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.
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.
1) Assange is clearly a prick, probably a rapist, generally pretty awful
2) He's involved with political actors like the FSB and Kremlin who are genuinely reprehensible and vile in their actions
3) I'm not really that mad that he got information from the US military or whatever because I don't trust the US military and upper echelons of American security apparatus to act in an ethical, moral and lawful way on account of all the times they haven't done that, indisputably.
4) Wikileaks had the potential to uncover misuse of power, crimes committed and covered up by governments and so. It became very much not that and essentially was a vehicle for probably a Russian state security sponsored propaganda/cybercrime operation.
5) That said in general I think that if the various intelligence, state security, military etc agencies and so on want their cries of "it puts us in danger!" to be taken seriously when it comes to them keeping secrets, they should commit less gross violations of human decency and so on. It's hard for me to feel bad for them when they were running Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture facilities in Abu Dhabi etc etc etc. We aren't talking about organisations that necessarily have earned the benefit of the doubt
6) Revealing this information could potentially be illegal. I'm sure it's not a controversial statement to say that illegality does not mean immoral or unethical and vice versa.
I'm sure the US military felt like they'd investigated and come to the correct conclusion and so on, therefore that information didn't need to be revealed
To which I say; you don't get to decide whether your own investigation of your own crimes means you shouldn't have to tell anyone you did them.
And the criticism of people like Chelsea Manning is "they swore an oath to follow the UCMJ" to which I say one has a higher duty to what is right than such codes. If following the UCMJ would make Chelsea Manning feel like she was complicit in the covering up of potential crimes committed by the US military then, well.
Also she was treated awfully by the US military. Solitary confinement for lengthy stretches etc. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes people shrug their shoulders when the Pentagon gets upset about their secrets being revealed, yeah well you treat people like shit so why should I care?
I'm sure the US military felt like they'd investigated and come to the correct conclusion and so on, therefore that information didn't need to be revealed
To which I say; you don't get to decide whether your own investigation of your own crimes means you shouldn't have to tell anyone you did them.
And the criticism of people like Chelsea Manning is "they swore an oath to follow the UCMJ" to which I say one has a higher duty to what is right than such codes. If following the UCMJ would make Chelsea Manning feel like she was complicit in the covering up of potential crimes committed by the US military then, well.
Also she was treated awfully by the US military. Solitary confinement for lengthy stretches etc. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes people shrug their shoulders when the Pentagon gets upset about their secrets being revealed, yeah well you treat people like shit so why should I care?
Americans have pretty much abandoned their belief in the Nuremberg Laws. It’s the kind of thing that happens after 18 years of an extremely dirty war and the creation of a trillion dollar security state that has turned having a security clearance into something about as rare and prestigious as a McDonald’s employee badge.
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
I see that the idea that Wikileaks was ever about "uncovering corruption" and it later "became" something else is still around.
The open community aspect was shuttered very, very quickly. Maybe months, at the most? When someone like Assange, a man convinced of his own righteousness, opens up a thing like Wikileaks he expects people will naturally follow his intentions. When that did not happen, he shuttered the Wiki part of Wikileaks and maintained a targeted campaign of his own desire all while continuing to trot out this "democratic, open source intelligence" bullshit line that means as much as Fox News "Fair and Balanced" motto.
And yes, following UCMJ and all laws can sometimes compromise your own moral codes. It's not as though civilian laws are free of such. It's whether or not you're willing to do the time that the law prescribes, because you absolutely will and poking your head out to make a statement will always paint a target on your forehead. Maybe it results in a change, likely it doesn't.
And it's not like people don't die when intelligence is compromised. The idea that people are simply moaning and bitching about secrets being revealed is one I guess you could make, but the very real thing is people actually do die. If future missions have their dates leaked, people will probably get attacked. If secure keys get leaked, comms get intercepted, people will probably get attacked. Just because you don't think it happens doesn't make it true.
1) Assange is clearly a prick, probably a rapist, generally pretty awful
2) He's involved with political actors like the FSB and Kremlin who are genuinely reprehensible and vile in their actions
3) I'm not really that mad that he got information from the US military or whatever because I don't trust the US military and upper echelons of American security apparatus to act in an ethical, moral and lawful way on account of all the times they haven't done that, indisputably.
4) Wikileaks had the potential to uncover misuse of power, crimes committed and covered up by governments and so. It became very much not that and essentially was a vehicle for probably a Russian state security sponsored propaganda/cybercrime operation.
5) That said in general I think that if the various intelligence, state security, military etc agencies and so on want their cries of "it puts us in danger!" to be taken seriously when it comes to them keeping secrets, they should commit less gross violations of human decency and so on. It's hard for me to feel bad for them when they were running Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture facilities in Abu Dhabi etc etc etc. We aren't talking about organisations that necessarily have earned the benefit of the doubt
6) Revealing this information could potentially be illegal. I'm sure it's not a controversial statement to say that illegality does not mean immoral or unethical and vice versa.
About number 3, i agree that US military, or US government in general can't be trusted.
However, reality being what it is, governments need the ability to keep information secret, just shrugging our shoulders about spying because "well, i don't trust them", is not a useful response.
Now, had Assange been after something specific to right an actual wrong, i might be more forgiving.
Crimes can, and should, sometimes be forgiven even once proven, but doing so would require a just, or atleast justified, motive, and Assange has neither.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
1) Assange is clearly a prick, probably a rapist, generally pretty awful
2) He's involved with political actors like the FSB and Kremlin who are genuinely reprehensible and vile in their actions
3) I'm not really that mad that he got information from the US military or whatever because I don't trust the US military and upper echelons of American security apparatus to act in an ethical, moral and lawful way on account of all the times they haven't done that, indisputably.
