9 ms·

Julian Assange Indictment (2018)

106 points by infodocket 8y ago

ryanlol 8y ago
>Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers This is all there is to it. Assange offered to crack a NTLM hash given to him by Manning, and apparently failed. It certainly didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, this is obviously a politically motivated prosecution. This was widely known for close to a decade https://www.wired.com/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/ https://www.wired.com/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/ but somehow the indictment is only dated 2018. Donate to the wikileaks defense fund https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/ https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/
- tingol 8y ago
  What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? An hour ago a lot of people here were like: - He's just charged with skipping bail, innocent people shouldn't run, UK won't extradite him - He's charged with sexual assault, innocent people don't run from that Sweden won't extradite him Well, now we know what's up...
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile, yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash.
    - antt 8y ago
      >The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile The CIA tried that too: https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-threatens-cnn-with-defamation-suit-over-pedophilia-claim https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-th...
    - sky_rw 8y ago
      From what I've been reading lately, thats all they need to come up with. The useful idiots have already rendered their verdict.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      > yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash I find it funny when people minimize actions to the barest minimum. Like saying a gun murderer got jail for "only pulling a lever, which law abiding people do tens of times a day". If a US president starts a thermonuclear war and causes nuclear winter: "All he did was enter numbers and press a few red buttons, stop giving him a hard time".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - antt 8y ago
    >Well, now we know what's up... People who have never seen the wrong end of a police truncheon or gas canister are so cute. They think the law is there to protect them.
    - spoovy 8y ago
      That's literally why the law exists, to protect people from the arbitrary will of those more powerful. I would think anyone who has read even a tiny bit about the subject would know that. Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should go on some trendy protest and get hit with a truncheon so I can better understand the purpose of the law.
  - SllX 8y ago
    From my observation, you are being downvoted for politically motivated reasons. I would not expect a discussion of quality or fairness about this topic on this or any other website. Anyone can look at Assange and see in him whatever they want to see, and both the media and politicians have exploited this for six or seven years and the people on this forum really are just like people on any other forum.
  - xoa 8y ago
    >What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? Sure, completely without any connection to any opinions on whether Assange should be tried or not, or any of the politics, the parent is engaging in some real silliness/ignorance, and that shouldn't be upvoted on HN even if it agrees with your politics. In particular: It certainly didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, this is obviously a politically motivated prosecution. These don't follow. No, it didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, but that's not relevant either. The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out (and not everything has a statute of limitations). They may choose not to prosecute for various reasons, including simple lack of resources or impossibility. But none of this at all bars them, either legally or morally in my opinion, from later attempting a prosecution if the opportunity ever allows. That does not make it "obviously a politically motivated prosecution", nor is it unheard of even in very serious cases like terrorism bombings, murder, and so forth. Some people are very good at evasion and hiding, but the true government superpower is patience. They file it away, but they don't forget. They'll just wait, but that doesn't mean a crime goes away unless there is a statute of limitations that explicitly makes it go away eventually by law. If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough, then they should just do so. There is genuinely a real argument to be made there. But a suspect being granted protection by another country and then the government just waiting, and then the wheels grinding into motion once again if the opportunity ever allows, is not by itself some weird thing. It doesn't justify the hysteria, nor the call for people to give him money.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      >The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out Why did they not indict him before 2018? I don't think that has anything to do with the US government being physically unable to get to him. It's not normal procedure to delay indictment, the normal procedure is to keep the indictment sealed. Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia... >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Everyone who follows WL already knew about this hash thing in 2011, it was brought up in detail during the Manning trial. The DOJ was well aware of the possibility of indicting Assange over this, but opted to not do so until recently. >If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough This has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that DOJ flipflopping on this indicates that this was a politically motivated decision.
