To be clear here, nothing about what I am saying is "Assange is a a good guy and should be let go." Because that certainly isn't true and he should go to jail in a variety of countries for numerous reasons. But those reasons are specific, actual crimes (like rape or coercion or conspiracy or libel) amongst probably a dozen other counts with sufficient evidence to prosecute.
While terrorism as a social construct is certainly a worthwhile term for talking about the global effect of aspects of Wikileaks's actions, the problem is when we talk about terrorism as an action we can take agency in prosecuting with. The definition is garbage, and is generally used to do either spirit people away without proper trial or too flimsy to actually make stick. Its a nebulous term in most usages with limited practicality beyond invoking politically charged coercion against a target (at least in the US, where the accusation of terrorism is socially and politically more important than actually legally making it stick).
It's interesting how the legacy of Bush's response to 9/11 informs the context of this debate, and how the people supposedly protecting us from terrorism are immunized from anything they do in the name of stopping it. In a more just world, we would be discussing the arrest and future trial of the people who lied a country into war and set the stage for hundreds of thousands of innocents dying. Instead, we are talking about the arrest and future trial of an individual by the government that did the actual invading for breaking the law while exposing war crimes.
This is disingenuously charitable.
I'm sorry, I forgot the pages of caveats about how he's a scumbag. Yes, he's a scumbag.
Do you think Assange deserves prison time more than Dick Cheney?
Do you think it’s okay to repeatedly commit crimes with no consequence so long as a single good thing is revealed? Cause you seem to keep implying that’s the case.
In this instance, I think he shouldn't be charged for reasons I explained to you a few pages back. The particulars matter, and here it's especially absurd to talk about charging him while the people responsible for the actual carnage get rehabilitated in the public sphere. If you want to conflate that with an overbroad assertion and claim I'm implying it, I can't stop you but I would ask that you not.
So, this is what I don't get. Assange has, over the course of several years, but particularly in 2016, acted in a manner to undermine the goals of the left, most likely at the behest of a right wing foreign power. In addition, there is clear evidence that he acted ghoulishly in furtherance of those goals, such as dragging the good name of a dead man through the mud to cover up his connections to said foreign power.
And yet you defend him. Why?
They are going after him in a way that threatens freedom of the press and the protections that journalists deserve when publishing government secrets.
I fear the effects of that more than I loathe Assange.
To be clear here, nothing about what I am saying is "Assange is a a good guy and should be let go." Because that certainly isn't true and he should go to jail in a variety of countries for numerous reasons. But those reasons are specific, actual crimes (like rape or coercion or conspiracy or libel) amongst probably a dozen other counts with sufficient evidence to prosecute.
While terrorism as a social construct is certainly a worthwhile term for talking about the global effect of aspects of Wikileaks's actions, the problem is when we talk about terrorism as an action we can take agency in prosecuting with. The definition is garbage, and is generally used to do either spirit people away without proper trial or too flimsy to actually make stick. Its a nebulous term in most usages with limited practicality beyond invoking politically charged coercion against a target (at least in the US, where the accusation of terrorism is socially and politically more important than actually legally making it stick).
It's interesting how the legacy of Bush's response to 9/11 informs the context of this debate, and how the people supposedly protecting us from terrorism are immunized from anything they do in the name of stopping it. In a more just world, we would be discussing the arrest and future trial of the people who lied a country into war and set the stage for hundreds of thousands of innocents dying. Instead, we are talking about the arrest and future trial of an individual by the government that did the actual invading for breaking the law while exposing war crimes.
This is disingenuously charitable.
I'm sorry, I forgot the pages of caveats about how he's a scumbag. Yes, he's a scumbag.
Do you think Assange deserves prison time more than Dick Cheney?
Do you think it’s okay to repeatedly commit crimes with no consequence so long as a single good thing is revealed? Cause you seem to keep implying that’s the case.
In this instance, I think he shouldn't be charged for reasons I explained to you a few pages back. The particulars matter, and here it's especially absurd to talk about charging him while the people responsible for the actual carnage get rehabilitated in the public sphere. If you want to conflate that with an overbroad assertion and claim I'm implying it, I can't stop you but I would ask that you not.
