The fact that we use secure tools that can technically assist in hacking activities because they have inherent precautions against government oversight is not clearly dealt with in the CFAA, and previous CFAA charges take advantage of this to inflate charges with use of standard software practices that sound nefarious on paper.
Again, context matters. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin, and no harm done. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin that I used to make a bunch of insider stock trades, and I can get up to 20 years for destruction of records.
A bunch of stuff in the indictment is unrelated to the charge of trying to crack a password and cannot be distinguished from things an actual journalist would do in a similar situation, like use a private cloud server and redact the source's username from leaked documents. The fact that these are used as justification of conspiracy appears to be a deterrent for actual journalists to use these tools in the future.
As an exercise, imagine that you are a bad actor trying to frame an actual journalist as a conspirator to hack into a classified government database. Does anything in this indictment look vague or broad enough to be palatable to your objective?
That "stuff" is the concealment of relevant information in an attempt to make any investigation into the crime more difficult. If they had been conspiring only to release documents that Manning had legitimate access to, then it wouldn't have been a problem. Conspiring to do something illegal and/or impede the investigation of that crime is.
This is also what "actual" journalists do though. That "stuff" is protecting your source and them protecting themselves.
Many journalists use Signal for this purpose. Anonymity and no records is a condition for many sources to even come out.
If many journalists use signal in order to conspire to commit crimes perhaps they should not. Using signal for a legal purpose (acquire and discuss legally or illegally obtained documents) is not a crime. Its only when youre using it in furtherance of illegally obtaining the documents that it is
Journalists routinely ask for or indicate they are open to more information and help whistleblowers set up safe and anonymous ways to leak. Inevitably they also discuss the actual acts committed and may "assist in the crime" or whatever. But Signal doesn't allow you to retroactively safe conversations that may contain the crime bit only anyway.
But if the legal stuff is "relevant information" and therefore deletion of it should be considered impeding the investigation then it doesn't matter. You've labelled legal journalistic practices as crimes by association. (The stuff under discussion is what Paladin mentioned.)
No. I am not doing that i am trying to explain how that assumption is incorrect. I am doing this using analogy and legal argument.
To be clear. Charging a crime requires eatablishing the elements of the crime. Each element in and of itself or even taken together may not be criminal. But they show that there is enough evidence of the actual crime in order to charge. The classic examples are “means, motive, and opportunity”. And just as the classic defense is “yea i hated him but i didnt kill him” you need to support all three and have a belief they did the act.
In Assanges case you need to prove they were communicating because the communication is required for a conspiracy. (Without it Assange could not have help Manning and so conspiracy could not occur). But just like hating someone, owning a weapon, and being in the vincinty of a murder are not illegal either apart or together; communicating between assange and manning was not illegal either apart or together from the actual acts. Only the fact that the communication was in furtherance of commiting a crime is. But just like a prosecutor needs to show that a person had possession of a weapon, had motive, and was around at the time of a murder in order to charge them, despite all three of those things being legal taking together, because without any one of them the crime could not have occured; a prosecutor also has to show that assange and manning were communicating and the manner in which they were doing so in order to show that there was conspiracy.
If journalists are “assisting in the crime” then they should not be because that is criminal! They cease to be a journalist at that point and become a vigilante.
I don't really disagree with you much, I understand perfectly well how the law works and this was not the point I was trying to make. I'm not going of the case itself here, just the implications of what Knuckledragger was saying. But the fact that the prosecution requires the communication is irrelevant to the question of whether deleting communication is solo criminally impeding the investigation. The point (I think) Paladin was making is that deleting logs and usernames to conceal the identity of the source (the alleged manner (19) in the conspiracy) is regular journalistic practice. Using it as evidence in this case of intent to cover up crime or saying it is impeding the investigation seems like exactly the kind of thing people are concerned about.
(That said I don't really care if it's vigilantism to uncover crimes and abuse by corporations and governments. Helping someone figure out a way to safely and securely obtain information in the public interest might be a crime, but I fail to see how that means it shouldn't be done or that journalists should be prosecuted for it.)
It's a regular journalistic practice when you are engaged in regular journalism. When you get involved in a conspiracy to hack into someone's computer, it is no longer a regular journalistic practice. Or are you trying to argue that the attempts to hide Manning's identity is completely divorced from the hacking attempts.
Is that how the legal precedent that gets established will work?
Attempting to hack in to systems and covering it up is already illegal. It would not set a new precedent.
Penalties for covering up another person's hacking attempt probably would; at least that is not covered by the CFAA.
What is covered is conspiracy, though curiously, the charge of conspiracy is accompanied by no penalty under the law. See for yourself. In 18 U.S. Code § 1030(b), conspiracy is specifically mentioned, and (c) refers to a penalty, but if you search down the subheadings of (c), no reference to (b) exists. Interesting.
Whether I'm right or wrong, you have to be very careful separating which is conspiracy and which is "I received a secure stolen file containing government information."
Because you know some zealous government agent is going to overstep these bounds
It continually references section (a) because that is where the offenses are defined. It's fairly clearly written (for legalese) that conspiring to commit an offense under (a) garners the same penalty as directly committing the offense, which is bog standard for conspiracy offenses.
If that's the interpretation, then conspiracy to hack is a serious weighted charge with a prison sentence of up to 20 years and a lot the stuff in the indictment is wrongfully misleading. All mention of activities not specifically related to the password cracking attempt - especially the removal of Manning's username from produced leaked docs - make me more worried for abuse.
All mention of activities not specifically related to the hacking attempt occur outside the list of Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy; they establish the nature of the conspiracy, but are not part of the criminal charges.
That doesn't seem right, because the only reason to include these in the manners and means of the conspiracy is as proof of the conspiracy. A conspiracy to illegally obtain data from the federal government is different from an attempt to unscramble a password.
No, it can also be included to describe the conspiracy. A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. It can also cover illegal means towards an otherwise legal goal. That they took steps to conceal Manning's identity isn't the problem, nor is Assange's release of the information, but they are both inextricably linked to the hacking attempt, so they are both going to be noted in any description of the overall conspiracy.
Which hacking attempt are you talking about? The one Manning did that succeeded, or the one Assange did that one time with the password?
I am referring to attempting to crack the password. Legally speaking, he should be on the hook for all the 18 USC 1030 violations Manning made after he started encouraging her to provide more information, but he isn't being charged for that.
That's a scary thing to say - if you do something like tell your source "you're doing good work," that earns you up to 20 years?
At any rate, a lot of the indictment does not pertain to any process involving the cracked password. These methods pertain to the disclosure of classified documents, and if Assange isn't being charged with conspiracy in all of Manning's hacks, those shouldn't be there.
