7 ms·

US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning

81 points by OrgNet 7y ago

duxup 7y ago
I think it is pretty well understood that they weren't successful. At least to me as far as if he deserves protection as a journalist, I don't think it matters if he was successful. You can help someone try to commit a crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime. If a journalist is given information that is one thing, offering or even helping someone commit a crime and their role has changed dramatically IMO. I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's life / career had they used that as cover for Manning?
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > You can help someone try to commit a crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime. Sure, but in this case it seems like he didn't even help. He decided on his own to back out of that. If you promise to help, then don't, it should not count as "furthering" the conspiracy. > I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. Not sure, but it would presumably be their fault that the password was crackable. [edit: reworded slightly]
  - duxup 7y ago
    I'm not sure the password being crackable means it's someone else's fault because someone chose to use their identity to commit some serious crimes. Pretty sure the fault also lies with the person who would have used their identity too.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      If you're punished for what someone did with your password, that's obviously unfair. Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. I adjusted the wording a little, is that clearer?
      - jfk13 7y ago
        Using an easily crackable password is unwise, yes. And it increases the risk that it may be cracked and misused - and therefore the risk of having to deal with the fallout of a crack. But I would suggest that even so, the only criminal in the picture is the person doing the cracking. The victim may have been foolish to have a weak password, but should that really be a punishable offence?
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        If part of your job is security, and you don't secure something obvious, then it qualifies as a punishable offence. Not a criminal one, a workplace one. That doesn't mean you need to get punished, but failing to do your job is not nothing.
      - duxup 7y ago
        >Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. What qualifies as punished to you? It's possible that this person's life career could have been ruined if Manning was able to hide behind this other account and the actual owner of the account was blamed... Is that fair?
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        If they got scapegoated, that would not be fair. I don't think Manning using their account would have caused that.
        emaginniss 7y ago
        I don't know if that's scapegoating so much as it is framing
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        I don't think pivoting into a different account goes all the way to "framing". Not that it matters what we call it, since everyone seems to be in agreement that they shouldn't be punished for what the account was hypothetically used for.
- cjensen 7y ago
  Yep. There are ethical rules for Journalism, which are enshrined in law in many places. One of the rules is that a Journalist may receive stolen information and publish it. But a Journalist may not themselves steal the information, or participate or aid in obtaining private information. Right now, it looks to me like Assange lied that he was going to help hack anything. I don't see how this is a crime under US law. It's a very weak case, and they cannot lawfully charge him with anything not mentioned in the extradition request. This all changes if they have actual proof he did try to hack a password though.
  - duxup 7y ago
    It will be interesting to see how / if this plays out in court. I don't really trust Assange to tell his own story honestly as it is so I kinda want to see what anyone can prove when the rubber hits the road.
    - rurban 7y ago
      You don't need to trust Assange or the Government. Manning already stated that the allegation is categorally wrong. And there's no proof that they did it. But they still went with it, just to get him extradited. A common tactic.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    People get sent to jail all the time for conspiring to commit a crime yet never following through with it. I spent 10 years in federal prison and met lots of those people. Do not verbally agree to any illegal act. Doing so is a crime, 1st amendment rights notwithstanding, and regardless of your intent of whether or not you will carry through with the act.
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      Would you be willing to share a bit of what happened, so that others know what not to do / why not to do it?
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's life / career had they used that as cover for Manning? From the affidavit, the password they tried to crack was for the Windows user "ftp," not attributable to any person. I don't understand how people can claim Assange is somehow at fault for attempting to save Manning from the terrible treatment she is still receiving for her deed.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    Trying to help someone evade detection whilst committing a crime is not really 'attempting to save someone from terrible treatment'. To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got. But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, Assange now has to content with conspiracy to commit hacking charges himself.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      >But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. >To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got. This already happened. For example, only 75,000 of the 91,000 Afghanistan war documents have ever been released. The defense used this in her trial.
      - ausecpro 7y ago
        >This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. doesnt matter; it's still a CFAA violation. if the facts as they have been presented are correct, assange is guilty of conspiracy.
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  This is not about the minor charges against this individual that helped expose some actual crimes against humanity. It's about spreading the message that whistle blowers face a life time of harassment and should fear for their freedom. It's vengeful and it is being orchestrated by the very people that got exposed. The UN, excluding basically the US and not many others organized an international court of justice specifically to prosecute the severe type of crimes exposed by wikileaks. There are quite a few political and military (ex) leaders in the US that would have to fear for extradition to The Hague for these crimes if it wasn't for the fact that the US does not support this court and refuses to extradite US citizens for the severe types of crimes under the jurisdiction of this court. This will of course never happen. The remarkable thing is actually how openly incompetent the whole thing is being conducted. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if the whole extradition thing collapses based on the notion that there is no good case that Assange actually did anything to make extradition possible. Years of effort and preparation and all they came up with is this. It's certainly putting the UK on the spot for basically very openly having to go through the motions of extraditing Assange on obviously BS charges to please a key ally. I imagine this might drag out for quite some time in the British courts so this has a lot of potential to get quite embarrassing for them.