So, this is what I don't get. Assange has, over the course of several years, but particularly in 2016, acted in a manner to undermine the goals of the left, most likely at the behest of a right wing foreign power. In addition, there is clear evidence that he acted ghoulishly in furtherance of those goals, such as dragging the good name of a dead man through the mud to cover up his connections to said foreign power.
And yet you defend him. Why?
They are going after him in a way that threatens freedom of the press and the protections that journalists deserve when publishing government secrets.
I fear the effects of that more than I loathe Assange.
No they are not. Literally nothing about being a member of the press involves hacking closed systems with no idea what's in them.
To be clear here, nothing about what I am saying is "Assange is a a good guy and should be let go." Because that certainly isn't true and he should go to jail in a variety of countries for numerous reasons. But those reasons are specific, actual crimes (like rape or coercion or conspiracy or libel) amongst probably a dozen other counts with sufficient evidence to prosecute.
While terrorism as a social construct is certainly a worthwhile term for talking about the global effect of aspects of Wikileaks's actions, the problem is when we talk about terrorism as an action we can take agency in prosecuting with. The definition is garbage, and is generally used to do either spirit people away without proper trial or too flimsy to actually make stick. Its a nebulous term in most usages with limited practicality beyond invoking politically charged coercion against a target (at least in the US, where the accusation of terrorism is socially and politically more important than actually legally making it stick).
It's interesting how the legacy of Bush's response to 9/11 informs the context of this debate, and how the people supposedly protecting us from terrorism are immunized from anything they do in the name of stopping it. In a more just world, we would be discussing the arrest and future trial of the people who lied a country into war and set the stage for hundreds of thousands of innocents dying. Instead, we are talking about the arrest and future trial of an individual by the government that did the actual invading for breaking the law while exposing war crimes.
This is disingenuously charitable.
I'm sorry, I forgot the pages of caveats about how he's a scumbag. Yes, he's a scumbag.
Do you think Assange deserves prison time more than Dick Cheney?
Do you think it’s okay to repeatedly commit crimes with no consequence so long as a single good thing is revealed? Cause you seem to keep implying that’s the case.
In this instance, I think he shouldn't be charged for reasons I explained to you a few pages back. The particulars matter, and here it's especially absurd to talk about charging him while the people responsible for the actual carnage get rehabilitated in the public sphere. If you want to conflate that with an overbroad assertion and claim I'm implying it, I can't stop you but I would ask that you not.
So, this is what I don't get. Assange has, over the course of several years, but particularly in 2016, acted in a manner to undermine the goals of the left, most likely at the behest of a right wing foreign power. In addition, there is clear evidence that he acted ghoulishly in furtherance of those goals, such as dragging the good name of a dead man through the mud to cover up his connections to said foreign power.
And yet you defend him. Why?
They are going after him in a way that threatens freedom of the press and the protections that journalists deserve when publishing government secrets.
I fear the effects of that more than I loathe Assange.
No they are not. Literally nothing about being a member of the press involves hacking closed systems with no idea what's in them.
Furthermore, the main reason that, at this point, Assange is being conflated with a journalist is because the left continues to conflate him as such. Looking at his behavior, it's pretty clear that he was never a journalist in the first place - why keep treating him as such.
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
On phone but Dustin Volz is a reporter for WaPo:
Former spox for Seth Rich’s family issues statement after Mueller showed Wikileaks chatting with Russian hackers after Rich had died:
“Yesterday’s report proved (Assange) is a monster, not a journalist, and I hope that’s not lost in the ongoing debate around his recent arrest.”
Whether or not he's a journalist, his prosecution in this manner affects journalists.
While the charge against Assange relates to the alleged conspiracy to hack a password, the language of the indictment sweeps in a broad range of legally protected and common journalistic activity.
Count 20 of the indictment states, "It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States." The indictment goes on to characterize a number of journalistic practices as part of a criminal conspiracy, including use of a secure message service, use of a cloud-based drop box, and efforts to cover Manning's tracks.