My argument is that the charge of trying to crack one password is being used as a wedge to fit every violation by Manning on Assange and cement a spymaster/spy relationship. You could easily use this tactic against a legitimate journalist receiving information from someone breaking the law by copying and pasting most of the manners and means of the conspiracy into a charge that because you coordinated a file transfer via chat, used dropbox to upload and hold the file, and redacted the informant's name from the published file.
A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. Well, someone in any hack based leak is already committing illegal behavior, so if you use technological tools to make it easier for them to report to you securely, how is that not aiding and abetting their illegal activity?
If this court case is about Assange's lone password crack attempt, then I'm getting worried for nothing. But if any redaction he did, cloud storage he used, or communication he had that isn't directly related to the crack attempt is brought up, especially if the case is made that he's liable for everything Manning did, then we'll see how prosecution moves trial goalposts to make any reporting of illegally obtained government data against the law. So watch for that.
He wasn't just telling his source "you're doing good work," nor is that why he is being charged (and by this point, you should very well know that is not the case).
I know he made a cryptic statement that he shouldn't have, which in my opinion stops short of clear encouragement, or at least a request for more work, and it would be fishy to link Assange to all of Manning's illegal activities.
But you're right, that isn't what this indictment and trial should be about. Im just worried that lines are being blurred between what I'd call journalistic activities and espionage / hacking activities, and we should make every effort to clarify the distinction.
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.
The way I read conspiracy, the parties have to both actively plan the crime (whilst at least one has to carry it out), and so the password cracking is the evidence that Assange was working/planning to further the crime, rather than just receiving information from the crime.
Or at least I hope that's how the charge is structured; the communication method would be largely irrelevant then though?
I stopped being able to follow this, so I stopped replying previously
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I'm a bit confused by where we are. Are we saying Julian Assange was cheating on his taxes? Or are we saying that the US is going after him for a crime they can convict (hacking) so they don't have to worry about the first amendment.
The fact that we use secure tools that can technically assist in hacking activities because they have inherent precautions against government oversight is not clearly dealt with in the CFAA, and previous CFAA charges take advantage of this to inflate charges with use of standard software practices that sound nefarious on paper.
Again, context matters. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin, and no harm done. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin that I used to make a bunch of insider stock trades, and I can get up to 20 years for destruction of records.
A bunch of stuff in the indictment is unrelated to the charge of trying to crack a password and cannot be distinguished from things an actual journalist would do in a similar situation, like use a private cloud server and redact the source's username from leaked documents. The fact that these are used as justification of conspiracy appears to be a deterrent for actual journalists to use these tools in the future.
As an exercise, imagine that you are a bad actor trying to frame an actual journalist as a conspirator to hack into a classified government database. Does anything in this indictment look vague or broad enough to be palatable to your objective?
That "stuff" is the concealment of relevant information in an attempt to make any investigation into the crime more difficult. If they had been conspiring only to release documents that Manning had legitimate access to, then it wouldn't have been a problem. Conspiring to do something illegal and/or impede the investigation of that crime is.
This is also what "actual" journalists do though. That "stuff" is protecting your source and them protecting themselves.
Many journalists use Signal for this purpose. Anonymity and no records is a condition for many sources to even come out.
If many journalists use signal in order to conspire to commit crimes perhaps they should not. Using signal for a legal purpose (acquire and discuss legally or illegally obtained documents) is not a crime. Its only when youre using it in furtherance of illegally obtaining the documents that it is
Journalists routinely ask for or indicate they are open to more information and help whistleblowers set up safe and anonymous ways to leak. Inevitably they also discuss the actual acts committed and may "assist in the crime" or whatever. But Signal doesn't allow you to retroactively safe conversations that may contain the crime bit only anyway.
But if the legal stuff is "relevant information" and therefore deletion of it should be considered impeding the investigation then it doesn't matter. You've labelled legal journalistic practices as crimes by association. (The stuff under discussion is what Paladin mentioned.)
No. I am not doing that i am trying to explain how that assumption is incorrect. I am doing this using analogy and legal argument.
To be clear. Charging a crime requires eatablishing the elements of the crime. Each element in and of itself or even taken together may not be criminal. But they show that there is enough evidence of the actual crime in order to charge. The classic examples are “means, motive, and opportunity”. And just as the classic defense is “yea i hated him but i didnt kill him” you need to support all three and have a belief they did the act.
In Assanges case you need to prove they were communicating because the communication is required for a conspiracy. (Without it Assange could not have help Manning and so conspiracy could not occur). But just like hating someone, owning a weapon, and being in the vincinty of a murder are not illegal either apart or together; communicating between assange and manning was not illegal either apart or together from the actual acts. Only the fact that the communication was in furtherance of commiting a crime is. But just like a prosecutor needs to show that a person had possession of a weapon, had motive, and was around at the time of a murder in order to charge them, despite all three of those things being legal taking together, because without any one of them the crime could not have occured; a prosecutor also has to show that assange and manning were communicating and the manner in which they were doing so in order to show that there was conspiracy.
If journalists are “assisting in the crime” then they should not be because that is criminal! They cease to be a journalist at that point and become a vigilante.
I don't really disagree with you much, I understand perfectly well how the law works and this was not the point I was trying to make. I'm not going of the case itself here, just the implications of what Knuckledragger was saying. But the fact that the prosecution requires the communication is irrelevant to the question of whether deleting communication is solo criminally impeding the investigation. The point (I think) Paladin was making is that deleting logs and usernames to conceal the identity of the source (the alleged manner (19) in the conspiracy) is regular journalistic practice. Using it as evidence in this case of intent to cover up crime or saying it is impeding the investigation seems like exactly the kind of thing people are concerned about.
(That said I don't really care if it's vigilantism to uncover crimes and abuse by corporations and governments. Helping someone figure out a way to safely and securely obtain information in the public interest might be a crime, but I fail to see how that means it shouldn't be done or that journalists should be prosecuted for it.)
It's a regular journalistic practice when you are engaged in regular journalism. When you get involved in a conspiracy to hack into someone's computer, it is no longer a regular journalistic practice. Or are you trying to argue that the attempts to hide Manning's identity is completely divorced from the hacking attempts.
Is that how the legal precedent that gets established will work?
Attempting to hack in to systems and covering it up is already illegal. It would not set a new precedent.
Penalties for covering up another person's hacking attempt probably would; at least that is not covered by the CFAA.
What is covered is conspiracy, though curiously, the charge of conspiracy is accompanied by no penalty under the law. See for yourself. In 18 U.S. Code § 1030(b), conspiracy is specifically mentioned, and (c) refers to a penalty, but if you search down the subheadings of (c), no reference to (b) exists. Interesting.
