5 ms·

It's important to look at the actual indictment [1] rather than all the commentary about it, because everyone involved seems to have an axe to grind thanks to A

It's important to look at the actual indictment [1] rather than all the commentary about it, because everyone involved seems to have an axe to grind thanks to Assange's colorful character. The indictment charges Assange with conspiring with Manning to unlawfully gain new access to a protected government computer system. Specifically: * Assange gave Manning a CD to boot from on the target computer, containing tools to copy the protected password data. * Assange received a copy of the password hashes from Manning, and attempted to crack them. Regardless of what reasons the Obama administration had to proceed or not proceed with the indictment at the time (which we are not privy to), these are very clearly defined criminal offenses in the USA, with much precedent behind them. Had Assange not provided the hacking tools, and had he not attempted to crack the passwords, this indictment would never have happened. Press freedom and protecting your sources is not the issue here; it's about conspiring to hack a government computer. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-julian-assange-indictment https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-julian-assange-indictme...

m0zg 8y ago
I call BS. They'd find something else to charge him with, such as that false flag CIA "rape" affair in Sweden. No problems with women whatsoever until he started disclosing data on the "wrong" people. Then he immediately becomes a serial rapist and literally Hitler. Please, we've heard this song before. Cablegate starts in November 2010, Assange becomes a "rapist" that same month. Coincidence?
- tiredyam 8y ago
  Please give sources
  - longhorn_alum 8y ago
    To what
    - tiredyam 8y ago
      the comment was flagged
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Well except he had been under investigation for 2-3 months. It's not like the charges came out of no where.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    Yes, and the Cablegate leaks were announced months in advance as well, IIRC. They had to redact some of the names before release. In fact the first, less significant documents were released as early as Feb 18, 2010.
- LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
  Dont get emotional, this people work very hard to keep up the delusion that the government they support is rightous and thus the work they do is not tech-support for a morally bankrupt mafia-empire.
baby 8y ago
> Assange gave Manning a CD to boot from on the target computer, containing tools to copy the protected password data. what's wrong with this? > * Assange received a copy of the password hashes from Manning, and attempted to crack them. Assange tried to find the pre-image of a hash. There's nothing criminal about that either.
- baseballdork 8y ago
  > what's wrong with this? It's conspiracy. > Assange tried to find the pre-image of a hash. There's nothing criminal about that either. That's also conspiracy. You can't take these two acts out of context. They were done with the intent of stealing and disseminating classified information which is illegal.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Yes, intent matters, and there's a reasonable case that what he did was illegal. But because intent matters, if Assange's intent was to reveal information that the public should know, then what he did shouldn't be illegal.
  - hjk05 8y ago
    Informing the public of situations where the government is killing innoscent people is illegal, no big suprice. But that doesn’t mean we have to support extradition to North Korea of every journalist who publishes the truth about that horrible regime. And by the same merit you don’t have to support the American regime going after Assange for exposing their murders of innoscent.
- Veen 8y ago
  Is your question “what’s wrong with a non-citizen supplying the means for a member of the military to access and share sensitive data”? I should have thought it obvious what is wrong with that. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with briskly thrusting a knife back and forth. But if there’s a person stood in front of you and you intend to kill them, the moral and legal context changes. Context and intent matter.
colllectorof 8y ago
>Had Assange not provided the hacking tools, and had he not attempted to crack the passwords, this indictment would never have happened. He has not been under trial yet, so how do you know with such certainty he actually did that? >Press freedom and protecting your sources is not the issue here; A lot of very prominent people who deal with politics, activism and journalism disagree with this assessment. On top of that list would be: Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden and Noam Chomsky. Their reasoning seems pretty solid. And unlike some media people, they didn't suddenly flip-flop in their positions on such issues.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Allegedly then. It doesn't change the nature of the charges. And who cares what prominent people think ? They aren't the ones who will be judging whether Assange committed a crime or not. Lots of prominent people have defended guilty people before.
  - colllectorof 8y ago
    >And who cares what prominent people think? Well, I happen to value Glenn Greenwald's analysis of the impact this prosecution will have on journalism a tad more than unsubstantiated comments from random people on Hacker News.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      I for one will wait for a trial rather than speculating on the internet.
- Cacti 8y ago
  None of those people are lawyers, and asking Snowden and Greenwald is like asking a defendants mother if their kid did it.