The cultivation of sources and the use of encryption and other means to protect those sources are essential to investigative journalism. While the government may include these details to show intent or to describe the means and context for the alleged criminal action, they seem to go beyond what is necessary. Barton Gellman, who led The Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on the Snowden documents, told CPJ, "If asking questions and protecting a source are cast as circumstantial evidence of guilt, we'll be crossing a dangerous line."
"A lot of the way the crime is described here could be applied to other journalists," Wizner, at the ACLU, told CPJ. "If the government wanted to just target the attempted intrusion, they could have written a very different complaint."
...
While reporters do not conspire to decrypt passwords, they are often aware of, and might actively discuss with sources, activities that could fall under the broad frame of "unauthorized access." As the Cato Institute's Julian Sanchez wrote on Twitter, "The way 'helping to hack' is being charged is as a conspiracy to violate 18 USC §1030 (a)(1) [of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]. And good reporters conspire with their sources to do that constantly."
"For almost every reporter working with a source, the source is providing information in digital form. Anyone who is working with a source who obtained that info in a way that they weren't supposed to has a CFAA risk," Cohn said. She added that any journalists who don't think there are broader press freedom implications to the Assange prosecution are "whistling past the graveyard."
Context matters. There is a fair amount of overlap in the practices of investigative journalism and espionage. Something that is innocuous in connection with legal activity (say, shredding documents) can become illegal in and of itself when done in connection with a crime.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2019
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
Unfortunately, he has made this our problem.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom. Trump's DOJ is now going after him not for publishing (for now), but doing so in a way that criminalizes common journalistic practices. Pompeo and Sessions recognized that targeting an utter garbage person would forestall a lot of the American reflexive defense of a free press. They were right! It sucks that he put us in this position, but that's where we are.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
You and I don't always agree, but when we do holy shit
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should be audited for attempts at using it as a surrogate for other crimes
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom. Trump's DOJ is now going after him not for publishing (for now), but doing so in a way that criminalizes common journalistic practices. Pompeo and Sessions recognized that targeting an utter garbage person would forestall a lot of the American reflexive defense of a free press. They were right! It sucks that he put us in this position, but that's where we are.
No, the Obama DoJ didn't prosecute because habeas corpus is in the Constitution - we don't do trials in absentia in the US as a matter of law.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom. Trump's DOJ is now going after him not for publishing (for now), but doing so in a way that criminalizes common journalistic practices. Pompeo and Sessions recognized that targeting an utter garbage person would forestall a lot of the American reflexive defense of a free press. They were right! It sucks that he put us in this position, but that's where we are.
No, the Obama DoJ didn't prosecute because habeas corpus is in the Constitution - we don't do trials in absentia in the US as a matter of law.
Trial? I said "Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom". That's what happened:
The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.
The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.
The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information — such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning — with violations of the Espionage Act. But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
And instead of focusing the charges in a way that would only affect Assange, they go after him in a way that criminalizes how the press obtains its information. Hence the concern from actual journalists.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
And instead of focusing the charges in a way that would only affect Assange, they go after him in a way that criminalizes how the press obtains its information. Hence the concern from actual journalists.
The press doesn't obtain information via hacking.
+25
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
And instead of focusing the charges in a way that would only affect Assange, they go after him in a way that criminalizes how the press obtains its information. Hence the concern from actual journalists.
If we took the group of people who went to bat for Fox News and Brietbart/Infowars and the group of people who are now going to bat for Assange, wonder what the overlap on these "actual journalists" would be.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
And instead of focusing the charges in a way that would only affect Assange, they go after him in a way that criminalizes how the press obtains its information. Hence the concern from actual journalists.
They charged him for trying to crack a password.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
If we do allow journos the power to hack into systems without any reservations, kind of feels like we're supporting vigilantism.
This kind of feels like we're supporting lawlessness as long as it takes place on computers.
If a journalist torched a building to get information then arson becomes akin to journalism too.