4) Wikileaks had the potential to uncover misuse of power, crimes committed and covered up by governments and so. It became very much not that and essentially was a vehicle for probably a Russian state security sponsored propaganda/cybercrime operation.
5) That said in general I think that if the various intelligence, state security, military etc agencies and so on want their cries of "it puts us in danger!" to be taken seriously when it comes to them keeping secrets, they should commit less gross violations of human decency and so on. It's hard for me to feel bad for them when they were running Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture facilities in Abu Dhabi etc etc etc. We aren't talking about organisations that necessarily have earned the benefit of the doubt
6) Revealing this information could potentially be illegal. I'm sure it's not a controversial statement to say that illegality does not mean immoral or unethical and vice versa.
About number 3, i agree that US military, or US government in general can't be trusted.
However, reality being what it is, governments need the ability to keep information secret, just shrugging our shoulders about spying because "well, i don't trust them", is not a useful response.
Now, had Assange been after something specific to right an actual wrong, i might be more forgiving.
Crimes can, and should, sometimes be forgiven even once proven, but doing so would require a just, or atleast justified, motive, and Assange has neither.
This is where it becomes difficult, when trying to fight against a government who hasn't exactly been on the up and up when it comes to what's happening over in the mideast.
I will say (only) that I've been privy to hearing certain things when I was in, because I was running the equipment. I heard a lot of stuff that generally doesn't get told to news outlets. I've heard what happens when intelligence gets compromised, or when shit goes south. It's a really murky grey area because:
1 - I know how reactionary people are, and if people heard the shit I did that sometimes kept me up at night I can only imagine what would result
2 - If there's a confirmed danger, maybe people should know?
To say this was an eye opening experience would be to put it mildly. There's a lot of stuff people just don't know that's happening all the damn time.
I see that the idea that Wikileaks was ever about "uncovering corruption" and it later "became" something else is still around.
The open community aspect was shuttered very, very quickly. Maybe months, at the most? When someone like Assange, a man convinced of his own righteousness, opens up a thing like Wikileaks he expects people will naturally follow his intentions. When that did not happen, he shuttered the Wiki part of Wikileaks and maintained a targeted campaign of his own desire all while continuing to trot out this "democratic, open source intelligence" bullshit line that means as much as Fox News "Fair and Balanced" motto.
And yes, following UCMJ and all laws can sometimes compromise your own moral codes. It's not as though civilian laws are free of such. It's whether or not you're willing to do the time that the law prescribes, because you absolutely will and poking your head out to make a statement will always paint a target on your forehead. Maybe it results in a change, likely it doesn't.
And it's not like people don't die when intelligence is compromised. The idea that people are simply moaning and bitching about secrets being revealed is one I guess you could make, but the very real thing is people actually do die. If future missions have their dates leaked, people will probably get attacked. If secure keys get leaked, comms get intercepted, people will probably get attacked. Just because you don't think it happens doesn't make it true.
I'm sure it does happen. However if these agencies and departments have staff that are put in danger by the public revelation of crimes they are committing, or have committed, they should commit less crimes, we shouldn't be allowing that excuse to fly.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I see that the idea that Wikileaks was ever about "uncovering corruption" and it later "became" something else is still around.
The open community aspect was shuttered very, very quickly. Maybe months, at the most? When someone like Assange, a man convinced of his own righteousness, opens up a thing like Wikileaks he expects people will naturally follow his intentions. When that did not happen, he shuttered the Wiki part of Wikileaks and maintained a targeted campaign of his own desire all while continuing to trot out this "democratic, open source intelligence" bullshit line that means as much as Fox News "Fair and Balanced" motto.
And yes, following UCMJ and all laws can sometimes compromise your own moral codes. It's not as though civilian laws are free of such. It's whether or not you're willing to do the time that the law prescribes, because you absolutely will and poking your head out to make a statement will always paint a target on your forehead. Maybe it results in a change, likely it doesn't.
And it's not like people don't die when intelligence is compromised. The idea that people are simply moaning and bitching about secrets being revealed is one I guess you could make, but the very real thing is people actually do die. If future missions have their dates leaked, people will probably get attacked. If secure keys get leaked, comms get intercepted, people will probably get attacked. Just because you don't think it happens doesn't make it true.
I'm sure it does happen. However if these agencies and departments have staff that are put in danger by the public revelation of crimes they are committing, or have committed, they should commit less crimes, we shouldn't be allowing that excuse to fly.
Yes, if that's all Assange released.
He released far more than just the helicopter stuff. That's the point I'm trying to make. Most of the things Wikileaks released that Manning gave him seemed mundane but they could absolutely be used, if one were so inclined.
That's the difference here. 750,000 documents and only a handful of things we'd consider an abuse of state power is not a good ratio.
I see that the idea that Wikileaks was ever about "uncovering corruption" and it later "became" something else is still around.
The open community aspect was shuttered very, very quickly. Maybe months, at the most? When someone like Assange, a man convinced of his own righteousness, opens up a thing like Wikileaks he expects people will naturally follow his intentions. When that did not happen, he shuttered the Wiki part of Wikileaks and maintained a targeted campaign of his own desire all while continuing to trot out this "democratic, open source intelligence" bullshit line that means as much as Fox News "Fair and Balanced" motto.
And yes, following UCMJ and all laws can sometimes compromise your own moral codes. It's not as though civilian laws are free of such. It's whether or not you're willing to do the time that the law prescribes, because you absolutely will and poking your head out to make a statement will always paint a target on your forehead. Maybe it results in a change, likely it doesn't.