torstenvl 7y ago
"Admits?" This was clearly communicated by the very fact that he was indicted for conspiracy. By definition, conspiracy is an inchoate crime. It's a bit disingenuous for Vice to paint this as some kind of revelation or admission. For further reading: https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/ https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/
- duxup 7y ago
  "admits" seems to be a frequent weasel word these days. You identify the issues with someone's story that you don't like and then you make a story about how they 'admit' those things. God help anyone who actually 'admits' anything these days as to some people that must be instantly discrediting.
  - cabaalis 7y ago
    "Claim" is my favorite of these words. Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done" It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement. Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a "big old but" coming. Even if you never produce the but, they still have the feeling what was just stated is about to be refuted.
    - duxup 7y ago
      A while ago "allegedly" was very popular with some TV news networks. They'd take some pure BS story from the internet that aligned with their politics and report it as "allegedly" to sound fair... and then list out the lies word for word as they came from some conspiracy site and then just move on. They'd sprinkle their whole broadcast withe these tidbits. You couldn't help but get the impression that controversy and scandal was surrounding whomever the target of the day was, despite no evidence of any kind being offered.
      - celticninja 7y ago
equalunique 7y ago
Hacking computers shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Fraud, theft, etc. are the types of crimes many "hackers" could be charged with, but computer intrusion itself shouldn't be counted among them.
- vkou 7y ago
  Invading a space is a crime, even if no other crime has been committed, be it in facilitating the invasion, or afterwards.
  - equalunique 7y ago
    So if Y Combinator updated their Hacker News terms of service to say "vkou is no longer allowed on the site" you will turn yourself in to the police? My point is, you aren't doing yourself any favors by championing the ability of big institutions to put you in jail simply for accessing information.
    - vkou 7y ago
      Do you really think that there's no categorical difference between that, and what Assange did? It's an absurd analogy, with an absurd conclusion. If you interpret a law absurdly, you will get absurd outcomes. Fortunately, we have judges and juries for that.
- techntoke 7y ago
  Trespassing is a crime, as well as breaking and entering.
  - equalunique 7y ago
    I am curious to know what your opinion is regarding the case of Aaron Swartz. Was 35 years appropriate?
    - techntoke 7y ago
sigzero 7y ago
The title means to me, that they know he "tried" but don't know if he was "successful".
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Why would we believe them either way? They've overplayed their hands, and now they're panicking. Even if Assange actually cracked the password, it would only have given Manning access to material to which she already had access. The reason she wanted to use a different login was because she didn't want to be caught. With good reason, because once they caught her they tortured her for years. The primary reason for the torture was to force her to falsely implicate Assange in actual crimes, which she steadfastly refused to do. Now they've charged Assange anyway. Protecting an anonymous source from the authorities is a basic journalistic duty. Journalists these days have spent so much time protecting authoritarian sources from the public they've forgotten how it's supposed to work. For these reasons, Assange will not be extradited from UK. Those who now cheer Trump's attack on journalism will soon complain that it's not a more effective attack.
- eesmith 7y ago
  The allegation is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481... . All it says is: > On or about March 10, 2010 ... Assange indicated that he has been trying to crack the password by stating he has "no luck so far". I think that your inference is a reasonable to that description.
astazangasta 7y ago
Meanwhile, what about those CIA people who broke into Senate computers to interfere with the torture report? I'm sure we are hot on the trail of that prosecution.
anfilt 7y ago
I am scratching my head to why cracking a password is a crime? Generally that means you already have a hash. Then your trying see if passwords match that hash... It's also not really cracking anything, but just guessing. That's just math. The crime was hacking the system to get the hash. Moreover, what about all those researchers who compiled lists of the most common passwords was the act of guessing those hashes a criminal act these seems to be a very dangerous idea of a crime. As in it could ensnare innocent people.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Where does anyone say that cracking a password is a crime? The allegation is that there was an agreement between Manning and Assange to crack the password for a US military network. Manning gave a hash to Assange, Assange tried (but failed) to crack it, and told Manning that the crack attempt failed. He also asked for more information that might help with the cracking. The alleged illegal activity is the conspiracy to break into a protected computer system, not the (attempt at) cracking a password. Those researchers are not doing their work as part of a conspiracy to break into other computer system. The feedback loop corresponding to 'asking for more information' by those carrying out illegal activities doesn't - at least for the most part - exist. By analogy, locksport fans are not part of a conspiracy to break into people's houses, nor - at least for the most part - working with potential robbers to figure out how best to open a given house's lock.
  - anfilt 7y ago
    I see what your saying, and looked a little closer to the indictment. However, I don't think it still quite the same thing as a key/lock. A password can contain information and as a Assange could have just been trying to see the password contained any useful information. What if the password was something like "I.like.blank" and it's known who the administrator of the computer system was. A hash is just a piece of information. Like the details are not entirely clear in the indictment. The only thing clear is that he was given a hash. The indictment does not say if trying to guess the password hash was going to be used to login into the system. Although, it seems like that what the indictment assumes, and without a full transcript of the conversation I feel the indictment is pretty weak. However, after reading there are multiple things that make really doubt who ever wrote that has any idea what they are talking about. For instance: Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange. I was unaware linux was special software....

