The Manning-Lamo chat logs leaked to Wired also clearly show that Manning sought out Assange. If you have any evidence to the contrary on these two points, please post as your claims are running against what is publicly known.
The US government has claimed exactly this in its indictment of Assange:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481...
It's fascinating to me how you can accuse someone of "spreading FUD" without having read the (short) indictment.
In my opinion this is complicated stuff. I think people have not only a right but a moral obligation to leak in order to expose crimes. But it isn't clear that this was Assange's goal. Instead, Assange does a lot of moral posturing and seems mostly driven by ego: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting.
I would be much more sympathetic had Assange or wikileaks provided leaks in a different manner. But they didn't. They released everything, unredacted, without commentary or contextualization which is why the previous poster's restatement of Assange's infantile position is basically accurate:
> So do you really want to live in a world where the governing maxim is that information wants to be free, and that justifies any and all means of getting to it, including breaking into secure information systems?
A tool of nation states in the end.
Nowadays when someone "reads" an article, they just skip to the comment section and unwittingly chose the highest voted memetic comment and adapt its opinion as their own, regardless of the facts laid by the article itself.
Sometimes those people go so far as to write their own articles that spread the questionable memetic idea, which is exactly what the OP's article is.
The truth is that Julian Assange is being indited for attempting to break into US gov computer systems. If there was no evidence he had done so, there would not be charges pressed. Nothing about this is a free speech matter.
Same metaphor applies. I try to help someone pick the lock as they try to break-in to a house. This is illegal. It's also illegal for a computer intrusion.
Julian Assange took concrete steps in furtherance of a conspiracy. Whether or not he succeeded is besides the point.
Sorry, it's the law.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481...
Line 25 under "Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy" - by both his requesting more information about the password and his statement that he had "no luck so far" he indicated that he had been attempting to crack the password.
The indictment cites Assange saying, "no luck so far" after asking some questions about the stuff Manning is sending him. You want to read complicity into a vague statement made to excuse non-contribution, whereas there could have been any number of reasons Assange replied that way, such as not alienating a source, or laziness, or knowledge that actually doing anything would put him in legal jeopardy.
There is no actual claim here that Assange did anything to crack the system or assisted Manning in doing so. He is not accused of delivering a password. He is not accused of downloading password cracking software. He is not accused of contacting others to ask for their assistance. He is just accused of saying, "nope, can't help".
If there is evidence that Assange delivered cracked passwords to Manning, I'm sure that people will change their minds and agree with you. But that is not what the indictment claims. And the lack of anything more specific in such a high-profile case suggests there is nothing more that they have on him than an ambiguous statement of sympathy with a source.
The indictment claims that Assange was guilty of conspiracy to crack the password, not that he actually cracked the password. Conspiracy is a crime in itself. He didn't have to deliver anything to Manning to be guilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
> The indictment cites Assange saying, "no luck so far" [emphasis mine] after asking some questions about the stuff Manning is sending him.
That's evidence that he took actions to further the conspiracy. The "so far" indicates he was attempting something at the time.
'if there is actually evidence presented that Assange delivered passwords to Manning' - don't you mean if there is evidence that Assange attempted to crack passwords for Manning?
Because again the bar here is attempting to assist, not that he actually succeeded.
All you are alleging here is conspiracy with regards to targeting of a separate server that was never hacked. If that is the case then evidence can be certainly presented with regards to it, but the burden is on the prosecution not the defense and the statements alleged as regards it do not seem to indicate much beyond a vague excuse for inaction.
The law is pretty clear here. You, on the other hand, are making up the law as you go along. And you're also saying Assange is a liar.
The intent is proven from the in which Assange agrees to provide assistance cracking a password.
That is the textbook definition of "conspiracy to commit a hacking crime".
Have you read a lot of indictments around conspiracy to commit crimes that end up with convictions? Because I think you have far too naive of a viewpoint about what constitutes evidence.
There is a literal claim that he did that: "Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password".
Whether that holds up or not, or the Government can present stronger evidence to that effect, is another matter.
Using the cracked hash to access a system you have no authorization to access is illegal.
Don't play the government's (and hollywood's, in case of DVD and Blueray) game. Cracking a hash is not a crime.