Hacker News Reader

> I feel he removed some of his legal protection by being so actively involved in hunting for government secrets.

> 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.

> Is this a CFAA violation? No hashes were cracked

Cracking hashes alone is not a crime or I'd be in jail.

Sure, but what was the intent?

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.

Neither but yes you're right for both.

weev went to jail for adding 1 to a number on a URL... They can do anything they want to you if they decide to...

Despite obvious differences both in societal import and trivial details, weev's case was like a practice run for Assange's. Not only is the government using the same playbook, but the character assassins in traditional and social media are as well.

It’s a little more complicated than that... He didn’t just visit URLs, but downloaded that data, saved it, and posted it up somewhere else. Regardless of the “hacking” charge, posting people’s data is taking it too far. If he had just used it as a POC, that’d be different.

Actually the charges are 49 pages long and go all the way back to conversations from his youth when he was a minor.

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.

> 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.

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.

So this is the crux of the reason they've imprisoned and tortured him for nearly a decade is it?

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.

Assange was not tortured or imprisoned for a decade. He voluntarily entered and remained in the embassy to avoid legal criminal proceedings, and that gambit failed.

To avoid criminal charges beginning with sexual assault and rape allegations, I think, not from the US. Which may have been a tactic to extradite him before other charges but as others have said here, he is a terrible personality to have in this situation as he's polarizing and contentious at the best of time.

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.

To avoid criminal charges beginning with sexual assault and rape allegations, I think, not from the US. Which may have been a tactic to extradite him before other charges

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.

> Sweden is less likely to extradite to the US than the UK

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.

>), and Sweden is less likely to extradite to the US than the UK.

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.

Sweden had recently illegaly "renditioned" people to the US, as well as illegaly (Bodström) directed Police to seize Pirate Bay equipment.

So while things got a little better later, it looked very bleak at the time.

> Assange: passed it onto our lm guy

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...

>I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press

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...

If I'm improperly accused of sexual assault (totally innocent) I'll hear that case out instead of hiding in my man cave at a foreign embassy while still making contact with questionable foreign intelligence figures.

Ok, but what if you get accused of sexual assault, and you know that if you go into custody in that foreign country, you'll probably never go to trial, because you'll immediately be extradited to the US for trumped up espionage charges and face the death penalty? You still going to go hear that case out?

>I'll hear that case out instead of hiding in my man cave at a foreign embassy

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.

What you fail to realize is that for Assange, it would be a better outcome to go to trial and be judged guilty than innocent. If guilty he ends up in a Swedish prison, if innocent he gets extradited and gets the death penalty in the US. So his refusal to go says the opposite of what you think it does about what he considers of his chances to be judged guilty.

> I don't think you could engineer a less sympathetic character to carry the banner of freedom of speech/press

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-...

In the instance of the Manning probes and cases I can accept that he is filling the role of a journalist, he just isn't a very good one that failed to protect his sources. I can mostly accept up to the 2016 elections that he was relatively clean of any real ethical violations / legal trouble despite what journalists and the govt might say.

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.

> 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.

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.

Once again, one manages not to mention what was in the emails. Genuine emails not disinformation. I see the same attitude over and over to blame Russia in order not to address the content of the emails. So much bad faith from Clinton's supporters. I am tired of people making it look like it's comparable with the Cambridge Analytical scandal.

>Once again, one manages not to mention what was in the emails. Genuine emails not disinformation.

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?

Wow that's a very weird argument. We are not talking about the privacy of you and me but about the party apparatus conspiring to prevent Bernie Sanders from being the democratic candidate. At that point you might as well argue that the taking of the winter palace was a illegitimate because I don't know about but would you like to see your home invaded by a bunch of angry people?

Okay.

When can I stop by to take those images of your devices?

Just post your email, I'll forward that to you

>We are not talking about the privacy of you and me

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...

Dont forget about Podesta and friends

>influence US elections in a particular direction benefitting a particular party.

is this any different than Fox news or CNN's behavior.

What's gonna be the excuse when the democrats don't win in 2020? Because thinking a mail leak and some $50k in Facebook ad buys get you an election is not only absurdly stupid, it is extremely condescending towards your fellow Americans in the voting booth.

Democracy requires informed consent, and an education on the facts. A truly free people are trusted with the facts, and it is the ethical duty of journalists to provide this education, and as such Assange has acted to the highest ethical standards.

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.

People like Glenn Greenwald...

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.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4qCvxghNMo

I just view Greenwald as a more careful agitator that maintained proper distance. Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden make quite an interesting trio in the discussion of state secrets. I don’t really question Snowden+Greenwald’s legitimacy. I think Snowden is in sharp contrast to Assange who has never demonstrated any real integrity or principles other than attacking Democrats during the 2016 election. Assange and Trump are useful puppets off a hostile state or directly actors of said state. Snowden is a legitimate whistleblower and his intentions are much harder to question.

Assange: "29 year old young man in a foreign jurisdication he had no experience with, the subject of the largest intelligence man hunt the world has ever seen... at that moment, he reached out and asked us for help."

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."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVoUPnXqvNE

This the shortsightedness OP was talking about.

>election interference

Is fake news, the only real election interference is preventing people to vote.

It does sound like he was fishing for information which is different to what a leak usually is like. However, I don't see any issue with him being partisan. Why should he be any less partisan than any other journalist?