There is a stark difference between a journalist passively accepting illegally obtained information and a journalist actively committing crimes to obtain information. Optimator you continue to promote the latter.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom. Trump's DOJ is now going after him not for publishing (for now), but doing so in a way that criminalizes common journalistic practices. Pompeo and Sessions recognized that targeting an utter garbage person would forestall a lot of the American reflexive defense of a free press. They were right! It sucks that he put us in this position, but that's where we are.
No, the Obama DoJ didn't prosecute because habeas corpus is in the Constitution - we don't do trials in absentia in the US as a matter of law.
Trial? I said "Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom". That's what happened:
The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.
The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.
The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information — such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst (redacted) Manning — with violations of the Espionage Act. But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.
"little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents."
Assange should not be prosecuted for publishing the documents, nor for refusing to say where he got them. That doesn't mean he gets a free ride on other things related to them.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
No, he engaged in assisting 'access without authorisation' to information, which is also how the press obtains its information.
Really, the underlying law needs to be amended.
It should look at whether effective security controls were bypassed to obtain access, rather than whether the holder of the information did not want the information viewed.
If a whistleblower stumbles on an incriminating document in the normal course of their work and then gives it to the press, they should not be found to have committed a crime just because they didn't ask their boss for permission first.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
No, he engaged in assisting 'access without authorisation' to information, which is also how the press obtains its information.
Really, the underlying law needs to be amended.
It should look at whether effective security controls were bypassed to obtain access, rather than whether the holder of the information did not want the information viewed.
If a whistleblower stumbles on an incriminating document in the normal course of their work and then gives it to the press, they should not be found to have committed a crime just because they didn't ask their boss for permission first.
Hacking.
That is quite literally the primary use of hacking.
Social engineering your way into a system doesn't make your access any less illegal. And if they give out classified intel, yes that should be a crime.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Until we're all on our asses the slippery slope stuff should probably stuff. Message received on the concerns; the next step is waiting to see what happens with the passage of time.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah if we start to qualify what Assange did as legal for journalism than anyone who steals your identity can use the same defense.
The "if you wanted your personal information so bad you should've done more to stop me from stealing it" defense is a fantastic legal precedent we're looking to set here.
Yeah, batshit crazy to argue that journalism needs hacking to be legal. Like what the fuck do you think journalists did to get information before the internet? Seriously, they don't need to hack anything to do their fucking job. I will tell you where this asinine idea leads. If it's okay to hack the government, why not anyone else because the argument will be "I should be fucking allowed to do it because if I believe there is a story, by god I should be allowed to pursue it regardless of their rights to privacy." Don't tell me that's just a slippery slope, you make hacking like that legal and that's what Fox News, info wars & the other rightwing propaganda networks that masquerade as journalism, will use to go after anyone they deem as a threat to their causes.
We keep that shit illegal so that the shitheads can't have a field day with it. Just like we don't allow someone claim they have a right to breaking and entering into the homes of people they deem newsworthy, as a defense for breaking and entering.
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Trying to call hacking "access without authorization" reminds me of when the Bush admin said they weren't torturing, they were using "enhanced interrogation."
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
Seems like that can be abused with inflated jail times and should be really closely regulated. I don't consider Assange's violation of the law to be anywhere close to Manning's, and sentencing should reflect that. RICO is a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, it is helpful to know that if someone is trying to get data obtained by illegal means for you to report, don't help them do anything at all. Just take the flash drive at most and skedaddle
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
Seems like that can be abused with inflated jail times and should be really closely regulated. I don't consider Assange's violation of the law to be anywhere close to Manning's, and sentencing should reflect that. RICO is a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, it is helpful to know that if someone is trying to get data obtained by illegal means for you to report, don't help them do anything at all. Just take the flash drive at most and skedaddle
It can be abused, but it more often allows for "kingpins" who don't technically do anything illegal to receive jailtime commensurate with their actions. You know, like Assange.
Basically, it stomps the shit out of rules lawyering the entire justice system. Again, like Assange.
