9 ms·

The US govt’s indictment of Julian Assange poses grave threats to press freedom

81 points by LogicRiver 8y ago

ggm 8y ago
Despite not personally believing Assange is a journalist, I think this underlying story is true: the legal fate of journalists worldwide now hangs on the kinds of law abuse being wreaked on Assange. His rape case and his self imposed incarceration don't alter the risk to journalists and don't diminish the risk to journalists. Finding stuff out now carries different risks to the old ones and shield laws and other defences like 1st don't cut it all the time.
tribby 8y ago
> The Intercept was widely criticized when computer security experts discovered that the document included nearly invisible yellow “printer dots” that track exactly when and where it was printed, which most modern printers add to every document that gets printed. While there’s no evidence that these printer dots contributed to Winner becoming a suspect (the FBI’s affidavit says she was one of only six people who had printed this document, and the only one of those who had email contact with The Intercept), they could have aided an investigation, and The Intercept, as its editor-in-chief acknowledged, should have taken greater care to remove this metadata before publishing the document. > That is because it is not only common but ethically required for a journalist to do everything possible to protect a source from detection. I feel like my eyes just rolled out of their sockets. everything possible? sure -- how about not even running the story at all? in this same article they quote snowden on how a real journalist would have thought about reality winner: “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.” imagine what the intercept could have learned by establishing a relationship with reality winner instead of rushing out a big nothing of a story for clicks, assisting a young person in ruining her life in the process. making it seem like the yellow dots were somehow the problem with how the intercept handled reality winner is nothing but a gaslight campaign.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Tharkun 8y ago
  I thought that whole printer dot thing was just a hoax? Is it real? How does it work? Is there a central registry of who owns which printer?
  - kmlx 8y ago
    it’s old tech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >sure -- how about not even running the story at all? Winner had already risked her career by sending the documents, presumably as she felt the story was important enough to release to the public. The entire thing was mishandled, The Intercept largely seems to understand that, but not printing it is nearly as bad.
- hurryskurry 8y ago
  >my eyes just rolled Right? To me it just seems unlikely that a respected journalist would do this, but I may just be speaking out of ignorance.
caymanjim 8y ago
Assange hasn't been indicted for publishing classified information. He's been indicted for aiding Manning in extracting classified information. There's a big difference. The government is arguing that he helped steal the information. There's no threat to press freedom here.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  Thanks, I thought I went insane, over the last days I've wondered over and over again, "why can't I see the threat to press freedom", "don't they get it", "why are they spinning that press freedom story"?
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  As the article mentions, he is basically being charged for encouraging the source to acquire information and attempting to protect the source's identity. That is a threat to a free press.
  - caymanjim 8y ago
    It goes beyond encouraging. They're claiming he actively aided in some way. He's charged with hacking, basically. And he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      The "hacking" they claim he did was unsuccessfully try to crack a Windows password so Manning could access data from another account. That's protecting the source's identity. Attempting this case is an attack on press freedom, the verdict shows if the attack is successful.
      - samastur 8y ago
        I keep seeing this emphasis on "unsuccessful" and while I understand why that should lead to less severe _potential_ sentence, I fail to understand why it should be important to establish if it was a crime. Same goes for motive.
GeekyBear 8y ago
To me, the most interesting point is that the Obama administration was in possession of the same information that the Trump administration used to accuse Assange of "hacking", and came to a very different conclusion. >“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.” Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia...
- DanBC 8y ago
  One of the differences is that the Guardian has not, as far as I know, released the names of gay people living in Saudi Arabia, or Jewish people living in Baghdad.
  - GeekyBear 7y ago
    In fact, it was The Guardian that was responsible for unintentionally exposing the password to an archive containing the unredacted versions of a great deal of the State Department cables they had received from Wikileaks. They were somehow under the impression that the password they were given only applied to the copy of the archive that they were in possession of. When they wrote the story of the events, they included a copy of the password for the archive, despite the fact that the archive had ended up on BitTorrent.
- hurryskurry 8y ago
  Well Obama had a JD, and Trump has never read a book in his life. I wonder if that makes the difference.