  - mr_overalls 8y ago
    Assange/WikiLeaks actions have aligned with the interests of Russia often enough in the past few years, that it's an open question of whether they are working with Russian intelligence services. It certainly seems likely he was acting as a cutout for Russian intel with the DNC leaks. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18...
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      Assange has always been anti-US, why would his actions not align with Russian interests?
    - droithomme 8y ago
      During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. "Can't we just drone this guy?" Given that the Secretary was about to become the most powerful person in the world, Assange would obviously have been highly motivated by self-defense and preservation alone to do whatever he could to thwart the election of someone who has actually called for him to be assassinated and had the means, motive and opportunity to follow through with that threat.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        >During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. That was "leaked" by True Pundit, according to "State Department sources". The chance of it being fake is about 99.999%, given that no one with any credibility leaks to fake news sites like True Pundit. They would have leaked to Fox News or NY Times. Meanwhile, in 2010, Trump called for Assange getting the death penalty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk
  - matt4077 8y ago
    I didn't have much doubt that he would be indicted, at least after the accidental disclosure of the sealed indictment a few months ago. People were, I believe, merely refuting the absurd notion that the charges for his sexual assault were some sort of conspiracy. Remember, the conspiracy was that these charges were a pretext to get him extradited from the UK (which will deport him rather hastily) to Sweden (which has far more liberal laws and isn't part of five eyes). It never made much sense. His best hope now is actually being deported to Sweden first, then trying his luck there.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    He was charged for skipping bail. People shouldn't skip bail unless they feel the court won't give them a fair trial. UK courts give people fair trials (or in this case a fair extradition hearing). He promised to the court to stay at home, so he was released from jail on bail. He then broke that promise. 7 years ago the argument was "Assange shouldn't be extradited to Sweden because Sweden would extradite him to the U.S" [1] This was bullshit, if the U.S. wanted to extradite, they could do that just as easily in the UK as in Sweden, and they've now proven that. Further his argument was he would face torture and/or the death penalty [2] UK won't extradite him for any reason 1) unless the U.S. files an extradition request (they have now, it's not hard to do), 2) that's approved by a U.K court, which means looking into chances of inhumane treatment, death penalty, etc. Sweden has the same rules. All of these facts are consistent with what people were saying first thing this morning and yesterday. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-speaks-of-his-fear-of-extradition-to-the-us https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-spe... [2] http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-...
- sambull 8y ago
  Personal opinion it has to do with is work with the Trump campaign. It's time to keep that one quiet now it seems like.
- weaklearner 8y ago
  I'll be explicit. I shed no tears for Russian agents involved in interfering with american elections.
koolba 8y ago
> “...Manning did not have administrative-level privileges and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file...” Clearly only hackers would use a hacker operating system like Linux.
- Tomte 8y ago
  On a government-provided, non-Linux computer? Yes. Everyone else is not using Linux on those.
- overkalix 8y ago
  No need for tricky hacking really. Physical access is total access after all.
- 0815test 8y ago
  First of all, Manning was trying to crack a system, which has nothing to do with hacking, properly understood. Secondly, they obviously mean "special" in that she was not expected to use Linux in connection with her duties - much less to boot a system running some other OS. The context is what makes this "special".
  - ASalazarMX 8y ago
    > trying to crack a system, which has nothing to do with hacking, properly understood As much as I'd like that distinction to be made, I think that boat sailed a long time ago. I think the public has a clearer distinction between white/gray/black hat hackers than between hackers/crackers.
- shireboy 8y ago
  Cringe-worthy quote. Maybe it was Kali or similar and they just didn't want to announce it?
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  Strictly speaking, the way the CFAA works is that if files stored on a hard disk are protected by permissions and not actual encryption or anything, and you load that hard drive into another operating system that ignores those permissions, you have accessed things you are not supposed to and in violation of the law. So yes, using a different operating system can be punishable It's similar to a way the open window or door in your house does not suddenly make stealing all your stuff legal
peteradio 8y ago
