4 ms·

It's illegal if someone "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains... information from any depar

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?
      - ryanlol 8y ago
        Yes, but where I'm from you need to actually do something in furtherance of the conspiracy to face prosecution. I'm not trying to make a legal argument, this just feels fundamentally wrong to me.
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b "(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section." Seems pretty straightforward. Please don't post about how the law works from your gut feelings about the matter. This forum is awash in people just imagining what the law is every time it comes up. Go look at the law itself. There's no requirement as you've imagined there is. This was a bit snarky before my edit - please excuse me.
        belltaco 8y ago
        Assange wrote in a chat "No luck so far" to Manning. Where you are from, can you go around trying to pick locks on front doors and are only prosecuted if you succeed? And the same with cars?
        nocturnial 8y ago
        This is a very poor analogy and I think you know it. Cracking the password isn't the same as using it to log in. There are still some extra steps required. In the case of picking locks there are no extra steps, you gain access immediately. I'm only critizing the analogy, what he did, or tried is still illegal but it's barely a hack attempt and it's obvious they are desperate to charge him with anything, no matter how small the charge.
        roywiggins 8y ago
        That's how conspiracies work. Each participant does only a part of the overall conspiracy. If I forge a document and give it to you so you can sneak into a secure area and commit a murder, I am not just guilty of forgery, I am guilty of conspiracy to murder. They guy who drives the getaway car is guilty of murder as much as the people who walk into the building. This is the entire point of conspiracy law. Driving a car is not a crime! But it is if you're conspiring with other people who are committing crimes. Otherwise, you would be able to take part in a murder and be let off, because all you did was act as lookout. If you and a friend plan to poison someone, and you buy the poison and give it to your friend who then poisons the target, you are guilty of conspiracy to murder, even though buying the poison may not actually be a crime. Prosecutors may legitimately not have anything else on you because that's "all" you did!
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      It's not aupposed. The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. The court's job is to enforce the actual existing text of the actual existing laws. The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if your effort alone is not the lynchpin. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime.
      - ryanlol 8y ago
        >The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. Ah great. Did I ever suggest that? >The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if you do not succeed. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime. This is correct, but doesn't mean that it's right.
        throwawayjava 8y ago
        > Did I ever suggest that You called it a "supposed criminal act". Usually "supposed" used in that way means something similar to ostensible. That's why I started my post with "It's not supposed". In fact, that's the first definition Oxford gives for supposedly...
        ryanlool 8y ago
        Assange has not been convicted yet, has he?
        belltaco 8y ago
        So if someone tried to poison you to death, but failed because he mistakenly bought sugar instead of poison, there was no crime committed? Is that how it works in your country? Is that right?
        ryanlool 8y ago
        That's not at all similar to what happened here. In my country we have separate laws which specifically criminalize the act of preparing to murder someone, so yes that'd be illegal. I think that's right
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people It does, in fact, have to allege such an act in order to charge conspiracy (but the act in furtherance can be by any party to the conspiracy; that's how conspiracy works.) Three such acts are charged in the indictment; two by Manning, one by Assange.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      How is Assange attempting to crack a password locally not an act in furtherance of the conspiracy? Attempting to drive a getaway car that breaks down is still an act even if it failed. That is what is being alleged and the chat logs seem to support it. It might come out at trial that he didn't actually do it, of course, but that's what the trial is for.
pytester 8y ago
>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access In this case it was Chelsea Manning accessing the computer. Assange didn't touch it. >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 ...by Chelsea Manning, not Assange.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Cracking a password is one thing; cracking a password for someone else so they can commit a crime (and you knew this was what they were doing with it) is a crime. If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car is on the hook for the bank theft!
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Yes, but US seems to like to slap conspiracy charges on people who've done essentially nothing in furtherance of the conspiracy. Maybe it's a crime in the US, but it's still a ludicrous crime. > If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. This is of course not at all similar to what happened here, a very strange example.
  - pytester 8y ago
    In this case it was cracking a password to blow the lid on US war crimes in Iraq.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      I'm not saying anything about whether it was morally here or there, but that it's not at all an unreasonable application of the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car from the FBI field-office break-in* (or whoever) is going to be on the hook for burglary, even if the burglary was done for laudable reasons. I think Obama 100% did the right thing commuting Manning's sentence, and was pleased to see her go free. I'm not at all sure prosecuting Assange for essentially the same crime is in the interest of the nation or justice or whatever. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve...