81 points by OrgNet 7y ago

I think it is pretty well understood that they weren't successful. At least to me as far as if he deserves protection as a journalist, I don't think it matters if he was successful. You can help someone try to commit a crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime. If a journalist is given information that is one thing, offering or even helping someone commit a crime and their role has changed dramatically IMO. I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's life / career had they used that as cover for Manning?

Dylan16807 7y ago
> You can help someone try to commit a crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime. Sure, but in this case it seems like he didn't even help. He decided on his own to back out of that. If you promise to help, then don't, it should not count as "furthering" the conspiracy. > I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. Not sure, but it would presumably be their fault that the password was crackable. [edit: reworded slightly]
- duxup 7y ago
  I'm not sure the password being crackable means it's someone else's fault because someone chose to use their identity to commit some serious crimes. Pretty sure the fault also lies with the person who would have used their identity too.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    If you're punished for what someone did with your password, that's obviously unfair. Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. I adjusted the wording a little, is that clearer?
    - jfk13 7y ago
      Using an easily crackable password is unwise, yes. And it increases the risk that it may be cracked and misused - and therefore the risk of having to deal with the fallout of a crack. But I would suggest that even so, the only criminal in the picture is the person doing the cracking. The victim may have been foolish to have a weak password, but should that really be a punishable offence?
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        If part of your job is security, and you don't secure something obvious, then it qualifies as a punishable offence. Not a criminal one, a workplace one. That doesn't mean you need to get punished, but failing to do your job is not nothing.
    - duxup 7y ago
      >Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair. What qualifies as punished to you? It's possible that this person's life career could have been ruined if Manning was able to hide behind this other account and the actual owner of the account was blamed... Is that fair?
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        If they got scapegoated, that would not be fair. I don't think Manning using their account would have caused that.
        emaginniss 7y ago
        I don't know if that's scapegoating so much as it is framing
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        I don't think pivoting into a different account goes all the way to "framing". Not that it matters what we call it, since everyone seems to be in agreement that they shouldn't be punished for what the account was hypothetically used for.
cjensen 7y ago
Yep. There are ethical rules for Journalism, which are enshrined in law in many places. One of the rules is that a Journalist may receive stolen information and publish it. But a Journalist may not themselves steal the information, or participate or aid in obtaining private information. Right now, it looks to me like Assange lied that he was going to help hack anything. I don't see how this is a crime under US law. It's a very weak case, and they cannot lawfully charge him with anything not mentioned in the extradition request. This all changes if they have actual proof he did try to hack a password though.
- duxup 7y ago
  It will be interesting to see how / if this plays out in court. I don't really trust Assange to tell his own story honestly as it is so I kinda want to see what anyone can prove when the rubber hits the road.
  - rurban 7y ago
    You don't need to trust Assange or the Government. Manning already stated that the allegation is categorally wrong. And there's no proof that they did it. But they still went with it, just to get him extradited. A common tactic.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  People get sent to jail all the time for conspiring to commit a crime yet never following through with it. I spent 10 years in federal prison and met lots of those people. Do not verbally agree to any illegal act. Doing so is a crime, 1st amendment rights notwithstanding, and regardless of your intent of whether or not you will carry through with the act.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    Would you be willing to share a bit of what happened, so that others know what not to do / why not to do it?
