The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal).
It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.
In short, Manning told Assange she could access a military filing cabinet, and was going to go remove all the documents in them to leak to Assange. Before leaving, she asked Assange if he had some gloves to hide her fingerprints. He said he'd check, and Manning left to grab the documents.
Would you consider Assange's actions there to cross the line of journalism?
The journalist in your example should not be accessory to a crime.
If Manning asked for gloves to hide her fingerprints, Assange should have answered "send me the documents when you have them, but I can't help you hiding your fingerprints"
If you imagine the hack being another crime, maybe it's clearer.
Imagine Manning told Assange she could get the files but in order to get them she had to kill the guards at the door and asked Assange if he had a gun.
Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help
A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations.
I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar.
The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.
Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars.
Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
What Assange is accused of is not that.
> Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
It doesn't.
Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that.
Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent.
Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints)
Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.
I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote.
I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of!
Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car"
The crime is not driving, is helping other criminals to commit the crime.
Which is what Assange is accused of. He's not accused of running hashcat.
Even if he did the decryption with pen and paper and failed he would be an "accessory to the crime" (allegedly, because he's only accused of doing it)
To put it in other words, he is accused of being
> a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime.
Regardless of the crime, the simple fact that he (allegedly) helped is a crime.
> Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car"
Driving in a bank robbery is different to basically just doing some calculations. It might be a crime but it should not be one. Regardless though I would claim that even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.
Doing some calculations is doing some calculations
Driving for bank robbers or doing some calculations for the mob can be a crime, if driving or doing calculations was helping them to commit a crime and you knew it.
> even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.
That's your opinion.
I'm not saying you are wrong in principle, but that's not how law works.
My opinion __is not__ that Assange should have refused to help Mannings, Assange is an adult, he can chose to do whatever he wants.
What I'm saying is that Assange should have refused to be accessory to a crime.
Journalists are protected when they receive classified informations, even if obtained illegaly, as long as the journalist didn’t do anything illegal
He knew he was helping with something illegal (at least he should have known) and that by doing it he would lose the kind of protections guaranteed to the press.
These two are literally the same thing.
Sorry if I insist on this, but helping != being accessory to a crime.
You can help in many ways, most of them are not crimes.
If I ask you to help me to set on fire the car of someone who harassed my girlfriend and you say "I can't" you are not refusing to help, you are refusing to commit a crime in order to help me. You might help in other ways like saying "please, don't do this".
Because "stating the obvious" is rarely a productive mode of discussion. People are trying to discuss the nuance of the topic, but you have a very hard-lined view that leaves little room to actually discuss anything.
I've read "Dei delitti e delle pene" (on crimes and punishments) from Cesare Beccaria many times.
I truly believe what Montesquieu said "every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical"
That's why I also believe that justice means letting the judicial system do its job and prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty or let him go.
We can discuss about what we believe is right or wrong, but that won't change the reasons why Assange is being prosecuted.
It's up to the court now to prove him guilty or declare him an innocent man.
When I say I'm stating the obvious I'm not expressing any opinion on Assange's actions, I'm only saying what are the charges.
We can agree or disagree with them, but we can't undo what's already happened.
He's accused of allegedly helping Mannings to commit a crime.
That's all I've said.
A crime still isn't just a crime though. A less ambiguous example, unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime, yet no journalist has been charged for it.
"I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime).
What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant.
The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequence doesn't make it legal.
A crime is a crime by the law, the court has to decide if you either committed it or not (regardless if you did it for real, if the court can prove you did it, you did it).
That doesn't mean that killing a baby and downloading an episode of a TV show illegally is the same thing, it means that if I helped you to download the content and you are accused of downloading that content and the court can prove it, I am accessory to the crime even if people routinely get by.
> unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime
Are you referring to this?
> Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.
Unless you are just immediately releasing all documents you receive unedited, you will have to retain them for a period first.
Would a journalist raided the second before he could click publish be committing a crime, while a second later he would not be committing a crime and have never been committing a crime.
I'm not American, but I think that two points are relevant to the discussion
- few people in American history have been prosecuted for leaking classified documents, the most simple explanation is that it would mean revealing even more classified documents during the trial
- journalist can’t be punished for publishing info that was obtained illegally, as long as the journalist didn’t do anything illegal
Assange is accused of helping the leaker to obtain the documents illegally, which is illegal.
I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what DOJ is charging him with.
I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say.
I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism.
Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).
In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.
> as the watchdogs of government.
More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.
The second part, I won't disagree.
Your right to privacy conflicts with the State's desire for surveillance, your right for self-defence can clear your of charges of manslaughter, and depending on exact circumstances the judge will decide if your actions were justified or if you belong in jail.
Not really, we have judges at the level of the magistrates to apply laws based on the precedents set in higher courts, not based on their own feelings of what the law should be.
There are legal tests that need to be applied - in your example about murder and surgery the definition of murder requires intent. As we know from cases like Shipman, a surgery can be murder, but it’s not for the judge to decide that arbitrarily, it’s for a judge to apply case law.
A district judge is not a one person jury!
And, no doubt the celebrity's supporters would argue that he'd crossed the line from journalism to hacking as well.
If Assange were a Russian holed up in Belarus being extradited to Russia for uncovering Russian war crimes by cracking password hashes I really wonder how many people here would still be arguing that he "crossed the line".
My guess is precisely zero, and any Russians who did so would be mocked and accused of being shills.
Additionally in the eyes of the law, hacking a celebrity does not bring a higher punishment than hacking a nation state, despite its good intentions and the public interest of the released information.
And he isn't accused of "helping to protect an intelligence source", because that's not a crime. One claim raised by the prosecution is that Assange was sent hashes and ran them against a rainbow table in an attempt to provide assistance to manning in order to grant further access to confidential government systems.
If this claim is true or not, we don't know because it hasn't gone to court yet, but the accusation is more than "just protecting a source".
And personally I think there should be an exception to releasing documents that show government wrongdoing which means it isn't illegal - however this is not codified in law.
Hacking and computer sabotage.... really? You call that justice? It is not and the UK jurisdiction remains a joke. A posh joke, but a joke nonetheless.
Please... as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
> as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
The comment you're responding to did not make either of these claims.
I fully support Assange FYI, but at the same time I think he possibly broke laws while doing his (incredibly important) work, or at least there would be enough ambiguity around law to bring a case to the crown court (remember this is the magistrates).
Was it ever proved that he did? There was some non-committal talk quoted, but nothing beyond that?
You also say "for example" - are there any other credible allegations that Assange "crossed the line"?
No, which is why in the judgment every reference to a supposed attempt of "cracking a hash" is preceded by "alleged".
There is no proven accusation because Assange hasn't gone to trial, which is the part of the process where that standard applies.
The credible allegation part is the indictment handed down from a federal grand jury; this is the 'probable cause' standard.
What I meant was rather: has there been made any credible/sensible accusation for him being involved in hacking? Because while the drivel made it through the grand jury, it's still a vague answer without any allegations of follow-up. Could I help you crack a password hash? Sure, maybe I could. Am I now conspiring to hack into a military network? I rather think not. And that's even though you have my offer in writing.
edit: added 'allegedly' as his guilt or innocence is not evaluated