And it's not like people don't die when intelligence is compromised. The idea that people are simply moaning and bitching about secrets being revealed is one I guess you could make, but the very real thing is people actually do die. If future missions have their dates leaked, people will probably get attacked. If secure keys get leaked, comms get intercepted, people will probably get attacked. Just because you don't think it happens doesn't make it true.
I'm sure it does happen. However if these agencies and departments have staff that are put in danger by the public revelation of crimes they are committing, or have committed, they should commit less crimes, we shouldn't be allowing that excuse to fly.
Yes, if that's all Assange released.
He released far more than just the helicopter stuff. That's the point I'm trying to make. Most of the things Wikileaks released that Manning gave him seemed mundane but they could absolutely be used, if one were so inclined.
That's the difference here.
I can appreciate your position but cannot muster much outrage over what happened. Yes probably they should have been more careful in what they released, however some of what they released was indicative of some pretty shady and immoral shit.
Absolutely there is an issue with the political element here, because the whole thing was arguably an espionage campaign from a foreign and aggressive power who I absolutely don't back against the US at all (Russia). In general though I would say that if the US security services and military want a bit more sympathy from me they should probably be more sympathetic, because for years now they've been shitting all over that through numerous pretty horrific acts that have gone the way to the too, and that's what we know of. I'm sure there's a lot we don't.
We allow these agencies in various nations and forms to keep secrets and trust them to do so honestly, in theory. As it happens I feel like that trust has very much been abused.
1) Assange is clearly a prick, probably a rapist, generally pretty awful
2) He's involved with political actors like the FSB and Kremlin who are genuinely reprehensible and vile in their actions
3) I'm not really that mad that he got information from the US military or whatever because I don't trust the US military and upper echelons of American security apparatus to act in an ethical, moral and lawful way on account of all the times they haven't done that, indisputably.
4) Wikileaks had the potential to uncover misuse of power, crimes committed and covered up by governments and so. It became very much not that and essentially was a vehicle for probably a Russian state security sponsored propaganda/cybercrime operation.
5) That said in general I think that if the various intelligence, state security, military etc agencies and so on want their cries of "it puts us in danger!" to be taken seriously when it comes to them keeping secrets, they should commit less gross violations of human decency and so on. It's hard for me to feel bad for them when they were running Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture facilities in Abu Dhabi etc etc etc. We aren't talking about organisations that necessarily have earned the benefit of the doubt
6) Revealing this information could potentially be illegal. I'm sure it's not a controversial statement to say that illegality does not mean immoral or unethical and vice versa.
About number 3, i agree that US military, or US government in general can't be trusted.
However, reality being what it is, governments need the ability to keep information secret, just shrugging our shoulders about spying because "well, i don't trust them", is not a useful response.
Now, had Assange been after something specific to right an actual wrong, i might be more forgiving.
Crimes can, and should, sometimes be forgiven even once proven, but doing so would require a just, or atleast justified, motive, and Assange has neither.
This is where it becomes difficult, when trying to fight against a government who hasn't exactly been on the up and up when it comes to what's happening over in the mideast.
I will say (only) that I've been privy to hearing certain things when I was in, because I was running the equipment. I heard a lot of stuff that generally doesn't get told to news outlets. I've heard what happens when intelligence gets compromised, or when shit goes south. It's a really murky grey area because:
1 - I know how reactionary people are, and if people heard the shit I did that sometimes kept me up at night I can only imagine what would result
2 - If there's a confirmed danger, maybe people should know?
To say this was an eye opening experience would be to put it mildly. There's a lot of stuff people just don't know that's happening all the damn time.
Yes, it is difficult.
Allowing people like Assange hack, in person or through intermediaries, indiscriminately and then deceptively use the information found for propaganda is not an answer though.
+16
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
1) Assange is clearly a prick, probably a rapist, generally pretty awful
2) He's involved with political actors like the FSB and Kremlin who are genuinely reprehensible and vile in their actions
3) I'm not really that mad that he got information from the US military or whatever because I don't trust the US military and upper echelons of American security apparatus to act in an ethical, moral and lawful way on account of all the times they haven't done that, indisputably.
4) Wikileaks had the potential to uncover misuse of power, crimes committed and covered up by governments and so. It became very much not that and essentially was a vehicle for probably a Russian state security sponsored propaganda/cybercrime operation.
5) That said in general I think that if the various intelligence, state security, military etc agencies and so on want their cries of "it puts us in danger!" to be taken seriously when it comes to them keeping secrets, they should commit less gross violations of human decency and so on. It's hard for me to feel bad for them when they were running Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture facilities in Abu Dhabi etc etc etc. We aren't talking about organisations that necessarily have earned the benefit of the doubt
6) Revealing this information could potentially be illegal. I'm sure it's not a controversial statement to say that illegality does not mean immoral or unethical and vice versa.
About number 3, i agree that US military, or US government in general can't be trusted.
However, reality being what it is, governments need the ability to keep information secret, just shrugging our shoulders about spying because "well, i don't trust them", is not a useful response.
Now, had Assange been after something specific to right an actual wrong, i might be more forgiving.
Crimes can, and should, sometimes be forgiven even once proven, but doing so would require a just, or atleast justified, motive, and Assange has neither.
This is where it becomes difficult, when trying to fight against a government who hasn't exactly been on the up and up when it comes to what's happening over in the mideast.
I will say (only) that I've been privy to hearing certain things when I was in, because I was running the equipment. I heard a lot of stuff that generally doesn't get told to news outlets. I've heard what happens when intelligence gets compromised, or when shit goes south. It's a really murky grey area because:
1 - I know how reactionary people are, and if people heard the shit I did that sometimes kept me up at night I can only imagine what would result
2 - If there's a confirmed danger, maybe people should know?