Whether I'm right or wrong, you have to be very careful separating which is conspiracy and which is "I received a secure stolen file containing government information."
Because you know some zealous government agent is going to overstep these bounds
It continually references section (a) because that is where the offenses are defined. It's fairly clearly written (for legalese) that conspiring to commit an offense under (a) garners the same penalty as directly committing the offense, which is bog standard for conspiracy offenses.
If that's the interpretation, then conspiracy to hack is a serious weighted charge with a prison sentence of up to 20 years and a lot the stuff in the indictment is wrongfully misleading. All mention of activities not specifically related to the password cracking attempt - especially the removal of Manning's username from produced leaked docs - make me more worried for abuse.
All mention of activities not specifically related to the hacking attempt occur outside the list of Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy; they establish the nature of the conspiracy, but are not part of the criminal charges.
That doesn't seem right, because the only reason to include these in the manners and means of the conspiracy is as proof of the conspiracy. A conspiracy to illegally obtain data from the federal government is different from an attempt to unscramble a password.
No, it can also be included to describe the conspiracy. A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. It can also cover illegal means towards an otherwise legal goal. That they took steps to conceal Manning's identity isn't the problem, nor is Assange's release of the information, but they are both inextricably linked to the hacking attempt, so they are both going to be noted in any description of the overall conspiracy.
Which hacking attempt are you talking about? The one Manning did that succeeded, or the one Assange did that one time with the password?
I am referring to attempting to crack the password. Legally speaking, he should be on the hook for all the 18 USC 1030 violations Manning made after he started encouraging her to provide more information, but he isn't being charged for that.
That's a scary thing to say - if you do something like tell your source "you're doing good work," that earns you up to 20 years?
At any rate, a lot of the indictment does not pertain to any process involving the cracked password. These methods pertain to the disclosure of classified documents, and if Assange isn't being charged with conspiracy in all of Manning's hacks, those shouldn't be there.
My argument is that the charge of trying to crack one password is being used as a wedge to fit every violation by Manning on Assange and cement a spymaster/spy relationship. You could easily use this tactic against a legitimate journalist receiving information from someone breaking the law by copying and pasting most of the manners and means of the conspiracy into a charge that because you coordinated a file transfer via chat, used dropbox to upload and hold the file, and redacted the informant's name from the published file.
A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. Well, someone in any hack based leak is already committing illegal behavior, so if you use technological tools to make it easier for them to report to you securely, how is that not aiding and abetting their illegal activity?
If this court case is about Assange's lone password crack attempt, then I'm getting worried for nothing. But if any redaction he did, cloud storage he used, or communication he had that isn't directly related to the crack attempt is brought up, especially if the case is made that he's liable for everything Manning did, then we'll see how prosecution moves trial goalposts to make any reporting of illegally obtained government data against the law. So watch for that.
He wasn't just telling his source "you're doing good work," nor is that why he is being charged (and by this point, you should very well know that is not the case).
I know he made a cryptic statement that he shouldn't have, which in my opinion stops short of clear encouragement, or at least a request for more work, and it would be fishy to link Assange to all of Manning's illegal activities.
But you're right, that isn't what this indictment and trial should be about. Im just worried that lines are being blurred between what I'd call journalistic activities and espionage / hacking activities, and we should make every effort to clarify the distinction.
There is no part of journalism that includes arbitrarily breaking in to closed systems to sift through any information one pleases.
The fact that we use secure tools that can technically assist in hacking activities because they have inherent precautions against government oversight is not clearly dealt with in the CFAA, and previous CFAA charges take advantage of this to inflate charges with use of standard software practices that sound nefarious on paper.
Again, context matters. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin, and no harm done. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin that I used to make a bunch of insider stock trades, and I can get up to 20 years for destruction of records.
A bunch of stuff in the indictment is unrelated to the charge of trying to crack a password and cannot be distinguished from things an actual journalist would do in a similar situation, like use a private cloud server and redact the source's username from leaked documents. The fact that these are used as justification of conspiracy appears to be a deterrent for actual journalists to use these tools in the future.
As an exercise, imagine that you are a bad actor trying to frame an actual journalist as a conspirator to hack into a classified government database. Does anything in this indictment look vague or broad enough to be palatable to your objective?
That "stuff" is the concealment of relevant information in an attempt to make any investigation into the crime more difficult. If they had been conspiring only to release documents that Manning had legitimate access to, then it wouldn't have been a problem. Conspiring to do something illegal and/or impede the investigation of that crime is.
This is also what "actual" journalists do though. That "stuff" is protecting your source and them protecting themselves.
Many journalists use Signal for this purpose. Anonymity and no records is a condition for many sources to even come out.
If many journalists use signal in order to conspire to commit crimes perhaps they should not. Using signal for a legal purpose (acquire and discuss legally or illegally obtained documents) is not a crime. Its only when youre using it in furtherance of illegally obtaining the documents that it is
Journalists routinely ask for or indicate they are open to more information and help whistleblowers set up safe and anonymous ways to leak. Inevitably they also discuss the actual acts committed and may "assist in the crime" or whatever. But Signal doesn't allow you to retroactively safe conversations that may contain the crime bit only anyway.
But if the legal stuff is "relevant information" and therefore deletion of it should be considered impeding the investigation then it doesn't matter. You've labelled legal journalistic practices as crimes by association. (The stuff under discussion is what Paladin mentioned.)
No. I am not doing that i am trying to explain how that assumption is incorrect. I am doing this using analogy and legal argument.
To be clear. Charging a crime requires eatablishing the elements of the crime. Each element in and of itself or even taken together may not be criminal. But they show that there is enough evidence of the actual crime in order to charge. The classic examples are “means, motive, and opportunity”. And just as the classic defense is “yea i hated him but i didnt kill him” you need to support all three and have a belief they did the act.
In Assanges case you need to prove they were communicating because the communication is required for a conspiracy. (Without it Assange could not have help Manning and so conspiracy could not occur). But just like hating someone, owning a weapon, and being in the vincinty of a murder are not illegal either apart or together; communicating between assange and manning was not illegal either apart or together from the actual acts. Only the fact that the communication was in furtherance of commiting a crime is. But just like a prosecutor needs to show that a person had possession of a weapon, had motive, and was around at the time of a murder in order to charge them, despite all three of those things being legal taking together, because without any one of them the crime could not have occured; a prosecutor also has to show that assange and manning were communicating and the manner in which they were doing so in order to show that there was conspiracy.
If journalists are “assisting in the crime” then they should not be because that is criminal! They cease to be a journalist at that point and become a vigilante.