m0zg 8y ago

I call BS. They'd find something else to charge him with, such as that false flag CIA "rape" affair in Sweden. No problems with women whatsoever until he started disclosing data on the "wrong" people. Then he immediately becomes a serial rapist and literally Hitler. Please, we've heard this song before. Cablegate starts in November 2010, Assange becomes a "rapist" that same month. Coincidence?

tiredyam 8y ago
Please give sources
- longhorn_alum 8y ago
  To what
  - tiredyam 8y ago
    the comment was flagged
joshuamorton 8y ago
Well except he had been under investigation for 2-3 months. It's not like the charges came out of no where.
- m0zg 8y ago
  Yes, and the Cablegate leaks were announced months in advance as well, IIRC. They had to redact some of the names before release. In fact the first, less significant documents were released as early as Feb 18, 2010.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
Dont get emotional, this people work very hard to keep up the delusion that the government they support is rightous and thus the work they do is not tech-support for a morally bankrupt mafia-empire.

baby 8y ago

> Assange gave Manning a CD to boot from on the target computer, containing tools to copy the protected password data. what's wrong with this? > * Assange received a copy of the password hashes from Manning, and attempted to crack them. Assange tried to find the pre-image of a hash. There's nothing criminal about that either.

baseballdork 8y ago
> what's wrong with this? It's conspiracy. > Assange tried to find the pre-image of a hash. There's nothing criminal about that either. That's also conspiracy. You can't take these two acts out of context. They were done with the intent of stealing and disseminating classified information which is illegal.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Yes, intent matters, and there's a reasonable case that what he did was illegal. But because intent matters, if Assange's intent was to reveal information that the public should know, then what he did shouldn't be illegal.
- hjk05 8y ago
  Informing the public of situations where the government is killing innoscent people is illegal, no big suprice. But that doesn’t mean we have to support extradition to North Korea of every journalist who publishes the truth about that horrible regime. And by the same merit you don’t have to support the American regime going after Assange for exposing their murders of innoscent.
Veen 8y ago
Is your question “what’s wrong with a non-citizen supplying the means for a member of the military to access and share sensitive data”? I should have thought it obvious what is wrong with that. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with briskly thrusting a knife back and forth. But if there’s a person stood in front of you and you intend to kill them, the moral and legal context changes. Context and intent matter.

colllectorof 8y ago

>Had Assange not provided the hacking tools, and had he not attempted to crack the passwords, this indictment would never have happened. He has not been under trial yet, so how do you know with such certainty he actually did that? >Press freedom and protecting your sources is not the issue here; A lot of very prominent people who deal with politics, activism and journalism disagree with this assessment. On top of that list would be: Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden and Noam Chomsky. Their reasoning seems pretty solid. And unlike some media people, they didn't suddenly flip-flop in their positions on such issues.

threeseed 8y ago
Allegedly then. It doesn't change the nature of the charges. And who cares what prominent people think ? They aren't the ones who will be judging whether Assange committed a crime or not. Lots of prominent people have defended guilty people before.
- colllectorof 8y ago
  >And who cares what prominent people think? Well, I happen to value Glenn Greenwald's analysis of the impact this prosecution will have on journalism a tad more than unsubstantiated comments from random people on Hacker News.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    I for one will wait for a trial rather than speculating on the internet.
Cacti 8y ago
None of those people are lawyers, and asking Snowden and Greenwald is like asking a defendants mother if their kid did it.