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's life / career had they used that as cover for Manning? From the affidavit, the password they tried to crack was for the Windows user "ftp," not attributable to any person. I don't understand how people can claim Assange is somehow at fault for attempting to save Manning from the terrible treatment she is still receiving for her deed.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  Trying to help someone evade detection whilst committing a crime is not really 'attempting to save someone from terrible treatment'. To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got. But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, Assange now has to content with conspiracy to commit hacking charges himself.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. >To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got. This already happened. For example, only 75,000 of the 91,000 Afghanistan war documents have ever been released. The defense used this in her trial.
    - ausecpro 7y ago
      >This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat. doesnt matter; it's still a CFAA violation. if the facts as they have been presented are correct, assange is guilty of conspiracy.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
This is not about the minor charges against this individual that helped expose some actual crimes against humanity. It's about spreading the message that whistle blowers face a life time of harassment and should fear for their freedom. It's vengeful and it is being orchestrated by the very people that got exposed. The UN, excluding basically the US and not many others organized an international court of justice specifically to prosecute the severe type of crimes exposed by wikileaks. There are quite a few political and military (ex) leaders in the US that would have to fear for extradition to The Hague for these crimes if it wasn't for the fact that the US does not support this court and refuses to extradite US citizens for the severe types of crimes under the jurisdiction of this court. This will of course never happen. The remarkable thing is actually how openly incompetent the whole thing is being conducted. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if the whole extradition thing collapses based on the notion that there is no good case that Assange actually did anything to make extradition possible. Years of effort and preparation and all they came up with is this. It's certainly putting the UK on the spot for basically very openly having to go through the motions of extraditing Assange on obviously BS charges to please a key ally. I imagine this might drag out for quite some time in the British courts so this has a lot of potential to get quite embarrassing for them.

torstenvl 7y ago

"Admits?" This was clearly communicated by the very fact that he was indicted for conspiracy. By definition, conspiracy is an inchoate crime. It's a bit disingenuous for Vice to paint this as some kind of revelation or admission. For further reading: https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/ https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/

duxup 7y ago
"admits" seems to be a frequent weasel word these days. You identify the issues with someone's story that you don't like and then you make a story about how they 'admit' those things. God help anyone who actually 'admits' anything these days as to some people that must be instantly discrediting.
- cabaalis 7y ago
  "Claim" is my favorite of these words. Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done" It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement. Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a "big old but" coming. Even if you never produce the but, they still have the feeling what was just stated is about to be refuted.
  - duxup 7y ago
    A while ago "allegedly" was very popular with some TV news networks. They'd take some pure BS story from the internet that aligned with their politics and report it as "allegedly" to sound fair... and then list out the lies word for word as they came from some conspiracy site and then just move on. They'd sprinkle their whole broadcast withe these tidbits. You couldn't help but get the impression that controversy and scandal was surrounding whomever the target of the day was, despite no evidence of any kind being offered.
    - celticninja 7y ago

equalunique 7y ago

Hacking computers shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Fraud, theft, etc. are the types of crimes many "hackers" could be charged with, but computer intrusion itself shouldn't be counted among them.