To say this was an eye opening experience would be to put it mildly. There's a lot of stuff people just don't know that's happening all the damn time.
Yes, it is difficult.
Allowing people like Assange hack, in person or through intermediaries, indiscriminately and then deceptively use the information found for propaganda is not an answer though.
No I'm with you. Fuck Assange and his band of Anonymous cronies.
I don't support what Assange did. He should be on trial (for sexual assault, in Sweden). I do understand the need for secret information, as a practical necessity.
I also don't particularly take the side of the US government. And I absolutely have more sympathy for Chelsea Manning than I do the government that prosecuted her.
Solar on
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I see that the idea that Wikileaks was ever about "uncovering corruption" and it later "became" something else is still around.
The open community aspect was shuttered very, very quickly. Maybe months, at the most? When someone like Assange, a man convinced of his own righteousness, opens up a thing like Wikileaks he expects people will naturally follow his intentions. When that did not happen, he shuttered the Wiki part of Wikileaks and maintained a targeted campaign of his own desire all while continuing to trot out this "democratic, open source intelligence" bullshit line that means as much as Fox News "Fair and Balanced" motto.
And yes, following UCMJ and all laws can sometimes compromise your own moral codes. It's not as though civilian laws are free of such. It's whether or not you're willing to do the time that the law prescribes, because you absolutely will and poking your head out to make a statement will always paint a target on your forehead. Maybe it results in a change, likely it doesn't.
And it's not like people don't die when intelligence is compromised. The idea that people are simply moaning and bitching about secrets being revealed is one I guess you could make, but the very real thing is people actually do die. If future missions have their dates leaked, people will probably get attacked. If secure keys get leaked, comms get intercepted, people will probably get attacked. Just because you don't think it happens doesn't make it true.
I'm sure it does happen. However if these agencies and departments have staff that are put in danger by the public revelation of crimes they are committing, or have committed, they should commit less crimes, we shouldn't be allowing that excuse to fly.
Yes, if that's all Assange released.
He released far more than just the helicopter stuff. That's the point I'm trying to make. Most of the things Wikileaks released that Manning gave him seemed mundane but they could absolutely be used, if one were so inclined.
That's the difference here.
I can appreciate your position but cannot muster much outrage over what happened. Yes probably they should have been more careful in what they released, however some of what they released was indicative of some pretty shady and immoral shit.
Absolutely there is an issue with the political element here, because the whole thing was arguably an espionage campaign from a foreign and aggressive power who I absolutely don't back against the US at all (Russia). In general though I would say that if the US security services and military want a bit more sympathy from me they should probably be more sympathetic, because for years now they've been shitting all over that through numerous pretty horrific acts that have gone the way to the too, and that's what we know of. I'm sure there's a lot we don't.
We allow these agencies in various nations and forms to keep secrets and trust them to do so honestly, in theory. As it happens I feel like that trust has very much been abused.
Absolutely.
The solution, however, is not the leak of information that could put a bullet in some enlisted privates head, or get a molten hot shape charge to turn everyone in a vehicle into human soup. Especially when most people in the military are doing it because they don't know what else to do.
I don't expect anyone to give a shit about the apparatus. I didn't, even when I was in. But I didn't join because I had an overwhelming desire to be patriotic, I did it because I was homeless and in a really shitty situation and it helped me go to college and get my life straight. Most people aren't in there to kill people (it seems counterintuitive at first, but it's true), which is why most people aren't combat arms.
I absolutely sympathise with a desire to keep those guys safe.
I also want to keep the people dying to improper and criminal military operations, civilians and innocent people often, from dying. If revealing crimes puts those former guys in danger then I'd again say; stop committing crimes, stop killing innocent people, stop mounting operations in places you shouldn't be, and those people won't be put in danger by revelations of said crimes as they won't be happening.
And also I absolutely believe that it probably does put people in danger. I also think that's used as a rhetorical weapon to attack those legitimately exposing actual crimes.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I absolutely sympathise with a desire to keep those guys safe.
I also want to keep the people dying to improper and criminal military operations, civilians and innocent people often, from dying. If revealing crimes puts those former guys in danger then I'd again say; stop committing crimes, stop killing innocent people, stop mounting operations in places you shouldn't be, and those people won't be put in danger by revelations of said crimes as they won't be happening.
And also I absolutely believe that it probably does put people in danger. I also think that's used as a rhetorical weapon to attack those legitimately exposing actual crimes.
Yes, absolutely. It's more of the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" line from W.
It's why it's a difficult and not at all cut-and-dry situation. I am quite glad the helicopter camera stuff got fully exposed to the public. I just wish it didn't have to come at the potential cost of troops safety, which is something that Assange really doesn't fucking care about.
I absolutely sympathise with a desire to keep those guys safe.
I also want to keep the people dying to improper and criminal military operations, civilians and innocent people often, from dying. If revealing crimes puts those former guys in danger then I'd again say; stop committing crimes, stop killing innocent people, stop mounting operations in places you shouldn't be, and those people won't be put in danger by revelations of said crimes as they won't be happening.
And also I absolutely believe that it probably does put people in danger. I also think that's used as a rhetorical weapon to attack those legitimately exposing actual crimes.
This is a false dichotomy though. We don't have to choose between revealing crimes and keeping troops safe. The information that put troops at risk revealed no crimes at all. That is why indiscriminately throwing documents out has to be treated differently. He absolutely could have parsed the information and only released what was relevant. He choose not to give a shit. That alone eradicates any concept of journalistic protection in my eyes.
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
What are journalistic protections, and is being a journalist a legally distinct status?
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.
