4 ms·

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!
        nocturnial 8y ago
        I think you read over the part where I said it was illegal. You don't need to invent scenarios, you can use the facts of this case. Manning already had access and didn't need the password to be cracked. Wikileaks already received information from Manning. Someone in the chat log told Manning they would pass the hash to someone else. They then told Manning "no luck so far". Keep in mind, they haven't provided any proof that the person Manning was talking to was Assange. They haven't provided any proof that Assange did in fact try to crack it He never wrote that he would try, only that he would pass it on. Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, and that this person did in fact tried to crack it. And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. The case against Assange appears to be very weak and is probably only intended to get him on US soil to question him about things other than what he is charged with.
      - roywiggins 8y ago
        I suppose Assange's defense will be that he never actually even tried to crack the password- if he was lying or bloviating, he would not have actually done anything in furtherance of the conspiracy. If that turned out to be the case I'd be with you. But if you have chat logs saying "I will do the thing to try and help you commit a crime" then that sure seems like evidence that you did the thing, or at least tried to.
  - 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.

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!
        nocturnial 8y ago
        I think you read over the part where I said it was illegal. You don't need to invent scenarios, you can use the facts of this case. Manning already had access and didn't need the password to be cracked. Wikileaks already received information from Manning. Someone in the chat log told Manning they would pass the hash to someone else. They then told Manning "no luck so far". Keep in mind, they haven't provided any proof that the person Manning was talking to was Assange. They haven't provided any proof that Assange did in fact try to crack it He never wrote that he would try, only that he would pass it on. Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, and that this person did in fact tried to crack it. And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. The case against Assange appears to be very weak and is probably only intended to get him on US soil to question him about things other than what he is charged with.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      I suppose Assange's defense will be that he never actually even tried to crack the password- if he was lying or bloviating, he would not have actually done anything in furtherance of the conspiracy. If that turned out to be the case I'd be with you. But if you have chat logs saying "I will do the thing to try and help you commit a crime" then that sure seems like evidence that you did the thing, or at least tried to.
- 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.