Why is this a scan?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  They don't want this bullshit living forever in search engines.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Because surprisingly, the real indictment is on real paper. With a real signature and a real stamping on it.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Was it typed on a "real" typewriter? Because otherwise, this pretext is bullshit. If it's not searchable it's not really available to the public.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Probably not. But still, I don't understand your view. It's six pages, double-spaced, for God's sake! And you can run OCR on it (and republish it). There are many other things I'd be concerned about first, when it comes to "available to the public".
      - weaklearner 8y ago
        It is bullshit PACER isn't free or significantly cheaper
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Lots of people will do that. Wikileaks included, probably. It is still the case that DoJ went to extra effort to print out and rescan an electronic file they already had in electronic form. They did that for an obvious reason; this document falls embarrassingly short of even DoJ's already low standards. Most DoJ personnel are not rabid centrist Democrats. The sooner everyone forgets about this tawdry episode, the happier they'll be.
peteradio 8y ago
How will this play out I wonder? I thought the current admin "loved wikileaks".
- dd36 8y ago
  He’ll be nominated to the Fed.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Pretty sure Obama DOJ refused to charge this.
  - weaklearner 8y ago
    well when obama was president assange was hiding in the embassy so I think attributing much significance to fact the obama administration did not issue this indictment is a bit tenuous.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      Normally in a situation like this you would indict and keep it sealed, that's not what happened here. There was a deliberate decision not to indict which changed when Trump and his good friends Pompeo and Mattis came to power.
      - weaklearner 8y ago
        Yeah it seems that's true/I was wrong. I was reading george conway's twitter and I saw this tweet thread by a washingtonpost journalist `If this is the only subject to which the charges relate (& there are none on election interference or other topics), that’s notable. It also raises the question of what changed from when the Obama administration decided it couldn’t make a case, aside from political/DoJ leadership' https://twitter.com/mattzap https://twitter.com/mattzap
- marpstar 8y ago
  Almost certainly done so that Assange can be brought to USA for testimony in the fallout of the failed Mueller probe. Calling it now: Assange will walk free.
cedivad 8y ago
So what's the maximum sentence for this?
- ryanlol 8y ago
  10 years, not sure how the sentencing guidelines will play out here.
  - znebby 8y ago
    I read it is only 5 years [1]. In which case voluntarily staying in the Ecuadorian embassy for 6 years seems to be a miscalculation. (At least, staying beyond the point that the Swedish rape charges were dropped). 1: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
    - JdeBP 8y ago
      18 USC 1080(c)(1)(A) says ten years.
    - mrguyorama 8y ago
      I believe his fear was being locked up in gitmo. I think it was a valid fear.
celticninja 8y ago
Wow, seems pretty flimsy, compared to the effort they are putting in. But they need a head for the chopping block and the higher the profile the better the fit.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deiznof 8y ago
Looking at what he has charged with (1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(2))...how would those charges stick? He failed to actually access anything.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  Read the top of the very first page. It is a conspiracy charge. This is made clear on pages 4, 5, and 6 as well. Then read 18 USC 1030(b).
  - franey 8y ago
    Link for the lazy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
- Retra 8y ago
  Intentionally attempting to do something illegal is illegal. Not merely succeeding at it.
  - ksaj 8y ago
    People who don't get that distinction might benefit by considering crimes such as Attempted Robbery and Attempted Murder. Indeed, attempting to commit a crime is pretty much always a crime in and of itself. Imagine if would-be kidnapper got off the hook just because the intended victim ran fast enough to get away. Or a wannabe bomber who fudged the recipe.
carnagii 8y ago
> Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst they are gendering her correctly. at least we have a progressive politically correct Stasi.
- alexgmcm 8y ago
  We have finally arrived at Jello Biafra's suede denim secret police.
DontGiveTwoFlux 8y ago
The indictment charges that he conspired to crack passwords on government computers. It appears that the free press protections extend to only accepting documents, and not pursuing of them. This makes sense to me on its face. Newspapers reporters hacking into government networks goes beyond reporting, and should not be journalistically protected.
- hjk05 8y ago
  Honestly I’d rather live in a world where those who expose government conspiracies and corruption are protected than one where they are held to the letter of a law.
jtokoph 8y ago
I wonder if they would count the years trapped in the embassy as time served.
wallace_f 8y ago
So if you use your computer to read the Guardian or NYT reporting on NSA surveillance, you can be charged with 'Unauthorized use of a computet?' Or only primary source docs? Ok then, if so, when are they arrestint all those NYT, etc, reporters?