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Another example. If someone commits murder with a gun. “They bought a gun at this store on this date in this manner in the same caliber that was used in the murder” will likely be supporting information in the indictment. But people should not be afraid that they will be unable to legally purchase guns if the person is convicted
The fact that buying a gun is really easy is frequently argued to be a problem, though. And more analogous language would be "they bought a gun at this gun show to further their conspiracy and avoid back ground checks", which suggest the action is itself problematic to me. Of course, in this case the action is problematic, so I wouldn't mind the inclusion, but it associates something entirely legal with something criminal in a way that makes it look suspect.
like, i don't think the language of the indictment itself creates a legal precedent for persecuting perfectly normal journalistic practices, but it does legitimize a path towards that which I fear people will accept. It is part of the danger of conspiracy prosecutions, all the actions fall within the conspiracy so it is not hard for an authoritarian and corrupt government (luckily there isn't one) to pull some legal sleight-of-hand to go after more political opponents.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The stuff in the indictment that “isn’t related” to the charge is supporting information and not illegal. Nor would it be made so by this indictment.
Lets say we conspired to rob a bank and my part was to scope out the security guards and then we went and used private communications to discuss this. An indictment against me would include the details of how we communicated even though the thing that was illegal was not the communication in and of itself. Nor was it what we were communicating. It was only the connection between the two supporting acts that was
I realize that. There is supporting information of the charge, like the description of the chat app where discussion of the password took place, and information that veers off track such as redaction of received info, cloud storage, encouraging the activity, and deleting chat logs. Some of this is stuff that a journalist would absolutely do, and some is stuff that a foolish yet well meaning journalist would do. I don't really care if the government is pissed at Assange, but I would like some sort of law preventing the government from treating actual journalists like Assange when I'm not looking
The supporting information is not illegal (if i understand the indictment correctly) in and of itself is the issue. So saying that a journalist may be doing the not illegal portions of what Assange did doesnt matter. And saying its chilling on journalism should be wrong. Its only if journalists are actively participating in the breaking into syatems they should be worried.
Another example. If someone commits murder with a gun. “They bought a gun at this store on this date in this manner in the same caliber that was used in the murder” will likely be supporting information in the indictment. But people should not be afraid that they will be unable to legally purchase guns if the person is convicted
I think the point you're missing is that Assange is no journalist
Ehhh... hard to differentiate in a way that matters. Did he publish? If yes he probably deserves protections of a journalist. Did he edit things? Yup, irrelevant. Everyone edits. Is he a Russian agent? Also yes but this should only inform you as to whether or not we should trust what he says rather than whether or not he should recieve protections of a journalist.
The issue is that what he did was not a protected action that journalists get to or should get to do. That the supporting information for the charge looks liks things that journalists do and should get to do is irrelevant because they are not the charge. They only support the indictment.
By your definition, if everyone who publishes stuff on the net is a journalist, doesn't that just mean I could open up a site much like Wikileaks and just dump stolen files and things on the net and call myself a journalist? I don't work for a news organization. I could obfuscate my sources for where I got my files, I could host a private cloud server where I store my ill-gotten gains and have those sources drop things off until I release them. Oops, did I publish something that was stolen and wasn't supposed to see the light of day for a good reason? Nope, can't touch me, I'm a journalist. The way you word it, even someone like that guy who was running a revenge porn site would be able to claim he was a journalist and therefore didn't have to name his sources or be prosecuted for his crimes, simply because he published the things he got and that made him a journalist.
Courts are perfectly able to tell revenge porn from news so I dont know why this forum wouldnt.
Oh, I have no doubt they could. But under the definition of what makes a journalist, the one goumindong provided? According to that, said revenge porn asshole would be a journalist, too, and entitled to all the privileges that being one gets you- like the ability to not name sources or provide access to the information stored in their hard drives or anything. They might be forced to take down what they had, perhaps, but at the same time, they couldn't be prosecuted for it, because they just published it. Where'd they get it? Don't have to answer, I'm a journalist. Where's it stored? Don't have to give you access, I have to protect my sources- journalist. Who are your sources? Nope, don't have to tell you anything on that, journalist. They just publish the stuff, they had no idea it was illegal, and the best you can do is get it taken down.
Maybe we need to define journalist as a job- like, you can't just call yourself one- let's see some proof that you actually work for a legitimate news source, and then you can enjoy the protections instead of twisting them all around to cover your ass because you got busted doing crimes and are looking desperately for a defense.
Tort, privacy (and copyright) laws already provide a way to go after people posting revenge porn. We don't need to define journalist if we just make publishing (sexually explicit) pictures of people without their consent a crime. Explicit revenge porn laws already exists and they have nothing to do with whether the distributor is a "legitimate journalist" working at a "legitimate news source".
Also, how would your solution prevent the New York times from posting revenge porn?
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also
they had no idea it was illegal
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. "Oh I'm sorry officer I didn't know I needed consent from people to post their naked pictures to the internet" is not going to get you out of jail.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
What part of government workers’ personal information would you say falls under public interest?
Another example. If someone commits murder with a gun. “They bought a gun at this store on this date in this manner in the same caliber that was used in the murder” will likely be supporting information in the indictment. But people should not be afraid that they will be unable to legally purchase guns if the person is convicted
The fact that buying a gun is really easy is frequently argued to be a problem, though. And more analogous language would be "they bought a gun at this gun show to further their conspiracy and avoid back ground checks", which suggest the action is itself problematic to me. Of course, in this case the action is problematic, so I wouldn't mind the inclusion, but it associates something entirely legal with something criminal in a way that makes it look suspect.
like, i don't think the language of the indictment itself creates a legal precedent for persecuting perfectly normal journalistic practices, but it does legitimize a path towards that which I fear people will accept. It is part of the danger of conspiracy prosecutions, all the actions fall within the conspiracy so it is not hard for an authoritarian and corrupt government (luckily there isn't one) to pull some legal sleight-of-hand to go after more political opponents.
