4 ms·

Assange hasn't been indicted for publishing classified information. He's been indicted for aiding Manning in extracting classified information. There's a big di

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.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        There was no emphasis intended, it was an attempt to protect the source and should not be considered a crime.
        kmlx 8y ago
        so in order to protect his source he did something illegal?
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Things that aren't crimes are legal.
        kmlx 8y ago
        isn't it a crime to try to force entry into a .gov network?
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        The charge against him does not mention anything about trying to force entry into a network.
        kmlx 8y ago
        thank you. i stand corrected. charged with conspiracy to gain access to a gov computer. "In Washington, the U.S. Justice Department said Assange was charged with conspiring with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to gain access to a government computer as part of a 2010 leak by WikiLeaks"
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Charged with conspiracy to gain access to a computer Manning already had access to in a hope to protect Manning from being caught. Expected behavior for a journalist, and a dangerous thing to consider a crime.
    - ardy42 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. It's also unauthorized access to another account. What do we typically call unauthorized access to a computer? Hacking. What would you think 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, but the gun didn't work?
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >It's also unauthorized access to another account. What do we typically call unauthorized access to a computer? At no point did Assange have unauthorized access to a computer. Manning had legitimate access, and sent a copy of a file to Assange. And it wasn't done to gain new information, just to protect the source of the information. Your example is ridiculous, you can't compare an act that harms nobody to an attempted murder.
    - caymanjim 8y ago
      I think that qualifies as materially aiding in the crime. There's a huge difference between receiving and publishing illegally-obtained information that someone else provides you, and in actively aiding in the extraction of that information. I'm happy to let a judge review all the details and decide.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        The same extraction of information happens with or without Assange's help, the only difference is how visible Manning is while doing it.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    He's on the wrong side of the firewall to be doing anything particularly substantive. I'm just going off one article, but he was trying to guess a password [0]. He didn't succeed. I'm not sure how people are claiming with a straight face that that sort of activity requires him to be dragged to the US to face the criminal justice system. It would appear to be a pretext for the more serious non-crime of upsetting powerful US politicians and bureaucrats. > There's no threat to press freedom here. This small group of people who associate with names like Manning, Snowden and Assange are responsible for one of the most illuminating and thorough views any member of the public has ever had into the practical and informal workings of government, ever. Maybe the post WWII historians have had a competitive viewing platform, but certainly not one so current. They have reshaped how a serious commentator would understand geopolitics. If what they are doing isn't journalism, we should replace journalism with what they are doing - a no-holds-barred, factual and blunt examination of what is going on and why. This is a measured and deliberate push to shut down people who deal in facts. That is a threat to the truth-based discourse that we would all like to be involved in. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-london-embassy/3432977002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/11/wiki...
ansvaar 8y ago
warms my heart to see such consistency in only the most True Neutral nebbish comments like this floating to the top of the ycombinator comments section
JdeBP 8y ago
Even more strictly: xe has been indicted for conspiracy to commit the crime with Manning. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19634740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19634740 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19644979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19644979
kdtsh 8y ago
Read between the lines. It is highly questionable that there is actual evidence that he has committed conspiracy - in a perfect world, we would let the courts decide this, but it is obvious that it is not in the interests of the US government to see him go unpunished for what he did (which, even though it is protected under the first amendment, is highly embarrassing and damaging to multiple US administrations). This will have a chilling effect on press freedom, because it will discourage journalists from doing anything that could be construed as aiding a potential source - whatever that means.

_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.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      There was no emphasis intended, it was an attempt to protect the source and should not be considered a crime.
      - kmlx 8y ago
        so in order to protect his source he did something illegal?
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Things that aren't crimes are legal.
        kmlx 8y ago
        isn't it a crime to try to force entry into a .gov network?
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        The charge against him does not mention anything about trying to force entry into a network.
        kmlx 8y ago
        thank you. i stand corrected. charged with conspiracy to gain access to a gov computer. "In Washington, the U.S. Justice Department said Assange was charged with conspiring with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to gain access to a government computer as part of a 2010 leak by WikiLeaks"
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Charged with conspiracy to gain access to a computer Manning already had access to in a hope to protect Manning from being caught. Expected behavior for a journalist, and a dangerous thing to consider a crime.
  - ardy42 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. It's also unauthorized access to another account. What do we typically call unauthorized access to a computer? Hacking. What would you think 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, but the gun didn't work?
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >It's also unauthorized access to another account. What do we typically call unauthorized access to a computer? At no point did Assange have unauthorized access to a computer. Manning had legitimate access, and sent a copy of a file to Assange. And it wasn't done to gain new information, just to protect the source of the information. Your example is ridiculous, you can't compare an act that harms nobody to an attempted murder.
  - caymanjim 8y ago
    I think that qualifies as materially aiding in the crime. There's a huge difference between receiving and publishing illegally-obtained information that someone else provides you, and in actively aiding in the extraction of that information. I'm happy to let a judge review all the details and decide.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      The same extraction of information happens with or without Assange's help, the only difference is how visible Manning is while doing it.
- roenxi 8y ago
  He's on the wrong side of the firewall to be doing anything particularly substantive. I'm just going off one article, but he was trying to guess a password [0]. He didn't succeed. I'm not sure how people are claiming with a straight face that that sort of activity requires him to be dragged to the US to face the criminal justice system. It would appear to be a pretext for the more serious non-crime of upsetting powerful US politicians and bureaucrats. > There's no threat to press freedom here. This small group of people who associate with names like Manning, Snowden and Assange are responsible for one of the most illuminating and thorough views any member of the public has ever had into the practical and informal workings of government, ever. Maybe the post WWII historians have had a competitive viewing platform, but certainly not one so current. They have reshaped how a serious commentator would understand geopolitics. If what they are doing isn't journalism, we should replace journalism with what they are doing - a no-holds-barred, factual and blunt examination of what is going on and why. This is a measured and deliberate push to shut down people who deal in facts. That is a threat to the truth-based discourse that we would all like to be involved in. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-london-embassy/3432977002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/11/wiki...

ansvaar 8y ago

warms my heart to see such consistency in only the most True Neutral nebbish comments like this floating to the top of the ycombinator comments section

JdeBP 8y ago

Even more strictly: xe has been indicted for conspiracy to commit the crime with Manning. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19634740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19634740 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19644979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19644979

kdtsh 8y ago

Read between the lines. It is highly questionable that there is actual evidence that he has committed conspiracy - in a perfect world, we would let the courts decide this, but it is obvious that it is not in the interests of the US government to see him go unpunished for what he did (which, even though it is protected under the first amendment, is highly embarrassing and damaging to multiple US administrations). This will have a chilling effect on press freedom, because it will discourage journalists from doing anything that could be construed as aiding a potential source - whatever that means.