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.