I dont think guns should be legal...
But the number of indictments that include information about how the suspect legally purchased a firearm is probably significant enough that i should not be worried about the legal effects including it in an indictment.
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
I absolutely sympathise with a desire to keep those guys safe.
I also want to keep the people dying to improper and criminal military operations, civilians and innocent people often, from dying. If revealing crimes puts those former guys in danger then I'd again say; stop committing crimes, stop killing innocent people, stop mounting operations in places you shouldn't be, and those people won't be put in danger by revelations of said crimes as they won't be happening.
And also I absolutely believe that it probably does put people in danger. I also think that's used as a rhetorical weapon to attack those legitimately exposing actual crimes.
This is a false dichotomy though. We don't have to choose between revealing crimes and keeping troops safe. The information that put troops at risk revealed no crimes at all. That is why indiscriminately throwing documents out has to be treated differently. He absolutely could have parsed the information and only released what was relevant. He choose not to give a shit. That alone eradicates any concept of journalistic protection in my eyes.
They do that shit all the time too. They doxxed like every women in Turkey at one point.
These leakers are generally extremely indiscriminate.
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
What part of government workers’ personal information would you say falls under public interest?
Its really hard to figure out if we're talking about his actual charges or not because the topic seems to change depending on what is most convenient for his detractors.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.)
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.
No, in this case that "stuff" was Assange also covering up his own illegal behavior, and that is a critical difference. If Assange had been acting like a journalist and was just hiding his source's identity, this would have been a very different thread.
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.
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
What part of government workers’ personal information would you say falls under public interest?
Its really hard to figure out if we're talking about his actual charges or not because the topic seems to change depending on what is most convenient for his detractors.
I'm not talking about the charges at the moment. I'm talking about you defending his journalistic freedom when his journalistic freedom includes the above. You don't get to pick and choose what actions to ascribe to a person.
Part of being a journalist is being very careful with your information. You don't see a journalist just drop the records of something out on the net- you're supposed to read the facts, compile them into something that's easy to understand, and practice good information security because if you're handling sensitive stuff, you don't want to send something out there that shouldn't, lest you end up like Geraldo giving away a secret offensive during Iraqi Freedom. You write something objective about the information you've gathered, you don't embellish or hint at anything, and there you go.
I've seen middle-school newspaper writers with more journalism skills than Julian Assange. He's more of a propagandist than a journalist, anyways.
JaysonFour on
I can has cheezburger, yes?
+9
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
I guess there was that one court ruling RE: Fox News...
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
I guess there was that one court ruling RE: Fox News...
IIRC Fox stayed they didn’t have to be accurate because they were entertainers, not newscasters.
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
I guess there was that one court ruling RE: Fox News...
IIRC Fox stayed they didn’t have to be accurate because they were entertainers, not newscasters.
It’s the opposite of what is being said here.
Fox said this in regards to a slander case i believe not in regards to an issue of journalistic protections
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.
Goumindong on
+5
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
What are journalistic protections, and is being a journalist a legally distinct status?
As far as I can tell, the only journalistic protections that exist are shield laws, which exist in most states (but not federally). Shield laws may in some cases help protect journalists from being ordered by a court to reveal their sources.
Since that's not the legal issue here, the question of whether Assange is a journalist or not seems moot from a legal perspective.
From a non-legal perspective, the question of whether Assange is a journalist or not is really a question of whether journalists as a group should fight on his behalf. In my estimation, Assange is arguably a journalist if we want to be loose with definitions, and if you feel like the best way to protect journalists is to fight on behalf of anybody who might remotely be considered a journalist, then go fight for him. But I feel like including somebody so universally and deservedly reviled in your in-group of journalists is likely to do more to harm the cause of free journalism than it will to help it, so I don't recommend journalists go to bat for him. Imagine Hollywood defending Harvey Weinstein's rights as a member of the Producer's Guild--like that, Assange is one of those cases where humanity can probably agree that the proper response to "Hey, you claim now this behavior should be protected and yet you didn't stand up for Assange, did you???" is "Yeah, but that guy was a fucking asshole."
Nah, standing up for the rights of assholes is right and proper. So long as those rights are right and proper.
Assange should go down not because he is an asshole but because what he did is not and should not be protected. With what he did explicitly being the assisting with a criminal act and not the publishing of information which was the result of a criminal act.
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
No, Assange is not entitled to journalistic protections, because he is not a journalist in any meaningful sense.
What are journalistic protections, and is being a journalist a legally distinct status?
As far as I can tell, the only journalistic protections that exist are shield laws, which exist in most states (but not federally). Shield laws may in some cases help protect journalists from being ordered by a court to reveal their sources.
Since that's not the legal issue here, the question of whether Assange is a journalist or not seems moot from a legal perspective.
From a non-legal perspective, the question of whether Assange is a journalist or not is really a question of whether journalists as a group should fight on his behalf. In my estimation, Assange is arguably a journalist if we want to be loose with definitions, and if you feel like the best way to protect journalists is to fight on behalf of anybody who might remotely be considered a journalist, then go fight for him. But I feel like including somebody so universally and deservedly reviled in your in-group of journalists is likely to do more to harm the cause of free journalism than it will to help it, so I don't recommend journalists go to bat for him. Imagine Hollywood defending Harvey Weinstein's rights as a member of the Producer's Guild--like that, Assange is one of those cases where humanity can probably agree that the proper response to "Hey, you claim now this behavior should be protected and yet you didn't stand up for Assange, did you???" is "Yeah, but that guy was a fucking asshole."
