4 ms·

If Assange Burgled Some Computers, He Stopped Being a Journalist

10 points by smacktoward 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
monocasa 8y ago
Looking at the transcripts behind the indictment, Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source. It's standard for journalists to give material support to their sources in whistleblower circumstances in order to help protect their identity.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > It's standard for journalists to give material support to their sources in whistleblower circumstances in order to help protect their identity. I don't think it's standard for journalists to give material support for the criminal acts of their sources. For instance: what if Assange had assisted Manning by giving him a gun so he could kill someone who'd discovered that he had blown the whistle, in order to help protect his identity? I think the key question is, did Assange help Manning commit any crimes, or did he merely report the information resulted from Manning's un-assisted crimes?
  - dictum 8y ago
    While your metaphor is merely intended as a comparison of aiding a crime, it's made hazier by the introduction of a crime of a grisly nature (murder) committed directly (the source pulls the trigger; it is not a murder caused by a third party without the knowledge of the source and the journalist) A better comparison would be a journalist buying a wrench that can pry open a certain box, or conversely, a lock that makes it very hard to open a certain box.
- _rpd 8y ago
  > Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source. Except that the "different user" was an admin account that had the needed permissions to access the data Manning wanted to upload to wikileaks, and the "assistance" was attempting to crack the admin password using a Windows SAM file Manning had provided.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    There's more to it than that, but IMO even that doesn't matter. So let's talk about this in 1970s terms. A whistleblower knows there are documents of import in a locked room. They take a picture of the locked door and give it the journalist. The journalist gives them instructions of how to pick the specific lock in a way that won't be traced back to them. The whistleblower then uses that information to break into the room and take the documents. Did the journalist commit a crime?
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      If I understand correctly, yes - conspiracy to commit theft.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        I mean, conspiracy to commit theft of documents to whistleblow is exactly the kind of thing that's protected by the first amendment's freedom of the press provision.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        You are absolutely, completely wrong. That in no way is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment does not give the press the right to commit theft, of documents or of anything else.
        monocasa 8y ago
        'Conspiracy to commit theft' isn't 'theft'. Conspiracy is exactly the kind of charge that is protected or else you couldn't talk to a whistleblower until they had already acquired the documents. Just because you say 'you're wrong' doesn't make it true.
MaupitiBlue 8y ago
No he didn’t stop becoming a journalist. Journalists don’t get a pass to break the law.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  That’s true. I guess the problem for me is that Obama pardoned Manning who did the actual law breaking, some and supporters cheered. Now those same people are eager to see Assange pay for the crime of telling Manning how to log on as a different user. Seems, selective.
  - MaupitiBlue 8y ago
    Manning was not pardoned, his sentence was commuted. People gave it a pass because Manning was clearly mentally ill and therefore the Army was partly responsible by putting him in a position to do what he did.
    - groovylick 8y ago
      Manning also served time in prison for 2.75 years. Assange imprisoning himself in an embassy is not same.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      Slightly pedantic, but you are right. Sentence communicated by the Obama Admin; effectively pardoned considering the life in jail possibility. Oh, but now there is an issue. Are trans people mentally ill according to you - or just Manning? Because he committed a crime, then became a she - they no longer are responsible for their actions? Not bad enough to lock up, but bad enough to punish associates for. By that reasoning, Assange allegedly helped someone that doesn’t exist anymore, commit a crime that no one pays for. Seems like my original point. Edit: Remembering that not only would Assange not now how ill Manning was (to head off any claims of exploitation) but the info Wikileaks has published has all been true and most users here celebrated its release. That if you agree with the US Gov here you are arguing that supplying information like that on encryption cracking or hacking or any topic that someone could abuse should leave you vulnerable to their misuses, that sure seems like a bad policy.
injb 8y ago
The central point of this article is that there's a fundamental difference in a person's culpability if they help someone to procure secrets, vs if they just receive and publish those secrets. Therefore (the idea goes) he's not entitled to be seen as a "journalist" any longer. Besides the fact that there's no such legal status as "journalist" in criminal law anyway, it's clearly a pretty shallow and disingenuous attempt to try establish an arbitrary line between Assange and other journalists. By analogy, there's no real difference in knowingly receiving stolen property, vs assisting in stealing it yourself. They're both crimes that you can be put on trial for. Journalists could have been accused of helping Snowden get away with it too, but the media closed ranks around them for some reason. What's the real reason Assange is being thrown under the bus?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  > Journalists could have been accused of helping Snowden get away with it too, but the media closed ranks around them for some reason. What's the real reason Assange is being thrown under the bus? Because, under US law, there is a legal difference between receiving whistle-blower information, even if it was stolen, and assisting in the stealing. That distinction actually matters legally - it's not just people "throwing Assange under the bus".