Trying to call hacking "access without authorization" reminds me of when the Bush admin said they weren't torturing, they were using "enhanced interrogation."
Like it or not, access without authorisation is the language used in the law that Assange is being charged with.
So that's the US government calling hacking that, not me.
That it might cover most any whistleblowing activity, and thus any journalistic activity where that journalist is advising their anonymous source on not being outed, has little to do with what Assange actually did.
The law is too broad, and journalists are right in being concerned in the manner it is being applied here, as it is easily translatable to their own work.
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
Seems like that can be abused with inflated jail times and should be really closely regulated. I don't consider Assange's violation of the law to be anywhere close to Manning's, and sentencing should reflect that. RICO is a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, it is helpful to know that if someone is trying to get data obtained by illegal means for you to report, don't help them do anything at all. Just take the flash drive at most and skedaddle
It can be abused, but it more often allows for "kingpins" who don't technically do anything illegal to receive jailtime commensurate with their actions. You know, like Assange.
Basically, it stomps the shit out of rules lawyering the entire justice system. Again, like Assange.
Julian Assange isn't some Mafia don and his relationship with his sources is spontaneous. If that doesn't count for something, we're in a pickle
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
Seems like that can be abused with inflated jail times and should be really closely regulated. I don't consider Assange's violation of the law to be anywhere close to Manning's, and sentencing should reflect that. RICO is a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, it is helpful to know that if someone is trying to get data obtained by illegal means for you to report, don't help them do anything at all. Just take the flash drive at most and skedaddle
It can be abused, but it more often allows for "kingpins" who don't technically do anything illegal to receive jailtime commensurate with their actions. You know, like Assange.
Basically, it stomps the shit out of rules lawyering the entire justice system. Again, like Assange.
Julian Assange isn't some Mafia don and his relationship with his sources is spontaneous. If that doesn't count for something, we're in a pickle
Nope.
He is a puppet of Russian fascists and is using leaks to form a narrative.
He's as close to a modern day Goebbels as we're gonna get.
+14
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
Seems like that can be abused with inflated jail times and should be really closely regulated. I don't consider Assange's violation of the law to be anywhere close to Manning's, and sentencing should reflect that. RICO is a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, it is helpful to know that if someone is trying to get data obtained by illegal means for you to report, don't help them do anything at all. Just take the flash drive at most and skedaddle
It can be abused, but it more often allows for "kingpins" who don't technically do anything illegal to receive jailtime commensurate with their actions. You know, like Assange.
Basically, it stomps the shit out of rules lawyering the entire justice system. Again, like Assange.
Julian Assange isn't some Mafia don and his relationship with his sources is spontaneous. If that doesn't count for something, we're in a pickle
Nope.
He is a puppet of Russian fascists and is using leaks to form a narrative.
He's as close to a modern day Goebbels as we're gonna get.
Don’t say that too loudly Stephen Miller might get jealous
There isn’t any necessity to involve RICO in this case, as far as I can tell the accusation is that his assistance was direct and in direct furtherance of the crime
fuck gendered marketing
+11
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's a pretty weak charge. I can't find the specifics, but conspiring to assist a government employee to extract sensitive information illegally may be something like:
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
Seems like that can be abused with inflated jail times and should be really closely regulated. I don't consider Assange's violation of the law to be anywhere close to Manning's, and sentencing should reflect that. RICO is a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, it is helpful to know that if someone is trying to get data obtained by illegal means for you to report, don't help them do anything at all. Just take the flash drive at most and skedaddle
It can be abused, but it more often allows for "kingpins" who don't technically do anything illegal to receive jailtime commensurate with their actions. You know, like Assange.
Basically, it stomps the shit out of rules lawyering the entire justice system. Again, like Assange.
Julian Assange isn't some Mafia don and his relationship with his sources is spontaneous. If that doesn't count for something, we're in a pickle
Nope.
He is a puppet of Russian fascists and is using leaks to form a narrative.
He's as close to a modern day Goebbels as we're gonna get.