106 points by infodocket 8y ago

>Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers This is all there is to it. Assange offered to crack a NTLM hash given to him by Manning, and apparently failed. It certainly didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, this is obviously a politically motivated prosecution. This was widely known for close to a decade https://www.wired.com/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/ https://www.wired.com/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/ but somehow the indictment is only dated 2018. Donate to the wikileaks defense fund https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/ https://defend.wikileaks.org/donate/

tingol 8y ago
What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? An hour ago a lot of people here were like: - He's just charged with skipping bail, innocent people shouldn't run, UK won't extradite him - He's charged with sexual assault, innocent people don't run from that Sweden won't extradite him Well, now we know what's up...
- ryanlol 8y ago
  The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile, yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash.
  - antt 8y ago
    >The almost decade long defamation campaign to silence Assange has worked to the point where I might as well be defending a pedophile The CIA tried that too: https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-threatens-cnn-with-defamation-suit-over-pedophilia-claim https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312654-wikileaks-th...
  - sky_rw 8y ago
    From what I've been reading lately, thats all they need to come up with. The useful idiots have already rendered their verdict.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    > yet all the DOJ could come up with was cracking a hash I find it funny when people minimize actions to the barest minimum. Like saying a gun murderer got jail for "only pulling a lever, which law abiding people do tens of times a day". If a US president starts a thermonuclear war and causes nuclear winter: "All he did was enter numbers and press a few red buttons, stop giving him a hard time".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- antt 8y ago
  >Well, now we know what's up... People who have never seen the wrong end of a police truncheon or gas canister are so cute. They think the law is there to protect them.
  - spoovy 8y ago
    That's literally why the law exists, to protect people from the arbitrary will of those more powerful. I would think anyone who has read even a tiny bit about the subject would know that. Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should go on some trendy protest and get hit with a truncheon so I can better understand the purpose of the law.
- SllX 8y ago
  From my observation, you are being downvoted for politically motivated reasons. I would not expect a discussion of quality or fairness about this topic on this or any other website. Anyone can look at Assange and see in him whatever they want to see, and both the media and politicians have exploited this for six or seven years and the people on this forum really are just like people on any other forum.
- xoa 8y ago
  >What's with the downvotes? Can I hear a different opinion? Sure, completely without any connection to any opinions on whether Assange should be tried or not, or any of the politics, the parent is engaging in some real silliness/ignorance, and that shouldn't be upvoted on HN even if it agrees with your politics. In particular: It certainly didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, this is obviously a politically motivated prosecution. These don't follow. No, it didn't take the government 8 years to investigate this, but that's not relevant either. The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out (and not everything has a statute of limitations). They may choose not to prosecute for various reasons, including simple lack of resources or impossibility. But none of this at all bars them, either legally or morally in my opinion, from later attempting a prosecution if the opportunity ever allows. That does not make it "obviously a politically motivated prosecution", nor is it unheard of even in very serious cases like terrorism bombings, murder, and so forth. Some people are very good at evasion and hiding, but the true government superpower is patience. They file it away, but they don't forget. They'll just wait, but that doesn't mean a crime goes away unless there is a statute of limitations that explicitly makes it go away eventually by law. If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough, then they should just do so. There is genuinely a real argument to be made there. But a suspect being granted protection by another country and then the government just waiting, and then the wheels grinding into motion once again if the opportunity ever allows, is not by itself some weird thing. It doesn't justify the hysteria, nor the call for people to give him money.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    >The government can perfectly well find all the evidence they need, but if they're simply physically unable to get at the suspect they can then sit on the case as long as any applicable statute of limitations hasn't run out Why did they not indict him before 2018? I don't think that has anything to do with the US government being physically unable to get to him. It's not normal procedure to delay indictment, the normal procedure is to keep the indictment sealed. Obama DOJ had decided to not indict Assange for this, this is a politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia... >Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Everyone who follows WL already knew about this hash thing in 2011, it was brought up in detail during the Manning trial. The DOJ was well aware of the possibility of indicting Assange over this, but opted to not do so until recently. >If parent poster wants to make a case for universal expiration, that any crime should cease to be prosecutable if it goes cold or suspects can stay away for long enough This has nothing at all to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying that DOJ flipflopping on this indicates that this was a politically motivated decision.
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  Assange/WikiLeaks actions have aligned with the interests of Russia often enough in the past few years, that it's an open question of whether they are working with Russian intelligence services. It certainly seems likely he was acting as a cutout for Russian intel with the DNC leaks. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18...
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Assange has always been anti-US, why would his actions not align with Russian interests?
  - droithomme 8y ago
    During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. "Can't we just drone this guy?" Given that the Secretary was about to become the most powerful person in the world, Assange would obviously have been highly motivated by self-defense and preservation alone to do whatever he could to thwart the election of someone who has actually called for him to be assassinated and had the means, motive and opportunity to follow through with that threat.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      >During the Obama administration, Secretary of State Clinton proposed assassinating Assange with a drone strike. That was "leaked" by True Pundit, according to "State Department sources". The chance of it being fake is about 99.999%, given that no one with any credibility leaks to fake news sites like True Pundit. They would have leaked to Fox News or NY Times. Meanwhile, in 2010, Trump called for Assange getting the death penalty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk
- matt4077 8y ago
  I didn't have much doubt that he would be indicted, at least after the accidental disclosure of the sealed indictment a few months ago. People were, I believe, merely refuting the absurd notion that the charges for his sexual assault were some sort of conspiracy. Remember, the conspiracy was that these charges were a pretext to get him extradited from the UK (which will deport him rather hastily) to Sweden (which has far more liberal laws and isn't part of five eyes). It never made much sense. His best hope now is actually being deported to Sweden first, then trying his luck there.
- isostatic 8y ago
  He was charged for skipping bail. People shouldn't skip bail unless they feel the court won't give them a fair trial. UK courts give people fair trials (or in this case a fair extradition hearing). He promised to the court to stay at home, so he was released from jail on bail. He then broke that promise. 7 years ago the argument was "Assange shouldn't be extradited to Sweden because Sweden would extradite him to the U.S" [1] This was bullshit, if the U.S. wanted to extradite, they could do that just as easily in the UK as in Sweden, and they've now proven that. Further his argument was he would face torture and/or the death penalty [2] UK won't extradite him for any reason 1) unless the U.S. files an extradition request (they have now, it's not hard to do), 2) that's approved by a U.K court, which means looking into chances of inhumane treatment, death penalty, etc. Sweden has the same rules. All of these facts are consistent with what people were saying first thing this morning and yesterday. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-speaks-of-his-fear-of-extradition-to-the-us https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-12011867/julian-assange-spe... [2] http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-to-us-via-sweden.html http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2012/08/extradition-of-assange-...
sambull 8y ago
Personal opinion it has to do with is work with the Trump campaign. It's time to keep that one quiet now it seems like.
weaklearner 8y ago
I'll be explicit. I shed no tears for Russian agents involved in interfering with american elections.