In this vein, Greenwald's partner is a more difficult problem than Assange.
Posts
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.
- John Stuart Mill
1) Assange is clearly a prick, probably a rapist, generally pretty awful
2) He's involved with political actors like the FSB and Kremlin who are genuinely reprehensible and vile in their actions
3) I'm not really that mad that he got information from the US military or whatever because I don't trust the US military and upper echelons of American security apparatus to act in an ethical, moral and lawful way on account of all the times they haven't done that, indisputably.
4) Wikileaks had the potential to uncover misuse of power, crimes committed and covered up by governments and so. It became very much not that and essentially was a vehicle for probably a Russian state security sponsored propaganda/cybercrime operation.
5) That said in general I think that if the various intelligence, state security, military etc agencies and so on want their cries of "it puts us in danger!" to be taken seriously when it comes to them keeping secrets, they should commit less gross violations of human decency and so on. It's hard for me to feel bad for them when they were running Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture facilities in Abu Dhabi etc etc etc. We aren't talking about organisations that necessarily have earned the benefit of the doubt
6) Revealing this information could potentially be illegal. I'm sure it's not a controversial statement to say that illegality does not mean immoral or unethical and vice versa.
I'm sure the US military felt like they'd investigated and come to the correct conclusion and so on, therefore that information didn't need to be revealed
To which I say; you don't get to decide whether your own investigation of your own crimes means you shouldn't have to tell anyone you did them.
And the criticism of people like Chelsea Manning is "they swore an oath to follow the UCMJ" to which I say one has a higher duty to what is right than such codes. If following the UCMJ would make Chelsea Manning feel like she was complicit in the covering up of potential crimes committed by the US military then, well.
Also she was treated awfully by the US military. Solitary confinement for lengthy stretches etc. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes people shrug their shoulders when the Pentagon gets upset about their secrets being revealed, yeah well you treat people like shit so why should I care?
Americans have pretty much abandoned their belief in the Nuremberg Laws. It’s the kind of thing that happens after 18 years of an extremely dirty war and the creation of a trillion dollar security state that has turned having a security clearance into something about as rare and prestigious as a McDonald’s employee badge.
The open community aspect was shuttered very, very quickly. Maybe months, at the most? When someone like Assange, a man convinced of his own righteousness, opens up a thing like Wikileaks he expects people will naturally follow his intentions. When that did not happen, he shuttered the Wiki part of Wikileaks and maintained a targeted campaign of his own desire all while continuing to trot out this "democratic, open source intelligence" bullshit line that means as much as Fox News "Fair and Balanced" motto.
And yes, following UCMJ and all laws can sometimes compromise your own moral codes. It's not as though civilian laws are free of such. It's whether or not you're willing to do the time that the law prescribes, because you absolutely will and poking your head out to make a statement will always paint a target on your forehead. Maybe it results in a change, likely it doesn't.
And it's not like people don't die when intelligence is compromised. The idea that people are simply moaning and bitching about secrets being revealed is one I guess you could make, but the very real thing is people actually do die. If future missions have their dates leaked, people will probably get attacked. If secure keys get leaked, comms get intercepted, people will probably get attacked. Just because you don't think it happens doesn't make it true.
About number 3, i agree that US military, or US government in general can't be trusted.
However, reality being what it is, governments need the ability to keep information secret, just shrugging our shoulders about spying because "well, i don't trust them", is not a useful response.
Now, had Assange been after something specific to right an actual wrong, i might be more forgiving.
Crimes can, and should, sometimes be forgiven even once proven, but doing so would require a just, or atleast justified, motive, and Assange has neither.
This is where it becomes difficult, when trying to fight against a government who hasn't exactly been on the up and up when it comes to what's happening over in the mideast.
I will say (only) that I've been privy to hearing certain things when I was in, because I was running the equipment. I heard a lot of stuff that generally doesn't get told to news outlets. I've heard what happens when intelligence gets compromised, or when shit goes south. It's a really murky grey area because:
1 - I know how reactionary people are, and if people heard the shit I did that sometimes kept me up at night I can only imagine what would result
2 - If there's a confirmed danger, maybe people should know?
To say this was an eye opening experience would be to put it mildly. There's a lot of stuff people just don't know that's happening all the damn time.
I'm sure it does happen. However if these agencies and departments have staff that are put in danger by the public revelation of crimes they are committing, or have committed, they should commit less crimes, we shouldn't be allowing that excuse to fly.
Yes, if that's all Assange released.
He released far more than just the helicopter stuff. That's the point I'm trying to make. Most of the things Wikileaks released that Manning gave him seemed mundane but they could absolutely be used, if one were so inclined.
That's the difference here. 750,000 documents and only a handful of things we'd consider an abuse of state power is not a good ratio.
What do you think was in the rest?
I can appreciate your position but cannot muster much outrage over what happened. Yes probably they should have been more careful in what they released, however some of what they released was indicative of some pretty shady and immoral shit.
Absolutely there is an issue with the political element here, because the whole thing was arguably an espionage campaign from a foreign and aggressive power who I absolutely don't back against the US at all (Russia). In general though I would say that if the US security services and military want a bit more sympathy from me they should probably be more sympathetic, because for years now they've been shitting all over that through numerous pretty horrific acts that have gone the way to the too, and that's what we know of. I'm sure there's a lot we don't.
We allow these agencies in various nations and forms to keep secrets and trust them to do so honestly, in theory. As it happens I feel like that trust has very much been abused.
Allowing people like Assange hack, in person or through intermediaries, indiscriminately and then deceptively use the information found for propaganda is not an answer though.