I don't really disagree with you much, I understand perfectly well how the law works and this was not the point I was trying to make. I'm not going of the case itself here, just the implications of what Knuckledragger was saying. But the fact that the prosecution requires the communication is irrelevant to the question of whether deleting communication is solo criminally impeding the investigation. The point (I think) Paladin was making is that deleting logs and usernames to conceal the identity of the source (the alleged manner (19) in the conspiracy) is regular journalistic practice. Using it as evidence in this case of intent to cover up crime or saying it is impeding the investigation seems like exactly the kind of thing people are concerned about.
(That said I don't really care if it's vigilantism to uncover crimes and abuse by corporations and governments. Helping someone figure out a way to safely and securely obtain information in the public interest might be a crime, but I fail to see how that means it shouldn't be done or that journalists should be prosecuted for it.)
It's a regular journalistic practice when you are engaged in regular journalism. When you get involved in a conspiracy to hack into someone's computer, it is no longer a regular journalistic practice. Or are you trying to argue that the attempts to hide Manning's identity is completely divorced from the hacking attempts.
Is that how the legal precedent that gets established will work?
Attempting to hack in to systems and covering it up is already illegal. It would not set a new precedent.
Penalties for covering up another person's hacking attempt probably would; at least that is not covered by the CFAA.
What is covered is conspiracy, though curiously, the charge of conspiracy is accompanied by no penalty under the law. See for yourself. In 18 U.S. Code § 1030(b), conspiracy is specifically mentioned, and (c) refers to a penalty, but if you search down the subheadings of (c), no reference to (b) exists. Interesting.
Whether I'm right or wrong, you have to be very careful separating which is conspiracy and which is "I received a secure stolen file containing government information."
Because you know some zealous government agent is going to overstep these bounds
It continually references section (a) because that is where the offenses are defined. It's fairly clearly written (for legalese) that conspiring to commit an offense under (a) garners the same penalty as directly committing the offense, which is bog standard for conspiracy offenses.
If that's the interpretation, then conspiracy to hack is a serious weighted charge with a prison sentence of up to 20 years and a lot the stuff in the indictment is wrongfully misleading. All mention of activities not specifically related to the password cracking attempt - especially the removal of Manning's username from produced leaked docs - make me more worried for abuse.
All mention of activities not specifically related to the hacking attempt occur outside the list of Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy; they establish the nature of the conspiracy, but are not part of the criminal charges.
That doesn't seem right, because the only reason to include these in the manners and means of the conspiracy is as proof of the conspiracy. A conspiracy to illegally obtain data from the federal government is different from an attempt to unscramble a password.
No, it can also be included to describe the conspiracy. A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. It can also cover illegal means towards an otherwise legal goal. That they took steps to conceal Manning's identity isn't the problem, nor is Assange's release of the information, but they are both inextricably linked to the hacking attempt, so they are both going to be noted in any description of the overall conspiracy.
Which hacking attempt are you talking about? The one Manning did that succeeded, or the one Assange did that one time with the password?
I am referring to attempting to crack the password. Legally speaking, he should be on the hook for all the 18 USC 1030 violations Manning made after he started encouraging her to provide more information, but he isn't being charged for that.
That's a scary thing to say - if you do something like tell your source "you're doing good work," that earns you up to 20 years?
At any rate, a lot of the indictment does not pertain to any process involving the cracked password. These methods pertain to the disclosure of classified documents, and if Assange isn't being charged with conspiracy in all of Manning's hacks, those shouldn't be there.
My argument is that the charge of trying to crack one password is being used as a wedge to fit every violation by Manning on Assange and cement a spymaster/spy relationship. You could easily use this tactic against a legitimate journalist receiving information from someone breaking the law by copying and pasting most of the manners and means of the conspiracy into a charge that because you coordinated a file transfer via chat, used dropbox to upload and hold the file, and redacted the informant's name from the published file.
A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. Well, someone in any hack based leak is already committing illegal behavior, so if you use technological tools to make it easier for them to report to you securely, how is that not aiding and abetting their illegal activity?
If this court case is about Assange's lone password crack attempt, then I'm getting worried for nothing. But if any redaction he did, cloud storage he used, or communication he had that isn't directly related to the crack attempt is brought up, especially if the case is made that he's liable for everything Manning did, then we'll see how prosecution moves trial goalposts to make any reporting of illegally obtained government data against the law. So watch for that.
He wasn't just telling his source "you're doing good work," nor is that why he is being charged (and by this point, you should very well know that is not the case).
I know he made a cryptic statement that he shouldn't have, which in my opinion stops short of clear encouragement, or at least a request for more work, and it would be fishy to link Assange to all of Manning's illegal activities.
But you're right, that isn't what this indictment and trial should be about. Im just worried that lines are being blurred between what I'd call journalistic activities and espionage / hacking activities, and we should make every effort to clarify the distinction.
There is no part of journalism that includes arbitrarily breaking in to closed systems to sift through any information one pleases.
There is a part of journalism that involves receiving information from someone who arbitrarily broke into a closed system and sifting through it. If Assange is guilty, then there's a part of what he did that is against the law and a part that is not.
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.
The fact that we use secure tools that can technically assist in hacking activities because they have inherent precautions against government oversight is not clearly dealt with in the CFAA, and previous CFAA charges take advantage of this to inflate charges with use of standard software practices that sound nefarious on paper.
Again, context matters. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin, and no harm done. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin that I used to make a bunch of insider stock trades, and I can get up to 20 years for destruction of records.
A bunch of stuff in the indictment is unrelated to the charge of trying to crack a password and cannot be distinguished from things an actual journalist would do in a similar situation, like use a private cloud server and redact the source's username from leaked documents. The fact that these are used as justification of conspiracy appears to be a deterrent for actual journalists to use these tools in the future.
As an exercise, imagine that you are a bad actor trying to frame an actual journalist as a conspirator to hack into a classified government database. Does anything in this indictment look vague or broad enough to be palatable to your objective?
That "stuff" is the concealment of relevant information in an attempt to make any investigation into the crime more difficult. If they had been conspiring only to release documents that Manning had legitimate access to, then it wouldn't have been a problem. Conspiring to do something illegal and/or impede the investigation of that crime is.
This is also what "actual" journalists do though. That "stuff" is protecting your source and them protecting themselves.
Many journalists use Signal for this purpose. Anonymity and no records is a condition for many sources to even come out.
If many journalists use signal in order to conspire to commit crimes perhaps they should not. Using signal for a legal purpose (acquire and discuss legally or illegally obtained documents) is not a crime. Its only when youre using it in furtherance of illegally obtaining the documents that it is
Journalists routinely ask for or indicate they are open to more information and help whistleblowers set up safe and anonymous ways to leak. Inevitably they also discuss the actual acts committed and may "assist in the crime" or whatever. But Signal doesn't allow you to retroactively safe conversations that may contain the crime bit only anyway.