Don’t say that too loudly Stephen Miller might get jealous
There isn’t any necessity to involve RICO in this case, as far as I can tell the accusation is that his assistance was direct and in direct furtherance of the crime
Yeah, it was more of a response to the "Well he didn't personally do it" sentiment. That kind of thing was why it was difficult to take out mob bosses 100 years ago.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
No, he engaged in assisting 'access without authorisation' to information, which is also how the press obtains its information.
Really, the underlying law needs to be amended.
It should look at whether effective security controls were bypassed to obtain access, rather than whether the holder of the information did not want the information viewed.
If a whistleblower stumbles on an incriminating document in the normal course of their work and then gives it to the press, they should not be found to have committed a crime just because they didn't ask their boss for permission first.
If its common journalistic practice to conspire to commit crimes in the act of reporting then maybe it should not be. Before the internet journalists did not conspire to break into buildings in order to get stories and I dont see they have to now.
If this legal action against Assange threatens the concept of the press maybe he should've fucking thought of that before masquerading as a member of said press in his pursuit of fame and glory / grinding a metaphorical axe against political enemies of his.
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Yes, he engaged in hacking which is a crime and not how the press obtains its information.
No, he engaged in assisting 'access without authorisation' to information, which is also how the press obtains its information.
Really, the underlying law needs to be amended.
It should look at whether effective security controls were bypassed to obtain access, rather than whether the holder of the information did not want the information viewed.
If a whistleblower stumbles on an incriminating document in the normal course of their work and then gives it to the press, they should not be found to have committed a crime just because they didn't ask their boss for permission first.
If its common journalistic practice to conspire to commit crimes in the act of reporting then maybe it should not be. Before the internet journalists did not conspire to break into buildings in order to get stories and I dont see they have to now.
The law does not distinguish between hacking and insiders accessing documents that their bosses do not want them to see.
So yes, it should not be a crime to perform normal journalistic practices, and the law should be changed so this is so.
Specifically ""The way 'helping to hack' is being charged is as a conspiracy to violate 18 USC §1030 (a)(1) [of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]."
Posts
They are going after him in a way that threatens freedom of the press and the protections that journalists deserve when publishing government secrets.
I fear the effects of that more than I loathe Assange.
No they are not. Literally nothing about being a member of the press involves hacking closed systems with no idea what's in them.
Furthermore, the main reason that, at this point, Assange is being conflated with a journalist is because the left continues to conflate him as such. Looking at his behavior, it's pretty clear that he was never a journalist in the first place - why keep treating him as such.
Former spox for Seth Rich’s family issues statement after Mueller showed Wikileaks chatting with Russian hackers after Rich had died:
“Yesterday’s report proved (Assange) is a monster, not a journalist, and I hope that’s not lost in the ongoing debate around his recent arrest.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/dnvolz/status/1119287571597680640
Fuck Assange, and fuck anyone still trying to carry water for him, left or right.
Committee to Protect Journalists - Why the prosecution of Julian Assange is troubling for press freedom
- John Stuart Mill
Edit - To be more clear, Assange doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only himself.
Unfortunately, he has made this our problem.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's a reason they're going after Assange instead of a respected journalist.
Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom. Trump's DOJ is now going after him not for publishing (for now), but doing so in a way that criminalizes common journalistic practices. Pompeo and Sessions recognized that targeting an utter garbage person would forestall a lot of the American reflexive defense of a free press. They were right! It sucks that he put us in this position, but that's where we are.
You and I don't always agree, but when we do holy shit
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No, the Obama DoJ didn't prosecute because habeas corpus is in the Constitution - we don't do trials in absentia in the US as a matter of law.
Trial? I said "Obama's DOJ declined to prosecute on publishing because of the effect it would have on press freedom". That's what happened:
And instead of focusing the charges in a way that would only affect Assange, they go after him in a way that criminalizes how the press obtains its information. Hence the concern from actual journalists.
The press doesn't obtain information via hacking.
If we took the group of people who went to bat for Fox News and Brietbart/Infowars and the group of people who are now going to bat for Assange, wonder what the overlap on these "actual journalists" would be.