No I'm with you. Fuck Assange and his band of Anonymous cronies.
I don't support what Assange did. He should be on trial (for sexual assault, in Sweden). I do understand the need for secret information, as a practical necessity.
I also don't particularly take the side of the US government. And I absolutely have more sympathy for Chelsea Manning than I do the government that prosecuted her.
Absolutely.
The solution, however, is not the leak of information that could put a bullet in some enlisted privates head, or get a molten hot shape charge to turn everyone in a vehicle into human soup. Especially when most people in the military are doing it because they don't know what else to do.
I don't expect anyone to give a shit about the apparatus. I didn't, even when I was in. But I didn't join because I had an overwhelming desire to be patriotic, I did it because I was homeless and in a really shitty situation and it helped me go to college and get my life straight. Most people aren't in there to kill people (it seems counterintuitive at first, but it's true), which is why most people aren't combat arms.
I also want to keep the people dying to improper and criminal military operations, civilians and innocent people often, from dying. If revealing crimes puts those former guys in danger then I'd again say; stop committing crimes, stop killing innocent people, stop mounting operations in places you shouldn't be, and those people won't be put in danger by revelations of said crimes as they won't be happening.
And also I absolutely believe that it probably does put people in danger. I also think that's used as a rhetorical weapon to attack those legitimately exposing actual crimes.
Yes, absolutely. It's more of the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" line from W.
It's why it's a difficult and not at all cut-and-dry situation. I am quite glad the helicopter camera stuff got fully exposed to the public. I just wish it didn't have to come at the potential cost of troops safety, which is something that Assange really doesn't fucking care about.
This is a false dichotomy though. We don't have to choose between revealing crimes and keeping troops safe. The information that put troops at risk revealed no crimes at all. That is why indiscriminately throwing documents out has to be treated differently. He absolutely could have parsed the information and only released what was relevant. He choose not to give a shit. That alone eradicates any concept of journalistic protection in my eyes.
What are journalistic protections, and is being a journalist a legally distinct status?
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.
He publishes information that easily falls under the heading of general public interest. Journalistic protections do not require honesty or fair dealing on the part of thr journalist.
The fact that buying a gun is really easy is frequently argued to be a problem, though. And more analogous language would be "they bought a gun at this gun show to further their conspiracy and avoid back ground checks", which suggest the action is itself problematic to me. Of course, in this case the action is problematic, so I wouldn't mind the inclusion, but it associates something entirely legal with something criminal in a way that makes it look suspect.
like, i don't think the language of the indictment itself creates a legal precedent for persecuting perfectly normal journalistic practices, but it does legitimize a path towards that which I fear people will accept. It is part of the danger of conspiracy prosecutions, all the actions fall within the conspiracy so it is not hard for an authoritarian and corrupt government (luckily there isn't one) to pull some legal sleight-of-hand to go after more political opponents.
Tort, privacy (and copyright) laws already provide a way to go after people posting revenge porn. We don't need to define journalist if we just make publishing (sexually explicit) pictures of people without their consent a crime. Explicit revenge porn laws already exists and they have nothing to do with whether the distributor is a "legitimate journalist" working at a "legitimate news source".
Also, how would your solution prevent the New York times from posting revenge porn?
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.
What part of government workers’ personal information would you say falls under public interest?
I dont think guns should be legal...
But the number of indictments that include information about how the suspect legally purchased a firearm is probably significant enough that i should not be worried about the legal effects including it in an indictment. 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
They do that shit all the time too. They doxxed like every women in Turkey at one point.
These leakers are generally extremely indiscriminate.
Its really hard to figure out if we're talking about his actual charges or not because the topic seems to change depending on what is most convenient for his detractors.
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, in this case that "stuff" was Assange also covering up his own illegal behavior, and that is a critical difference. If Assange had been acting like a journalist and was just hiding his source's identity, this would have been a very different thread.
- John Stuart Mill
I'm not talking about the charges at the moment. I'm talking about you defending his journalistic freedom when his journalistic freedom includes the above. You don't get to pick and choose what actions to ascribe to a person.
I've seen middle-school newspaper writers with more journalism skills than Julian Assange. He's more of a propagandist than a journalist, anyways.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
IIRC Fox stayed they didn’t have to be accurate because they were entertainers, not newscasters.
It’s the opposite of what is being said here.
Fox said this in regards to a slander case i believe not in regards to an issue of journalistic protections
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.
As far as I can tell, the only journalistic protections that exist are shield laws, which exist in most states (but not federally). Shield laws may in some cases help protect journalists from being ordered by a court to reveal their sources.
Since that's not the legal issue here, the question of whether Assange is a journalist or not seems moot from a legal perspective.
From a non-legal perspective, the question of whether Assange is a journalist or not is really a question of whether journalists as a group should fight on his behalf. In my estimation, Assange is arguably a journalist if we want to be loose with definitions, and if you feel like the best way to protect journalists is to fight on behalf of anybody who might remotely be considered a journalist, then go fight for him. But I feel like including somebody so universally and deservedly reviled in your in-group of journalists is likely to do more to harm the cause of free journalism than it will to help it, so I don't recommend journalists go to bat for him. Imagine Hollywood defending Harvey Weinstein's rights as a member of the Producer's Guild--like that, Assange is one of those cases where humanity can probably agree that the proper response to "Hey, you claim now this behavior should be protected and yet you didn't stand up for Assange, did you???" is "Yeah, but that guy was a fucking asshole."
Assange should go down not because he is an asshole but because what he did is not and should not be protected. With what he did explicitly being the assisting with a criminal act and not the publishing of information which was the result of a criminal act.
In this vein, Greenwald's partner is a more difficult problem than Assange.