But if the legal stuff is "relevant information" and therefore deletion of it should be considered impeding the investigation then it doesn't matter. You've labelled legal journalistic practices as crimes by association. (The stuff under discussion is what Paladin mentioned.)
No. I am not doing that i am trying to explain how that assumption is incorrect. I am doing this using analogy and legal argument.
To be clear. Charging a crime requires eatablishing the elements of the crime. Each element in and of itself or even taken together may not be criminal. But they show that there is enough evidence of the actual crime in order to charge. The classic examples are “means, motive, and opportunity”. And just as the classic defense is “yea i hated him but i didnt kill him” you need to support all three and have a belief they did the act.
In Assanges case you need to prove they were communicating because the communication is required for a conspiracy. (Without it Assange could not have help Manning and so conspiracy could not occur). But just like hating someone, owning a weapon, and being in the vincinty of a murder are not illegal either apart or together; communicating between assange and manning was not illegal either apart or together from the actual acts. Only the fact that the communication was in furtherance of commiting a crime is. But just like a prosecutor needs to show that a person had possession of a weapon, had motive, and was around at the time of a murder in order to charge them, despite all three of those things being legal taking together, because without any one of them the crime could not have occured; a prosecutor also has to show that assange and manning were communicating and the manner in which they were doing so in order to show that there was conspiracy.
If journalists are “assisting in the crime” then they should not be because that is criminal! They cease to be a journalist at that point and become a vigilante.
I don't really disagree with you much, I understand perfectly well how the law works and this was not the point I was trying to make. I'm not going of the case itself here, just the implications of what Knuckledragger was saying. But the fact that the prosecution requires the communication is irrelevant to the question of whether deleting communication is solo criminally impeding the investigation. The point (I think) Paladin was making is that deleting logs and usernames to conceal the identity of the source (the alleged manner (19) in the conspiracy) is regular journalistic practice. Using it as evidence in this case of intent to cover up crime or saying it is impeding the investigation seems like exactly the kind of thing people are concerned about.
(That said I don't really care if it's vigilantism to uncover crimes and abuse by corporations and governments. Helping someone figure out a way to safely and securely obtain information in the public interest might be a crime, but I fail to see how that means it shouldn't be done or that journalists should be prosecuted for it.)
It's a regular journalistic practice when you are engaged in regular journalism. When you get involved in a conspiracy to hack into someone's computer, it is no longer a regular journalistic practice. Or are you trying to argue that the attempts to hide Manning's identity is completely divorced from the hacking attempts.
Is that how the legal precedent that gets established will work?
Attempting to hack in to systems and covering it up is already illegal. It would not set a new precedent.
Penalties for covering up another person's hacking attempt probably would; at least that is not covered by the CFAA.
What is covered is conspiracy, though curiously, the charge of conspiracy is accompanied by no penalty under the law. See for yourself. In 18 U.S. Code § 1030(b), conspiracy is specifically mentioned, and (c) refers to a penalty, but if you search down the subheadings of (c), no reference to (b) exists. Interesting.
Whether I'm right or wrong, you have to be very careful separating which is conspiracy and which is "I received a secure stolen file containing government information."
Because you know some zealous government agent is going to overstep these bounds
It continually references section (a) because that is where the offenses are defined. It's fairly clearly written (for legalese) that conspiring to commit an offense under (a) garners the same penalty as directly committing the offense, which is bog standard for conspiracy offenses.
If that's the interpretation, then conspiracy to hack is a serious weighted charge with a prison sentence of up to 20 years and a lot the stuff in the indictment is wrongfully misleading. All mention of activities not specifically related to the password cracking attempt - especially the removal of Manning's username from produced leaked docs - make me more worried for abuse.
All mention of activities not specifically related to the hacking attempt occur outside the list of Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy; they establish the nature of the conspiracy, but are not part of the criminal charges.
That doesn't seem right, because the only reason to include these in the manners and means of the conspiracy is as proof of the conspiracy. A conspiracy to illegally obtain data from the federal government is different from an attempt to unscramble a password.
No, it can also be included to describe the conspiracy. A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. It can also cover illegal means towards an otherwise legal goal. That they took steps to conceal Manning's identity isn't the problem, nor is Assange's release of the information, but they are both inextricably linked to the hacking attempt, so they are both going to be noted in any description of the overall conspiracy.
Which hacking attempt are you talking about? The one Manning did that succeeded, or the one Assange did that one time with the password?
I am referring to attempting to crack the password. Legally speaking, he should be on the hook for all the 18 USC 1030 violations Manning made after he started encouraging her to provide more information, but he isn't being charged for that.
That's a scary thing to say - if you do something like tell your source "you're doing good work," that earns you up to 20 years?
At any rate, a lot of the indictment does not pertain to any process involving the cracked password. These methods pertain to the disclosure of classified documents, and if Assange isn't being charged with conspiracy in all of Manning's hacks, those shouldn't be there.
My argument is that the charge of trying to crack one password is being used as a wedge to fit every violation by Manning on Assange and cement a spymaster/spy relationship. You could easily use this tactic against a legitimate journalist receiving information from someone breaking the law by copying and pasting most of the manners and means of the conspiracy into a charge that because you coordinated a file transfer via chat, used dropbox to upload and hold the file, and redacted the informant's name from the published file.
A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. Well, someone in any hack based leak is already committing illegal behavior, so if you use technological tools to make it easier for them to report to you securely, how is that not aiding and abetting their illegal activity?
If this court case is about Assange's lone password crack attempt, then I'm getting worried for nothing. But if any redaction he did, cloud storage he used, or communication he had that isn't directly related to the crack attempt is brought up, especially if the case is made that he's liable for everything Manning did, then we'll see how prosecution moves trial goalposts to make any reporting of illegally obtained government data against the law. So watch for that.
He wasn't just telling his source "you're doing good work," nor is that why he is being charged (and by this point, you should very well know that is not the case).
I know he made a cryptic statement that he shouldn't have, which in my opinion stops short of clear encouragement, or at least a request for more work, and it would be fishy to link Assange to all of Manning's illegal activities.
But you're right, that isn't what this indictment and trial should be about. Im just worried that lines are being blurred between what I'd call journalistic activities and espionage / hacking activities, and we should make every effort to clarify the distinction.
There is no part of journalism that includes arbitrarily breaking in to closed systems to sift through any information one pleases.
There is a part of journalism that involves receiving information from someone who arbitrarily broke into a closed system and sifting through it. If Assange is guilty, then there's a part of what he did that is against the law and a part that is not.