81 points by LogicRiver 8y ago

ggm 8y ago

Despite not personally believing Assange is a journalist, I think this underlying story is true: the legal fate of journalists worldwide now hangs on the kinds of law abuse being wreaked on Assange. His rape case and his self imposed incarceration don't alter the risk to journalists and don't diminish the risk to journalists. Finding stuff out now carries different risks to the old ones and shield laws and other defences like 1st don't cut it all the time.

tribby 8y ago

> The Intercept was widely criticized when computer security experts discovered that the document included nearly invisible yellow “printer dots” that track exactly when and where it was printed, which most modern printers add to every document that gets printed. While there’s no evidence that these printer dots contributed to Winner becoming a suspect (the FBI’s affidavit says she was one of only six people who had printed this document, and the only one of those who had email contact with The Intercept), they could have aided an investigation, and The Intercept, as its editor-in-chief acknowledged, should have taken greater care to remove this metadata before publishing the document. > That is because it is not only common but ethically required for a journalist to do everything possible to protect a source from detection. I feel like my eyes just rolled out of their sockets. everything possible? sure -- how about not even running the story at all? in this same article they quote snowden on how a real journalist would have thought about reality winner: “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.” imagine what the intercept could have learned by establishing a relationship with reality winner instead of rushing out a big nothing of a story for clicks, assisting a young person in ruining her life in the process. making it seem like the yellow dots were somehow the problem with how the intercept handled reality winner is nothing but a gaslight campaign.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Tharkun 8y ago
I thought that whole printer dot thing was just a hoax? Is it real? How does it work? Is there a central registry of who owns which printer?
- kmlx 8y ago
  it’s old tech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>sure -- how about not even running the story at all? Winner had already risked her career by sending the documents, presumably as she felt the story was important enough to release to the public. The entire thing was mishandled, The Intercept largely seems to understand that, but not printing it is nearly as bad.
hurryskurry 8y ago
>my eyes just rolled Right? To me it just seems unlikely that a respected journalist would do this, but I may just be speaking out of ignorance.

caymanjim 8y ago

Assange hasn't been indicted for publishing classified information. He's been indicted for aiding Manning in extracting classified information. There's a big difference. The government is arguing that he helped steal the information. There's no threat to press freedom here.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Thanks, I thought I went insane, over the last days I've wondered over and over again, "why can't I see the threat to press freedom", "don't they get it", "why are they spinning that press freedom story"?
boomboomsubban 8y ago
As the article mentions, he is basically being charged for encouraging the source to acquire information and attempting to protect the source's identity. That is a threat to a free press.
- caymanjim 8y ago
  It goes beyond encouraging. They're claiming he actively aided in some way. He's charged with hacking, basically. And he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    The "hacking" they claim he did was unsuccessfully try to crack a Windows password so Manning could access data from another account. That's protecting the source's identity. Attempting this case is an attack on press freedom, the verdict shows if the attack is successful.
    - samastur 8y ago
      I keep seeing this emphasis on "unsuccessful" and while I understand why that should lead to less severe _potential_ sentence, I fail to understand why it should be important to establish if it was a crime. Same goes for motive.

GeekyBear 8y ago

To me, the most interesting point is that the Obama administration was in possession of the same information that the Trump administration used to accuse Assange of "hacking", and came to a very different conclusion. >“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.” Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia...

DanBC 8y ago
One of the differences is that the Guardian has not, as far as I know, released the names of gay people living in Saudi Arabia, or Jewish people living in Baghdad.
- GeekyBear 7y ago
  In fact, it was The Guardian that was responsible for unintentionally exposing the password to an archive containing the unredacted versions of a great deal of the State Department cables they had received from Wikileaks. They were somehow under the impression that the password they were given only applied to the copy of the archive that they were in possession of. When they wrote the story of the events, they included a copy of the password for the archive, despite the fact that the archive had ended up on BitTorrent.
hurryskurry 8y ago
Well Obama had a JD, and Trump has never read a book in his life. I wonder if that makes the difference.