koolba 8y ago

> “...Manning did not have administrative-level privileges and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file...” Clearly only hackers would use a hacker operating system like Linux.

Tomte 8y ago
On a government-provided, non-Linux computer? Yes. Everyone else is not using Linux on those.
overkalix 8y ago
No need for tricky hacking really. Physical access is total access after all.
0815test 8y ago
First of all, Manning was trying to crack a system, which has nothing to do with hacking, properly understood. Secondly, they obviously mean "special" in that she was not expected to use Linux in connection with her duties - much less to boot a system running some other OS. The context is what makes this "special".
- ASalazarMX 8y ago
  > trying to crack a system, which has nothing to do with hacking, properly understood As much as I'd like that distinction to be made, I think that boat sailed a long time ago. I think the public has a clearer distinction between white/gray/black hat hackers than between hackers/crackers.
shireboy 8y ago
Cringe-worthy quote. Maybe it was Kali or similar and they just didn't want to announce it?
mrguyorama 8y ago
Strictly speaking, the way the CFAA works is that if files stored on a hard disk are protected by permissions and not actual encryption or anything, and you load that hard drive into another operating system that ignores those permissions, you have accessed things you are not supposed to and in violation of the law. So yes, using a different operating system can be punishable It's similar to a way the open window or door in your house does not suddenly make stealing all your stuff legal

peteradio 8y ago

Why is this a scan?