Correct he is being charged with the aspect that is explicitly not a part of journalism.
The fact that we use secure tools that can technically assist in hacking activities because they have inherent precautions against government oversight is not clearly dealt with in the CFAA, and previous CFAA charges take advantage of this to inflate charges with use of standard software practices that sound nefarious on paper.
Again, context matters. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin, and no harm done. I go in the other room and shred a letter from my cousin that I used to make a bunch of insider stock trades, and I can get up to 20 years for destruction of records.
A bunch of stuff in the indictment is unrelated to the charge of trying to crack a password and cannot be distinguished from things an actual journalist would do in a similar situation, like use a private cloud server and redact the source's username from leaked documents. The fact that these are used as justification of conspiracy appears to be a deterrent for actual journalists to use these tools in the future.
As an exercise, imagine that you are a bad actor trying to frame an actual journalist as a conspirator to hack into a classified government database. Does anything in this indictment look vague or broad enough to be palatable to your objective?
That "stuff" is the concealment of relevant information in an attempt to make any investigation into the crime more difficult. If they had been conspiring only to release documents that Manning had legitimate access to, then it wouldn't have been a problem. Conspiring to do something illegal and/or impede the investigation of that crime is.
This is also what "actual" journalists do though. That "stuff" is protecting your source and them protecting themselves.
Many journalists use Signal for this purpose. Anonymity and no records is a condition for many sources to even come out.
If many journalists use signal in order to conspire to commit crimes perhaps they should not. Using signal for a legal purpose (acquire and discuss legally or illegally obtained documents) is not a crime. Its only when youre using it in furtherance of illegally obtaining the documents that it is
Journalists routinely ask for or indicate they are open to more information and help whistleblowers set up safe and anonymous ways to leak. Inevitably they also discuss the actual acts committed and may "assist in the crime" or whatever. But Signal doesn't allow you to retroactively safe conversations that may contain the crime bit only anyway.
But if the legal stuff is "relevant information" and therefore deletion of it should be considered impeding the investigation then it doesn't matter. You've labelled legal journalistic practices as crimes by association. (The stuff under discussion is what Paladin mentioned.)
No. I am not doing that i am trying to explain how that assumption is incorrect. I am doing this using analogy and legal argument.
To be clear. Charging a crime requires eatablishing the elements of the crime. Each element in and of itself or even taken together may not be criminal. But they show that there is enough evidence of the actual crime in order to charge. The classic examples are “means, motive, and opportunity”. And just as the classic defense is “yea i hated him but i didnt kill him” you need to support all three and have a belief they did the act.
In Assanges case you need to prove they were communicating because the communication is required for a conspiracy. (Without it Assange could not have help Manning and so conspiracy could not occur). But just like hating someone, owning a weapon, and being in the vincinty of a murder are not illegal either apart or together; communicating between assange and manning was not illegal either apart or together from the actual acts. Only the fact that the communication was in furtherance of commiting a crime is. But just like a prosecutor needs to show that a person had possession of a weapon, had motive, and was around at the time of a murder in order to charge them, despite all three of those things being legal taking together, because without any one of them the crime could not have occured; a prosecutor also has to show that assange and manning were communicating and the manner in which they were doing so in order to show that there was conspiracy.
If journalists are “assisting in the crime” then they should not be because that is criminal! They cease to be a journalist at that point and become a vigilante.
I don't really disagree with you much, I understand perfectly well how the law works and this was not the point I was trying to make. I'm not going of the case itself here, just the implications of what Knuckledragger was saying. But the fact that the prosecution requires the communication is irrelevant to the question of whether deleting communication is solo criminally impeding the investigation. The point (I think) Paladin was making is that deleting logs and usernames to conceal the identity of the source (the alleged manner (19) in the conspiracy) is regular journalistic practice. Using it as evidence in this case of intent to cover up crime or saying it is impeding the investigation seems like exactly the kind of thing people are concerned about.
(That said I don't really care if it's vigilantism to uncover crimes and abuse by corporations and governments. Helping someone figure out a way to safely and securely obtain information in the public interest might be a crime, but I fail to see how that means it shouldn't be done or that journalists should be prosecuted for it.)
It's a regular journalistic practice when you are engaged in regular journalism. When you get involved in a conspiracy to hack into someone's computer, it is no longer a regular journalistic practice. Or are you trying to argue that the attempts to hide Manning's identity is completely divorced from the hacking attempts.
Is that how the legal precedent that gets established will work?
Attempting to hack in to systems and covering it up is already illegal. It would not set a new precedent.
Penalties for covering up another person's hacking attempt probably would; at least that is not covered by the CFAA.
What is covered is conspiracy, though curiously, the charge of conspiracy is accompanied by no penalty under the law. See for yourself. In 18 U.S. Code § 1030(b), conspiracy is specifically mentioned, and (c) refers to a penalty, but if you search down the subheadings of (c), no reference to (b) exists. Interesting.
Whether I'm right or wrong, you have to be very careful separating which is conspiracy and which is "I received a secure stolen file containing government information."
Because you know some zealous government agent is going to overstep these bounds
It continually references section (a) because that is where the offenses are defined. It's fairly clearly written (for legalese) that conspiring to commit an offense under (a) garners the same penalty as directly committing the offense, which is bog standard for conspiracy offenses.
If that's the interpretation, then conspiracy to hack is a serious weighted charge with a prison sentence of up to 20 years and a lot the stuff in the indictment is wrongfully misleading. All mention of activities not specifically related to the password cracking attempt - especially the removal of Manning's username from produced leaked docs - make me more worried for abuse.
All mention of activities not specifically related to the hacking attempt occur outside the list of Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy; they establish the nature of the conspiracy, but are not part of the criminal charges.
That doesn't seem right, because the only reason to include these in the manners and means of the conspiracy is as proof of the conspiracy. A conspiracy to illegally obtain data from the federal government is different from an attempt to unscramble a password.
No, it can also be included to describe the conspiracy. A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. It can also cover illegal means towards an otherwise legal goal. That they took steps to conceal Manning's identity isn't the problem, nor is Assange's release of the information, but they are both inextricably linked to the hacking attempt, so they are both going to be noted in any description of the overall conspiracy.
Which hacking attempt are you talking about? The one Manning did that succeeded, or the one Assange did that one time with the password?
I am referring to attempting to crack the password. Legally speaking, he should be on the hook for all the 18 USC 1030 violations Manning made after he started encouraging her to provide more information, but he isn't being charged for that.
That's a scary thing to say - if you do something like tell your source "you're doing good work," that earns you up to 20 years?
