7 ms·

As a layman on the subject, I guess cryptographers are attempting to crack keys every day... With house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a

As a layman on the subject, I guess cryptographers are attempting to crack keys every day... With house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up either far-reaching, obscure, or some law which is practically never really enforced? Edit: my original comment was written poorly

andrewnicolalde 8y ago
I believe in this case it is because that key belonged to a US military computer system and was being cracked to access the data it protected.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  I guess with house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up some law which is practically never really enforced?
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    He took specific steps (cracking a hash) with the clear intent of helping break into a government owned computer system. I'm not sure what the gray area is supposed to be here. If I teach you lock picking skills as a fun hobby, that's clearly okay. If I teach you lock picking skills knowing you aspire to be a house robber, that is grayish legally and wrong ethically. But if I break into a specific bank vault for you to help you steal stuff, and we talked about stealing the stuff before I helped you, then I'm clearly involved in a criminal conspiracy. Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist. The ethical question here is about whether that crime was ethically jusified. I.e., it's about civil disobedience, not about whether blatant conspiracy should be legal.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      >Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist. But for your bank account comparison to make sense Manning would've already have emptied your bank account before JA broke the law.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        How do you know the Administrator account wouldn't have yielded more documents compared to a user account? Regardless, imagine two independent people trying to murder someone. The first shoots a fatal bullet and the victim is about to imminently die, even if the best medical aid were to be immediately provided. Then the second murderer comes on the scene, does not realize that the victim is fatally wounded, and shoots another bullet, instantly killing him. Both these people would be fully responsible for the murder, not just attempted murder. Arguments from them saying "no, the other killed him, I did not", do not fly in court.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    He's charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
  - maccio92 8y ago
    I would say a more accurate distinction is breaking into someone's home vs trying to break into a military base. In the first case you're likely to get arrested, in the second they'll probably shoot first and ask questions later
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      Picking your own door lock is legal. Picking someone else's door lock is legal if they ask you to. Picking someone else's lock, if it's not actually in a door and isn't protecting anything, is not illegal, even if they don't ask you to or give permission. You're just picking up a lock and fiddling with it, there's no trespass. Picking someone else's door lock to burgle their home is illegal. Handing someone a lockpick so that they can burgle a home for you is illegal.
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        > Handing someone a lockpick so that they can burgle a home for you is illegal. Even more so, trying to create a key that you can hand to someone to get into that home....
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      It's like as if Manning copied the lock at the military base and Assange agreed to see if he can figure out how to pick the copy, but failed (or never even tried, we don't know).
ceejayoz 8y ago
> I assume attempting to "crack keys" is something cryptographers do every day? Sure, but context matters. I drive a car every day. If I drive off in someone else's car without permission, I've stolen it.
roywiggins 8y ago
It's illegal if someone "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains... information from any department or agency of the United States; or... information from any protected computer". It doesn't matter that much how you try and do it, cracking a password would seem to naturally count. It doesn't matter if you guess the password because you knew the owner's dogs's name and date of birth, it's still intentional access (and it doesn't matter if you failed because the password was too tricky, attempted crimes are still crimes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Criminal_offenses_under_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Attempting to crack a hash locally is distinctly different from trying to gain access to someone elses computer.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Intent is very important in the judicial system. If Assange can show that he was cracking the password of a US military login as a hobby, he might get away with it. But I don't think even his ardent supporters would buy that theory.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people, but that's not what happened here. The only supposed criminal act here is agreeing to help, not actually providing help. This does nothing at all to further the conspiracy.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?

andrewnicolalde 8y ago

I believe in this case it is because that key belonged to a US military computer system and was being cracked to access the data it protected.

wallace_f 8y ago
I guess with house locks, it's a plain distinction between breaking into a lock and breaking into a house. With cryptography, I imagine that distinction is really problematic? Though I'm aware in Assange's case they do have proof of intent, but I wonder if it sets bad precedent, or is a case where they just dug up some law which is practically never really enforced?
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  He took specific steps (cracking a hash) with the clear intent of helping break into a government owned computer system. I'm not sure what the gray area is supposed to be here. If I teach you lock picking skills as a fun hobby, that's clearly okay. If I teach you lock picking skills knowing you aspire to be a house robber, that is grayish legally and wrong ethically. But if I break into a specific bank vault for you to help you steal stuff, and we talked about stealing the stuff before I helped you, then I'm clearly involved in a criminal conspiracy. Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist. The ethical question here is about whether that crime was ethically jusified. I.e., it's about civil disobedience, not about whether blatant conspiracy should be legal.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    >Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist. But for your bank account comparison to make sense Manning would've already have emptied your bank account before JA broke the law.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      How do you know the Administrator account wouldn't have yielded more documents compared to a user account? Regardless, imagine two independent people trying to murder someone. The first shoots a fatal bullet and the victim is about to imminently die, even if the best medical aid were to be immediately provided. Then the second murderer comes on the scene, does not realize that the victim is fatally wounded, and shoots another bullet, instantly killing him. Both these people would be fully responsible for the murder, not just attempted murder. Arguments from them saying "no, the other killed him, I did not", do not fly in court.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  He's charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
- maccio92 8y ago
  I would say a more accurate distinction is breaking into someone's home vs trying to break into a military base. In the first case you're likely to get arrested, in the second they'll probably shoot first and ask questions later
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    Picking your own door lock is legal. Picking someone else's door lock is legal if they ask you to. Picking someone else's lock, if it's not actually in a door and isn't protecting anything, is not illegal, even if they don't ask you to or give permission. You're just picking up a lock and fiddling with it, there's no trespass. Picking someone else's door lock to burgle their home is illegal. Handing someone a lockpick so that they can burgle a home for you is illegal.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      > Handing someone a lockpick so that they can burgle a home for you is illegal. Even more so, trying to create a key that you can hand to someone to get into that home....
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    It's like as if Manning copied the lock at the military base and Assange agreed to see if he can figure out how to pick the copy, but failed (or never even tried, we don't know).

ceejayoz 8y ago

> I assume attempting to "crack keys" is something cryptographers do every day? Sure, but context matters. I drive a car every day. If I drive off in someone else's car without permission, I've stolen it.

roywiggins 8y ago

It's illegal if someone "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains... information from any department or agency of the United States; or... information from any protected computer". It doesn't matter that much how you try and do it, cracking a password would seem to naturally count. It doesn't matter if you guess the password because you knew the owner's dogs's name and date of birth, it's still intentional access (and it doesn't matter if you failed because the password was too tricky, attempted crimes are still crimes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Criminal_offenses_under_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...

ryanlol 8y ago
Attempting to crack a hash locally is distinctly different from trying to gain access to someone elses computer.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Intent is very important in the judicial system. If Assange can show that he was cracking the password of a US military login as a hobby, he might get away with it. But I don't think even his ardent supporters would buy that theory.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people, but that's not what happened here. The only supposed criminal act here is agreeing to help, not actually providing help. This does nothing at all to further the conspiracy.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?