They charged him for trying to crack a password.
This kind of feels like we're supporting lawlessness as long as it takes place on computers.
There is a stark difference between a journalist passively accepting illegally obtained information and a journalist actively committing crimes to obtain information. Optimator you continue to promote the latter.
I'm going to pull a quote out here.
"little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents."
Assange should not be prosecuted for publishing the documents, nor for refusing to say where he got them. That doesn't mean he gets a free ride on other things related to them.
No, he engaged in assisting 'access without authorisation' to information, which is also how the press obtains its information.
Really, the underlying law needs to be amended.
It should look at whether effective security controls were bypassed to obtain access, rather than whether the holder of the information did not want the information viewed.
If a whistleblower stumbles on an incriminating document in the normal course of their work and then gives it to the press, they should not be found to have committed a crime just because they didn't ask their boss for permission first.
Hacking.
That is quite literally the primary use of hacking.
Social engineering your way into a system doesn't make your access any less illegal. And if they give out classified intel, yes that should be a crime.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The "if you wanted your personal information so bad you should've done more to stop me from stealing it" defense is a fantastic legal precedent we're looking to set here.
We keep that shit illegal so that the shitheads can't have a field day with it. Just like we don't allow someone claim they have a right to breaking and entering into the homes of people they deem newsworthy, as a defense for breaking and entering.
"I've been trying to guess my supervisor's password to access the main restricted folders but am running out of potential tries."
"Uh, how about their anniversary?"
Does that deserve five years in prison? Five months? A week? Some fine?
Only one of the people in this conspiracy was trusted with this information, lied to the people that trusted them, and had the access to do the illegal stuff.
I think Julian Assange may have done something illegal, but if his sentence is harsher than Manning's, something is up.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Trying to guess a supervisors password is the same thing as remoting in to a computer and guessing someones password.
Both carry pretty hefty jailtimes, as they should.
And yeah, accessory/RICO charges are a bitch, ain't they?
Seems like that can be abused with inflated jail times and should be really closely regulated. I don't consider Assange's violation of the law to be anywhere close to Manning's, and sentencing should reflect that. RICO is a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, it is helpful to know that if someone is trying to get data obtained by illegal means for you to report, don't help them do anything at all. Just take the flash drive at most and skedaddle
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It can be abused, but it more often allows for "kingpins" who don't technically do anything illegal to receive jailtime commensurate with their actions. You know, like Assange.
Basically, it stomps the shit out of rules lawyering the entire justice system. Again, like Assange.
Like it or not, access without authorisation is the language used in the law that Assange is being charged with.
So that's the US government calling hacking that, not me.
That it might cover most any whistleblowing activity, and thus any journalistic activity where that journalist is advising their anonymous source on not being outed, has little to do with what Assange actually did.
The law is too broad, and journalists are right in being concerned in the manner it is being applied here, as it is easily translatable to their own work.
Julian Assange isn't some Mafia don and his relationship with his sources is spontaneous. If that doesn't count for something, we're in a pickle
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Nope.
He is a puppet of Russian fascists and is using leaks to form a narrative.
He's as close to a modern day Goebbels as we're gonna get.
Don’t say that too loudly Stephen Miller might get jealous
There isn’t any necessity to involve RICO in this case, as far as I can tell the accusation is that his assistance was direct and in direct furtherance of the crime
Yeah, it was more of a response to the "Well he didn't personally do it" sentiment. That kind of thing was why it was difficult to take out mob bosses 100 years ago.
If its common journalistic practice to conspire to commit crimes in the act of reporting then maybe it should not be. Before the internet journalists did not conspire to break into buildings in order to get stories and I dont see they have to now.
- John Stuart Mill
The law does not distinguish between hacking and insiders accessing documents that their bosses do not want them to see.
So yes, it should not be a crime to perform normal journalistic practices, and the law should be changed so this is so.
Specifically ""The way 'helping to hack' is being charged is as a conspiracy to violate 18 USC §1030 (a)(1) [of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]."