At any rate, a lot of the indictment does not pertain to any process involving the cracked password. These methods pertain to the disclosure of classified documents, and if Assange isn't being charged with conspiracy in all of Manning's hacks, those shouldn't be there.
My argument is that the charge of trying to crack one password is being used as a wedge to fit every violation by Manning on Assange and cement a spymaster/spy relationship. You could easily use this tactic against a legitimate journalist receiving information from someone breaking the law by copying and pasting most of the manners and means of the conspiracy into a charge that because you coordinated a file transfer via chat, used dropbox to upload and hold the file, and redacted the informant's name from the published file.
A conspiracy can include legal behavior if it is aimed towards or in support of illegal behavior. Well, someone in any hack based leak is already committing illegal behavior, so if you use technological tools to make it easier for them to report to you securely, how is that not aiding and abetting their illegal activity?
If this court case is about Assange's lone password crack attempt, then I'm getting worried for nothing. But if any redaction he did, cloud storage he used, or communication he had that isn't directly related to the crack attempt is brought up, especially if the case is made that he's liable for everything Manning did, then we'll see how prosecution moves trial goalposts to make any reporting of illegally obtained government data against the law. So watch for that.
He wasn't just telling his source "you're doing good work," nor is that why he is being charged (and by this point, you should very well know that is not the case).
I know he made a cryptic statement that he shouldn't have, which in my opinion stops short of clear encouragement, or at least a request for more work, and it would be fishy to link Assange to all of Manning's illegal activities.
But you're right, that isn't what this indictment and trial should be about. Im just worried that lines are being blurred between what I'd call journalistic activities and espionage / hacking activities, and we should make every effort to clarify the distinction.
There is no part of journalism that includes arbitrarily breaking in to closed systems to sift through any information one pleases.
There is a part of journalism that involves receiving information from someone who arbitrarily broke into a closed system and sifting through it. If Assange is guilty, then there's a part of what he did that is against the law and a part that is not.
Correct he is being charged with the aspect that is explicitly not a part of journalism.
Yeah, I'll just keep an eye out for shenanigans during reporting of the trial. Items mentioned in the indictment that are extraneous information to the password cracking attempt should not be used to prove the facts of the case. Any attempt to link Assange with conspiracy on the other violations should be met with great suspicion.
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.
The article I read on this did mention Sweden: "Sweden dropped the charges while Assange was inside the embassy, but is now considering reopening the case. "
The article I read on this did mention Sweden: "Sweden dropped the charges while Assange was inside the embassy, but is now considering reopening the case. "
An article I saw specified that prosecuters had dropped the rape charges only because they could not formally notify Assange of the charges while he was hiding out in the embassy.
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
If he'd just gone to Sweden to face the sexual assault charges he'd probably be much better off. Well, faced those charges and also not assisted a foreign power Sweden's not especially fond of conduct information warfare against one of their allies for several years.
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
Hard disagree. It should not be acceptable for an attorney to provide a lax defense for their client in order to make prosecution easier just because you don't like the client. I would imagine so long as Assange's attorney wasn't disrespectful of the bench then there would be no issue with a vigorous defense of their client.
+7
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
edited May 2019
So he starts in HMP Belmarsh which is a terrible place. Then maybe a light to medium security US Federal prison, which is a bit nicer and finishing up in a Swedish prison. It looks like his prisons get better with each place.
zepherin on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I agree with you, but also feel we should have allowable vigorous defense but with hard stops at slander / libel / impugning someone else be they defendant / accuser / or 3rd party.
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
Nah. Judges rarely like having their time wasted. And bullshit arguments are a waste of the court's time.
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
Nah. Judges rarely like having their time wasted. And bullshit arguments are a waste of the court's time.
Not to mention that the argument - "hey, we should count the time my client fled from your jurisdiction to avoid facing your judgement against the sentence you hand down" - is pretty much a slap in the face to the court.
"The court recognizes that your client has outstanding doubts about the distinction between his prior accommodations and a prison cell. In its infinite magnanimity, the court has prepared a presentation to illuminate said distinction.
The presentation is fifty weeks long and will commence at our earliest convenience."
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
If the judge believes a party is wasting the court's time with frivolous arguments, it will piss them off; judges don't take kindly to people who disrespect the courts or legal processes. People can and have faced sanctions for it.
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
+6
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
Nah. Judges rarely like having their time wasted. And bullshit arguments are a waste of the court's time.
Not to mention that the argument - "hey, we should count the time my client fled from your jurisdiction to avoid facing your judgement against the sentence you hand down" - is pretty much a slap in the face to the court.
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
Nah. Judges rarely like having their time wasted. And bullshit arguments are a waste of the court's time.
Not to mention that the argument - "hey, we should count the time my client fled from your jurisdiction to avoid facing your judgement against the sentence you hand down" - is pretty much a slap in the face to the court.
I agree it is much funnier to make it sound way dumber and insulting or whatever.
I am very very confused by that statement.
UN human rights experts today repeated a demand that the UK abides by its international obligations and immediately allows Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to walk free from the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been for over 6 years, fearing arrest by British authorities if he leaves, and extradition to the US.
That the police shouldn't arrest people that have warrents out on them?
“It is time that Mr. Assange, who has already paid a high price for peacefully exercising his rights to freedom of opinion, expression and information, and to promote the right to truth in the public interest, recovers his freedom,” the experts concluded.
Which was not the crime he was arrested for, nor have I seen a human right to choose your own penance superceding that of the state.
I can't comment on the points in the first article about his home detention or the isolation detention and whether that is excessive or not.
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
Nah. Judges rarely like having their time wasted. And bullshit arguments are a waste of the court's time.
Not to mention that the argument - "hey, we should count the time my client fled from your jurisdiction to avoid facing your judgement against the sentence you hand down" - is pretty much a slap in the face to the court.
His attorney argued that the time spent in the embassy shout be counted against his sentence. Talk about balls.
Fucking wow. I mean I suppose that would be a standard play for an attorney to make, but read the room on this particular instance.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
I disagree, Rand makes a good point. Lawyers do have to act in their client's best interest at all times.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
Nah. Judges rarely like having their time wasted. And bullshit arguments are a waste of the court's time.
Not to mention that the argument - "hey, we should count the time my client fled from your jurisdiction to avoid facing your judgement against the sentence you hand down" - is pretty much a slap in the face to the court.
I agree it is much funnier to make it sound way dumber and insulting or whatever.
I am very very confused by that statement.
UN human rights experts today repeated a demand that the UK abides by its international obligations and immediately allows Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to walk free from the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been for over 6 years, fearing arrest by British authorities if he leaves, and extradition to the US.
That the police shouldn't arrest people that have warrents out on them?
