashed across the Internet, regardless of who did it or why they did so.
Why don't we image all your storage devices, then post everything you've written, every site you've browsed, everywhere you've been, etc., etc., etc.
It's not disinformation, so it's okay to do so right?
You're right, we're talking about the members of a private organization that has no governmental role.
Are those people not entitled to the same level of privacy to which you and I are?
And if those folks aren't entitled to privacy, who is?
How about all those celebrities[0] whose iCloud accounts were hacked and naked photos and private messages spread far and wide?
Are they entitled to privacy? If so, why them and not others? If not, why not?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...
When can I stop by to take those images of your devices?
is this any different than Fox news or CNN's behavior.
Based on what evidence? Assange stated that "our source is not the Russian government or any state party." So I'm curious what evidence you've seen to say it was.
> ...his behavior and the timing of the leaks was morally bankrupt and actively trying to influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party.
I assume by this you mean he was trying to help Trump. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. See for example this article by Caitlin Johnstone which outlines why this isn't plausible: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-18-he-was-a...
She writes:
> In July 2016 Assange compared the choice between Clinton and Trump to a choice between cholera and gonorrhea, saying, “Personally, I would prefer neither.” When a Twitter user suggested to Assange in 2017 that he start sucking up to Trump in order to secure a pardon, Assange replied, “I’d rather eat my own intestines.”
Not to mention of course that it's now the Trump administration that's pursuing him and trying to send him to a US prison.
I don't claim there is some higher power (e.g. the direction of history, science) from where democracy as a societal telos (i.e. end goal) gains its legitimacy. I just think most people desire democracy as a telos for society, and this collective desire is a basis for ethics.
The version of ethics according to which Assange is unethical is a jurdical view of ethics, where the laws created by the state are taken to be the laws of ethics. But the moment you accept that this juridical ethics is a transcendent source of objective truth, you've taken an extremely one sided partisan political position i.e. that of the elites, who wrote the laws, and created the laws of ethics that reinforce the status quo.
Greenwald went on Tucker's show, to beg Trump to pardon Assange. [0] The theory is that this is the surest way to communicate with Trump. Snowden just appeared on Rogan to argue on Assange's behalf. Those who actually respect Greenwald's and Snowden's judgment, join them in supporting Assange.
Snowden: "While all of these news organisations around the world, all of these publishers, were trying to get a piece of the story, there was only one publisher that actually said we want to help the source. We want to make sure he's okay. We want to make sure that no matter what happens, he has somebody on his side, and that was Wikileaks."
>election interference
Is fake news, the only real election interference is preventing people to vote.
Naturally, it's always easier to get others to understand problems and viewpoints when matters are simple. When things are more complex, it's more difficult to get others to come to a common agreement or understanding. As so, the reason the world might seem more polarized today, (or why principled people always seem to be short in supply), might simply be due to the sheer complexity of the world which acts to divide everyone. And it's likely getting worse as the modern world becomes more complex. Such people who prevailed and brought upon prior golden ages, likely did so against the odds, as otherwise golden ages would be norm.
Not losing the WWII, that's why. During the WWII, all participants committed the war crimes. Only the losers were prosecuted. US got away with it.
> Assange case is indicative of what might happen if you enter into the business of exposing corruption, and not restrict your exposures to one direction only.
This doesn’t square. Assange wasn’t exposing everything he got, nor was he interested in looking for info on all countries.
He was primarily focused on exposing info in one direction, the US, and actually had expressed indifference to exposing info on Russia.
So it is impossible for his treatment to show anything about what happens if you exposure corruption equally without direction, because that is not what he did.
He only shows an anecdote of what happens when you focus exposing corruption in a single foreign country, and go beyond that, to strongly support certain candidates in their elections due to personal grudges.
Edit: proof -> https://www.businessinsider.com/assange-turned-down-document...
At no point do the people offering the documents seem to reply with "only part of it is public." Without saying that, this doesn't serve as proof of anything except Wikileaks making a mistake.
That was overtly partisan and thus their actions and exposures were not neutral exposure of all secrets, but targeted exposures with goals.
Thus again, not what the OP claimed.
I was refusing the claim that what happened to assange is an example of what happens to someone who exposes corruption indiscriminately.
It sounds like you just agreed with me in that Assange was partisan, and thus cannot be an example of what the OP claimed.
Damn right. The treatment of Assange has dealt a terrible blow to the possibility of exposing criminal doings in the military, corporations, political parties, whatever. It sets the example that whistleblowers will not be protected.
So how did we end up here? Maybe many reasons but primarily I think maybe the Assange case is indicative of what might happen if you enter into the business of exposing corruption, and not restrict your exposures to one direction only. It will by necessity alienate any powerful interests that might protect you.
As it stands, only principled people side with Assange, people who insist that core democratic principles should trump the shortsighted interests of the state. Such people are few and far between nowadays, but are normally thought to be populating the courts, at least at higher levels, which is the last straw we can cling to.
But with a partisan press that has turned their backs on Assange there is hardly any pressure on the courts to do the right thing.