10 points by smacktoward 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Looking at the transcripts behind the indictment, Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source. It's standard for journalists to give material support to their sources in whistleblower circumstances in order to help protect their identity.

ardy42 8y ago
> It's standard for journalists to give material support to their sources in whistleblower circumstances in order to help protect their identity. I don't think it's standard for journalists to give material support for the criminal acts of their sources. For instance: what if Assange had assisted Manning by giving him a gun so he could kill someone who'd discovered that he had blown the whistle, in order to help protect his identity? I think the key question is, did Assange help Manning commit any crimes, or did he merely report the information resulted from Manning's un-assisted crimes?
- dictum 8y ago
  While your metaphor is merely intended as a comparison of aiding a crime, it's made hazier by the introduction of a crime of a grisly nature (murder) committed directly (the source pulls the trigger; it is not a murder caused by a third party without the knowledge of the source and the journalist) A better comparison would be a journalist buying a wrench that can pry open a certain box, or conversely, a lock that makes it very hard to open a certain box.
_rpd 8y ago
> Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source. Except that the "different user" was an admin account that had the needed permissions to access the data Manning wanted to upload to wikileaks, and the "assistance" was attempting to crack the admin password using a Windows SAM file Manning had provided.
- monocasa 8y ago
  There's more to it than that, but IMO even that doesn't matter. So let's talk about this in 1970s terms. A whistleblower knows there are documents of import in a locked room. They take a picture of the locked door and give it the journalist. The journalist gives them instructions of how to pick the specific lock in a way that won't be traced back to them. The whistleblower then uses that information to break into the room and take the documents. Did the journalist commit a crime?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    If I understand correctly, yes - conspiracy to commit theft.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      I mean, conspiracy to commit theft of documents to whistleblow is exactly the kind of thing that's protected by the first amendment's freedom of the press provision.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        You are absolutely, completely wrong. That in no way is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment does not give the press the right to commit theft, of documents or of anything else.
        monocasa 8y ago
        'Conspiracy to commit theft' isn't 'theft'. Conspiracy is exactly the kind of charge that is protected or else you couldn't talk to a whistleblower until they had already acquired the documents. Just because you say 'you're wrong' doesn't make it true.

MaupitiBlue 8y ago

No he didn’t stop becoming a journalist. Journalists don’t get a pass to break the law.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
That’s true. I guess the problem for me is that Obama pardoned Manning who did the actual law breaking, some and supporters cheered. Now those same people are eager to see Assange pay for the crime of telling Manning how to log on as a different user. Seems, selective.
- MaupitiBlue 8y ago
  Manning was not pardoned, his sentence was commuted. People gave it a pass because Manning was clearly mentally ill and therefore the Army was partly responsible by putting him in a position to do what he did.
  - groovylick 8y ago
    Manning also served time in prison for 2.75 years. Assange imprisoning himself in an embassy is not same.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    Slightly pedantic, but you are right. Sentence communicated by the Obama Admin; effectively pardoned considering the life in jail possibility. Oh, but now there is an issue. Are trans people mentally ill according to you - or just Manning? Because he committed a crime, then became a she - they no longer are responsible for their actions? Not bad enough to lock up, but bad enough to punish associates for. By that reasoning, Assange allegedly helped someone that doesn’t exist anymore, commit a crime that no one pays for. Seems like my original point. Edit: Remembering that not only would Assange not now how ill Manning was (to head off any claims of exploitation) but the info Wikileaks has published has all been true and most users here celebrated its release. That if you agree with the US Gov here you are arguing that supplying information like that on encryption cracking or hacking or any topic that someone could abuse should leave you vulnerable to their misuses, that sure seems like a bad policy.

injb 8y ago

The central point of this article is that there's a fundamental difference in a person's culpability if they help someone to procure secrets, vs if they just receive and publish those secrets. Therefore (the idea goes) he's not entitled to be seen as a "journalist" any longer. Besides the fact that there's no such legal status as "journalist" in criminal law anyway, it's clearly a pretty shallow and disingenuous attempt to try establish an arbitrary line between Assange and other journalists. By analogy, there's no real difference in knowingly receiving stolen property, vs assisting in stealing it yourself. They're both crimes that you can be put on trial for. Journalists could have been accused of helping Snowden get away with it too, but the media closed ranks around them for some reason. What's the real reason Assange is being thrown under the bus?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> Journalists could have been accused of helping Snowden get away with it too, but the media closed ranks around them for some reason. What's the real reason Assange is being thrown under the bus? Because, under US law, there is a legal difference between receiving whistle-blower information, even if it was stolen, and assisting in the stealing. That distinction actually matters legally - it's not just people "throwing Assange under the bus".