vkou 7y ago
Invading a space is a crime, even if no other crime has been committed, be it in facilitating the invasion, or afterwards.
- equalunique 7y ago
  So if Y Combinator updated their Hacker News terms of service to say "vkou is no longer allowed on the site" you will turn yourself in to the police? My point is, you aren't doing yourself any favors by championing the ability of big institutions to put you in jail simply for accessing information.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Do you really think that there's no categorical difference between that, and what Assange did? It's an absurd analogy, with an absurd conclusion. If you interpret a law absurdly, you will get absurd outcomes. Fortunately, we have judges and juries for that.
techntoke 7y ago
Trespassing is a crime, as well as breaking and entering.
- equalunique 7y ago
  I am curious to know what your opinion is regarding the case of Aaron Swartz. Was 35 years appropriate?
  - techntoke 7y ago

sigzero 7y ago

The title means to me, that they know he "tried" but don't know if he was "successful".

jessaustin 7y ago
Why would we believe them either way? They've overplayed their hands, and now they're panicking. Even if Assange actually cracked the password, it would only have given Manning access to material to which she already had access. The reason she wanted to use a different login was because she didn't want to be caught. With good reason, because once they caught her they tortured her for years. The primary reason for the torture was to force her to falsely implicate Assange in actual crimes, which she steadfastly refused to do. Now they've charged Assange anyway. Protecting an anonymous source from the authorities is a basic journalistic duty. Journalists these days have spent so much time protecting authoritarian sources from the public they've forgotten how it's supposed to work. For these reasons, Assange will not be extradited from UK. Those who now cheer Trump's attack on journalism will soon complain that it's not a more effective attack.
eesmith 7y ago
The allegation is at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481... . All it says is: > On or about March 10, 2010 ... Assange indicated that he has been trying to crack the password by stating he has "no luck so far". I think that your inference is a reasonable to that description.

astazangasta 7y ago

Meanwhile, what about those CIA people who broke into Senate computers to interfere with the torture report? I'm sure we are hot on the trail of that prosecution.

anfilt 7y ago

I am scratching my head to why cracking a password is a crime? Generally that means you already have a hash. Then your trying see if passwords match that hash... It's also not really cracking anything, but just guessing. That's just math. The crime was hacking the system to get the hash. Moreover, what about all those researchers who compiled lists of the most common passwords was the act of guessing those hashes a criminal act these seems to be a very dangerous idea of a crime. As in it could ensnare innocent people.

eesmith 7y ago
Where does anyone say that cracking a password is a crime? The allegation is that there was an agreement between Manning and Assange to crack the password for a US military network. Manning gave a hash to Assange, Assange tried (but failed) to crack it, and told Manning that the crack attempt failed. He also asked for more information that might help with the cracking. The alleged illegal activity is the conspiracy to break into a protected computer system, not the (attempt at) cracking a password. Those researchers are not doing their work as part of a conspiracy to break into other computer system. The feedback loop corresponding to 'asking for more information' by those carrying out illegal activities doesn't - at least for the most part - exist. By analogy, locksport fans are not part of a conspiracy to break into people's houses, nor - at least for the most part - working with potential robbers to figure out how best to open a given house's lock.
- anfilt 7y ago
  I see what your saying, and looked a little closer to the indictment. However, I don't think it still quite the same thing as a key/lock. A password can contain information and as a Assange could have just been trying to see the password contained any useful information. What if the password was something like "I.like.blank" and it's known who the administrator of the computer system was. A hash is just a piece of information. Like the details are not entirely clear in the indictment. The only thing clear is that he was given a hash. The indictment does not say if trying to guess the password hash was going to be used to login into the system. Although, it seems like that what the indictment assumes, and without a full transcript of the conversation I feel the indictment is pretty weak. However, after reading there are multiple things that make really doubt who ever wrote that has any idea what they are talking about. For instance: Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange. I was unaware linux was special software....