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?
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      Yes, but where I'm from you need to actually do something in furtherance of the conspiracy to face prosecution. I'm not trying to make a legal argument, this just feels fundamentally wrong to me.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#b "(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section." Seems pretty straightforward. Please don't post about how the law works from your gut feelings about the matter. This forum is awash in people just imagining what the law is every time it comes up. Go look at the law itself. There's no requirement as you've imagined there is. This was a bit snarky before my edit - please excuse me.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        Assange wrote in a chat "No luck so far" to Manning. Where you are from, can you go around trying to pick locks on front doors and are only prosecuted if you succeed? And the same with cars?
        nocturnial 8y ago
        This is a very poor analogy and I think you know it. Cracking the password isn't the same as using it to log in. There are still some extra steps required. In the case of picking locks there are no extra steps, you gain access immediately. I'm only critizing the analogy, what he did, or tried is still illegal but it's barely a hack attempt and it's obvious they are desperate to charge him with anything, no matter how small the charge.
        roywiggins 8y ago
        That's how conspiracies work. Each participant does only a part of the overall conspiracy. If I forge a document and give it to you so you can sneak into a secure area and commit a murder, I am not just guilty of forgery, I am guilty of conspiracy to murder. They guy who drives the getaway car is guilty of murder as much as the people who walk into the building. This is the entire point of conspiracy law. Driving a car is not a crime! But it is if you're conspiring with other people who are committing crimes. Otherwise, you would be able to take part in a murder and be let off, because all you did was act as lookout. If you and a friend plan to poison someone, and you buy the poison and give it to your friend who then poisons the target, you are guilty of conspiracy to murder, even though buying the poison may not actually be a crime. Prosecutors may legitimately not have anything else on you because that's "all" you did!
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    It's not aupposed. The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. The court's job is to enforce the actual existing text of the actual existing laws. The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if your effort alone is not the lynchpin. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      >The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. Ah great. Did I ever suggest that? >The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if you do not succeed. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime. This is correct, but doesn't mean that it's right.
      - throwawayjava 8y ago
        > Did I ever suggest that You called it a "supposed criminal act". Usually "supposed" used in that way means something similar to ostensible. That's why I started my post with "It's not supposed". In fact, that's the first definition Oxford gives for supposedly...
        ryanlool 8y ago
        Assange has not been convicted yet, has he?
      - belltaco 8y ago
        So if someone tried to poison you to death, but failed because he mistakenly bought sugar instead of poison, there was no crime committed? Is that how it works in your country? Is that right?
        ryanlool 8y ago
        That's not at all similar to what happened here. In my country we have separate laws which specifically criminalize the act of preparing to murder someone, so yes that'd be illegal. I think that's right
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people It does, in fact, have to allege such an act in order to charge conspiracy (but the act in furtherance can be by any party to the conspiracy; that's how conspiracy works.) Three such acts are charged in the indictment; two by Manning, one by Assange.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    How is Assange attempting to crack a password locally not an act in furtherance of the conspiracy? Attempting to drive a getaway car that breaks down is still an act even if it failed. That is what is being alleged and the chat logs seem to support it. It might come out at trial that he didn't actually do it, of course, but that's what the trial is for.

pytester 8y ago

>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access In this case it was Chelsea Manning accessing the computer. Assange didn't touch it. >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 ...by Chelsea Manning, not Assange.

roywiggins 8y ago
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Cracking a password is one thing; cracking a password for someone else so they can commit a crime (and you knew this was what they were doing with it) is a crime. If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car is on the hook for the bank theft!
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Yes, but US seems to like to slap conspiracy charges on people who've done essentially nothing in furtherance of the conspiracy. Maybe it's a crime in the US, but it's still a ludicrous crime. > If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. This is of course not at all similar to what happened here, a very strange example.
- pytester 8y ago
  In this case it was cracking a password to blow the lid on US war crimes in Iraq.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    I'm not saying anything about whether it was morally here or there, but that it's not at all an unreasonable application of the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car from the FBI field-office break-in* (or whoever) is going to be on the hook for burglary, even if the burglary was done for laudable reasons. I think Obama 100% did the right thing commuting Manning's sentence, and was pleased to see her go free. I'm not at all sure prosecuting Assange for essentially the same crime is in the interest of the nation or justice or whatever. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Commission_to_Inve...