jessaustin 8y ago
They don't want this bullshit living forever in search engines.
Tomte 8y ago
Because surprisingly, the real indictment is on real paper. With a real signature and a real stamping on it.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Was it typed on a "real" typewriter? Because otherwise, this pretext is bullshit. If it's not searchable it's not really available to the public.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Probably not. But still, I don't understand your view. It's six pages, double-spaced, for God's sake! And you can run OCR on it (and republish it). There are many other things I'd be concerned about first, when it comes to "available to the public".
    - weaklearner 8y ago
      It is bullshit PACER isn't free or significantly cheaper
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Lots of people will do that. Wikileaks included, probably. It is still the case that DoJ went to extra effort to print out and rescan an electronic file they already had in electronic form. They did that for an obvious reason; this document falls embarrassingly short of even DoJ's already low standards. Most DoJ personnel are not rabid centrist Democrats. The sooner everyone forgets about this tawdry episode, the happier they'll be.

peteradio 8y ago

How will this play out I wonder? I thought the current admin "loved wikileaks".

dd36 8y ago
He’ll be nominated to the Fed.
ryanlol 8y ago
Pretty sure Obama DOJ refused to charge this.
- weaklearner 8y ago
  well when obama was president assange was hiding in the embassy so I think attributing much significance to fact the obama administration did not issue this indictment is a bit tenuous.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Normally in a situation like this you would indict and keep it sealed, that's not what happened here. There was a deliberate decision not to indict which changed when Trump and his good friends Pompeo and Mattis came to power.
    - weaklearner 8y ago
      Yeah it seems that's true/I was wrong. I was reading george conway's twitter and I saw this tweet thread by a washingtonpost journalist `If this is the only subject to which the charges relate (& there are none on election interference or other topics), that’s notable. It also raises the question of what changed from when the Obama administration decided it couldn’t make a case, aside from political/DoJ leadership' https://twitter.com/mattzap https://twitter.com/mattzap
marpstar 8y ago
Almost certainly done so that Assange can be brought to USA for testimony in the fallout of the failed Mueller probe. Calling it now: Assange will walk free.

cedivad 8y ago

So what's the maximum sentence for this?

ryanlol 8y ago
10 years, not sure how the sentencing guidelines will play out here.
- znebby 8y ago
  I read it is only 5 years [1]. In which case voluntarily staying in the Ecuadorian embassy for 6 years seems to be a miscalculation. (At least, staying beyond the point that the Swedish rape charges were dropped). 1: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    18 USC 1080(c)(1)(A) says ten years.
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    I believe his fear was being locked up in gitmo. I think it was a valid fear.

celticninja 8y ago

Wow, seems pretty flimsy, compared to the effort they are putting in. But they need a head for the chopping block and the higher the profile the better the fit.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deiznof 8y ago

Looking at what he has charged with (1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(2))...how would those charges stick? He failed to actually access anything.

JdeBP 8y ago
Read the top of the very first page. It is a conspiracy charge. This is made clear on pages 4, 5, and 6 as well. Then read 18 USC 1030(b).
- franey 8y ago
  Link for the lazy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
Retra 8y ago
Intentionally attempting to do something illegal is illegal. Not merely succeeding at it.
- ksaj 8y ago
  People who don't get that distinction might benefit by considering crimes such as Attempted Robbery and Attempted Murder. Indeed, attempting to commit a crime is pretty much always a crime in and of itself. Imagine if would-be kidnapper got off the hook just because the intended victim ran fast enough to get away. Or a wannabe bomber who fudged the recipe.

carnagii 8y ago

> Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst they are gendering her correctly. at least we have a progressive politically correct Stasi.

alexgmcm 8y ago
We have finally arrived at Jello Biafra's suede denim secret police.

DontGiveTwoFlux 8y ago

The indictment charges that he conspired to crack passwords on government computers. It appears that the free press protections extend to only accepting documents, and not pursuing of them. This makes sense to me on its face. Newspapers reporters hacking into government networks goes beyond reporting, and should not be journalistically protected.

hjk05 8y ago
Honestly I’d rather live in a world where those who expose government conspiracies and corruption are protected than one where they are held to the letter of a law.

jtokoph 8y ago

I wonder if they would count the years trapped in the embassy as time served.

wallace_f 8y ago

So if you use your computer to read the Guardian or NYT reporting on NSA surveillance, you can be charged with 'Unauthorized use of a computet?' Or only primary source docs? Ok then, if so, when are they arrestint all those NYT, etc, reporters?