“It is time that Mr. Assange, who has already paid a high price for peacefully exercising his rights to freedom of opinion, expression and information, and to promote the right to truth in the public interest, recovers his freedom,” the experts concluded.
Which was not the crime he was arrested for, nor have I seen a human right to choose your own penance superceding that of the state.
I can't comment on the points in the first article about his home detention or the isolation detention and whether that is excessive or not.
Well as they say earlier:
“Under international law, pre-trial detention must be only imposed in limited instances. Detention during investigations must be even more limited, especially in the absence of any charge” said the experts. “The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now, and the only ground remaining for Mr. Assange’s continued deprivation of liberty is a bail violation in the UK, which is, objectively, a minor offense that cannot post facto justify the more than 6 years confinement that he has been subjected to since he sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador. Mr. Assange should be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement in an unhindered manner, in accordance with the human rights conventions the UK has ratified,” the experts further said
The crime he was arrested and sentenced for was bail violation, which is a bit silly given that he is not charged with any actual crime. He has been given a 50 week sentence for not following the rules during an investigation, even though he was fully in his rights to request asylum and he is not charged with a crime for which he was granted bail in the first place.
It should be noted that Assange was able to live pretty comfortably for years at the embassy and would probably have been allowed stay indefinitley had he not been a self absorbed dickhead; prior to him being ousted for stuff like finger painting and refusing to clean the cat's litterbox, the man was partitioning sections of the embassy for his personal use, conducting business as the head of a website, freely lashing out at his percieved enemies and hording the bandwidth of the hosts.
There isn't a prison on earth where you would have this much freedom afforded to you, and to argue that he has time served for the crimes he was actively hiding from authorities over by a third party that has no legal jurisdiction serves only to undermine the credibility of the UN.
Posts
I know he made a cryptic statement that he shouldn't have, which in my opinion stops short of clear encouragement, or at least a request for more work, and it would be fishy to link Assange to all of Manning's illegal activities.
But you're right, that isn't what this indictment and trial should be about. Im just worried that lines are being blurred between what I'd call journalistic activities and espionage / hacking activities, and we should make every effort to clarify the distinction.
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.
Or at least I hope that's how the charge is structured; the communication method would be largely irrelevant then though?
I stopped being able to follow this, so I stopped replying previously
There is no part of journalism that includes arbitrarily breaking in to closed systems to sift through any information one pleases.
There is a part of journalism that involves receiving information from someone who arbitrarily broke into a closed system and sifting through it. If Assange is guilty, then there's a part of what he did that is against the law and a part that is not.
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.
Correct he is being charged with the aspect that is explicitly not a part of journalism.
Yeah, I'll just keep an eye out for shenanigans during reporting of the trial. Items mentioned in the indictment that are extraneous information to the password cracking attempt should not be used to prove the facts of the case. Any attempt to link Assange with conspiracy on the other violations should be met with great suspicion.
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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48118908
He starts it now while the hearing for his extradition to the U.S. begin. The article doesn't mention anything about Sweden though.
https://www.cnet.com/news/julian-assange-sentenced-to-50-weeks-in-jail-for-skipping-bail-in-the-uk/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/12/julian-assange-arrest-extradition/3445061002/
Swedish prosecutors are still considering asking for extradition. Not new news.
https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/world/europe/2019-04-14-julian-assange-will-cooperate-with-sweden-but-fight-us-warrant-says-lawyer/
Assange will cooperate with any Swedish extradition...as long as they promise not to then extradite him to the US. Not said is that promise is not something that can actually be done. Again, not new news.
An article I saw specified that prosecuters had dropped the rape charges only because they could not formally notify Assange of the charges while he was hiding out in the embassy.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
- John Stuart Mill
I would be willing to accept anyone else in that embassy who dealt with his filthy ass could argue for time served.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If he'd just gone to Sweden to face the sexual assault charges he'd probably be much better off. Well, faced those charges and also not assisted a foreign power Sweden's not especially fond of conduct information warfare against one of their allies for several years.
If his attorney wasn't willing to do all he could within the law for his client they shouldn't represent him.
Thats his job really
No, for two reasons.
One, he just made Assange's case harder. I would imagine that the judge did not take the argument well.
Two, this is the shitty principle that has given us the "not guilty on account of the victim being a slut" defense.
Hard disagree. It should not be acceptable for an attorney to provide a lax defense for their client in order to make prosecution easier just because you don't like the client. I would imagine so long as Assange's attorney wasn't disrespectful of the bench then there would be no issue with a vigorous defense of their client.
The only way this would be a bad move by the lawyer is if they were harassing the judge over it, or otherwise being a nuisance.
I agree with you, but also feel we should have allowable vigorous defense but with hard stops at slander / libel / impugning someone else be they defendant / accuser / or 3rd party.
MWO: Adamski
Pissing off the judge is rarely in the clients best interest. There is a reason convicted defendants are generally advised to show remorse.
- John Stuart Mill
A judge getting pissed about something like that and allowing that mindset to impact their impartiality is the sign of a bad judge, and makes any ruling extremely vulnerable to appeals
Nah. Judges rarely like having their time wasted. And bullshit arguments are a waste of the court's time.
Not to mention that the argument - "hey, we should count the time my client fled from your jurisdiction to avoid facing your judgement against the sentence you hand down" - is pretty much a slap in the face to the court.
The presentation is fifty weeks long and will commence at our earliest convenience."
If the judge believes a party is wasting the court's time with frivolous arguments, it will piss them off; judges don't take kindly to people who disrespect the courts or legal processes. People can and have faced sanctions for it.
- John Stuart Mill
Presumably the lawyer based his argument on the finding by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that that finding was based on binding international law. Or the argument they made more recently.
I agree it is much funnier to make it sound way dumber and insulting or whatever.
I am very very confused by that statement.
That the police shouldn't arrest people that have warrents out on them?
Which was not the crime he was arrested for, nor have I seen a human right to choose your own penance superceding that of the state.
I can't comment on the points in the first article about his home detention or the isolation detention and whether that is excessive or not.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
A finding thats already been rejected by several judicial bodies?
That's fucking insane.
I'm going to make a safe assumption this isn't valid for a lot of people considered criminals not named Julian Assange.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well as they say earlier:
The crime he was arrested and sentenced for was bail violation, which is a bit silly given that he is not charged with any actual crime. He has been given a 50 week sentence for not following the rules during an investigation, even though he was fully in his rights to request asylum and he is not charged with a crime for which he was granted bail in the first place.
There isn't a prison on earth where you would have this much freedom afforded to you, and to argue that he has time served for the crimes he was actively hiding from authorities over by a third party that has no legal jurisdiction serves only to undermine the credibility of the UN.