4 ms·

>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access In this case it was Chelsea Manning accessing the computer. Assange didn'

>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...
    - roenxi 8y ago
      Exposing government corruption (and sketchiness) isn't really the best area to apply black-letter law though - it is usually going to be illegal; governments routinely try to stop people publishing embarrassing information. If a whistleblower can't intend to get information of a government network, how are they meant to make an allegation with some substance behind it? Are they meant to have unsubstantiated word of mouth? We had that for years with ECHELON, the moderate middle just didn't take any of it seriously until the breaking-the-law levels of leaking happened (yes, the legal details are different with Snowden, but the strategy is very similar - leaker gets hit with incidental charges). The argument here seems to be that while in theory whistleblowing would be OK; none of the ways to attempt a credible whistleblow in the real world are legal. There is a lot of disagreement in this article's comments about what the law says, so it isn't obvious how a whistleblower, who could be anyone here, is meant to follow the details of what they are and are not allowed to attempt. Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Functionally, all this rigmarole is to ensure that if the US government does something sketchy or even illegal then any foreigner who talks about it is legally subject to one of the US's famous black-bag-over-the-head abductions. The charges seem to be independent of what he leaked.
      - mike00632 8y ago
        >Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. Most Americans are not aware of the bulk of laws that apply to them.
        pytester 8y ago
        Apparently there was a solid legal defense for the journalist murderers in the videos released by assange. They are not facing any kind of legal action.
        mike00632 8y ago
        What defense are you suggesting? I'm not defending the killing of those journalists and I agree that what Assange did is petty in comparison. But nobody looks good in this saga. There are no good guys and bad guys. Assange exposed instances of over-classification and the potential cover-up of war crimes by the United States but eventually became a propagandist for Russia and their war crimes in Syria. Assange shouldn't benefit because some of his actions were in line with a benevolent ideology. This shouldn't be seen as an ideological clash between proponents of free speech and war hawks because it's not that black and white.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Robbing or attempting to rob a bank to donate to the local food bank is still a crime.
    - muktaakash 8y ago
      So did genocide of native Americans and slave trade.
  - the_watcher 8y ago
    That is irrelevant to the fact that he's being charged with conspiracy to, which doesn't require that he's the person who actually gains access.
ceejayoz 8y ago
The indictment alleges Assange induced Manning to do it, which makes it a conspiracy. I do think that presents big press freedom issues; it'd be easy to see news organizations under fire in this fashion. Convincing a source to hand over stuff isn't much (or at all, really) different than the behavior described in the Assange/Manning case.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  Yes, that concerns me too. Where does inducement start? There must be case law on it and maybe it really is a bright line, but it seems like a bit of a reach.

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...
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Exposing government corruption (and sketchiness) isn't really the best area to apply black-letter law though - it is usually going to be illegal; governments routinely try to stop people publishing embarrassing information. If a whistleblower can't intend to get information of a government network, how are they meant to make an allegation with some substance behind it? Are they meant to have unsubstantiated word of mouth? We had that for years with ECHELON, the moderate middle just didn't take any of it seriously until the breaking-the-law levels of leaking happened (yes, the legal details are different with Snowden, but the strategy is very similar - leaker gets hit with incidental charges). The argument here seems to be that while in theory whistleblowing would be OK; none of the ways to attempt a credible whistleblow in the real world are legal. There is a lot of disagreement in this article's comments about what the law says, so it isn't obvious how a whistleblower, who could be anyone here, is meant to follow the details of what they are and are not allowed to attempt. Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Functionally, all this rigmarole is to ensure that if the US government does something sketchy or even illegal then any foreigner who talks about it is legally subject to one of the US's famous black-bag-over-the-head abductions. The charges seem to be independent of what he leaked.
    - mike00632 8y ago
      >Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. Most Americans are not aware of the bulk of laws that apply to them.
      - pytester 8y ago
        Apparently there was a solid legal defense for the journalist murderers in the videos released by assange. They are not facing any kind of legal action.
        mike00632 8y ago
        What defense are you suggesting? I'm not defending the killing of those journalists and I agree that what Assange did is petty in comparison. But nobody looks good in this saga. There are no good guys and bad guys. Assange exposed instances of over-classification and the potential cover-up of war crimes by the United States but eventually became a propagandist for Russia and their war crimes in Syria. Assange shouldn't benefit because some of his actions were in line with a benevolent ideology. This shouldn't be seen as an ideological clash between proponents of free speech and war hawks because it's not that black and white.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Robbing or attempting to rob a bank to donate to the local food bank is still a crime.
  - muktaakash 8y ago
    So did genocide of native Americans and slave trade.
- the_watcher 8y ago
  That is irrelevant to the fact that he's being charged with conspiracy to, which doesn't require that he's the person who actually gains access.

ceejayoz 8y ago

The indictment alleges Assange induced Manning to do it, which makes it a conspiracy. I do think that presents big press freedom issues; it'd be easy to see news organizations under fire in this fashion. Convincing a source to hand over stuff isn't much (or at all, really) different than the behavior described in the Assange/Manning case.

roywiggins 8y ago
Yes, that concerns me too. Where does inducement start? There must be case law on it and maybe it really is a bright line, but it seems like a bit of a reach.