5 ms·

As far as I can tell, the case for this basically hinges on the United States ability to prove Julian Assange is some sort of hacker, not a journalist. Assange

As far as I can tell, the case for this basically hinges on the United States ability to prove Julian Assange is some sort of hacker, not a journalist. Assange hasnt written any code, or published/executed any exploits, so this seems like a pretty tenuous charge. You'd have better luck prosecuting someone like Moxie Marlinspike for hacking. Then again the US has a rather schizophrenic approach to prosecuting 'hackers.' Aaron Schwartz was looking at 35 years prison time for what basically amounted to a wget loop, or he could give the state its prosecutorial pound of flesh and plead guilty for six months house arrest. Faced with this he took his own life in 2013. Kevin Mitnick was once damned to prison for actual hacking, and was sentenced to a paltry 4 years in jail for hacking some of the largest telecom providers in the world. These days he runs a security company that has the US government as a client.

harryf 7y ago
Basically Julian Assange is screwed. They may make a show of the trial but you can be sure he’ll spend the rest of his life in prison.
- empath75 7y ago
  I would be absolutely stunned if that was the case. I bet he gets less than a year. He probably won’t even be convicted unless they come up with something better than their current indictment.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    The indictment is in the Eastern District of Virginia. This court is a favourite of the DoJ, since IIRC it has never (or maybe only very rarely, I can't remember where I read this) ruled in favour of the defendant in an Espionage Act case. The idea Assange will have a fair trial is a joke -- though I do hope he does.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      This is a bit of a weird statement. Criminal courts don't "rule". Judges make rulings (which, if my understanding is correct, are binding and set precedent). Assange will be put in front of a jury. The jury will make a determination of guilt or lack thereof. But such a finding isn't a ruling in the legal sense. It's not precedent setting. It's that a prosecutor managed to convince a group of 12 randomish people that Assange really did whatever bad thing they claim he did, and Assange's own council wasn't able to convince them otherwise.
      - tracker1 7y ago
        Judges can and often do, set expectations on scope and consideration the jury should take into consideration. That doesn't mean that jury nullification cannot happen, however no judge will generally let any jury know that they're even allowed to do that.
        empath75 7y ago
        acquittal is not nullification.
        tracker1 7y ago
        When someone technically violated the law, but the jury doesn't convict is.
        8note 7y ago
        when somebody technically violated the law, but there's reasonable doubt, it's not nullification
        tracker1 7y ago
        I'm not talking about when there is doubt... I'm literally talking about jury nullification. Why do you keep insisting on setting it up as though I'm saying something else?
  - 292355744930110 7y ago
    Why would the US go to all this trouble just to put him in jail for less than a year?
    - empath75 7y ago
      The point is disrupting wikileaks, not putting him in jail.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - koolba 7y ago
      Radical idea: to get him out of the Ecuadorian embassy and eventually on with his life The alternative was him being locked in self-imposed exile forever. By getting him out, extraditing him, and finally sentencing him to a min term sentence, they can say they did something and still let him go in a reasonable amount of time.
      - sireat 7y ago
        I do not see /s tag so I am extremely confused. Why would USA do this? Since when has any country acted with benevolence towards those individuals it deems its enemy?
- savethefuture 7y ago
  Probably with attitudes like this around..
- dawnerd 7y ago
  and even if he doesn't spend life in us prison, he'll be passed around the other allied countries he "attacked" and spend time for whatever crimes they come up with.
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  I wouldn't bet on him getting extradited, in the end it'll be a political decision and historically the UK press hasn't exactly been kind on the UK/US extradition treaty.
dingaling 7y ago
Mr Mitnick spent eight months of his five year sentence in solitary confinement in case he tried to initiate a nuclear war - seriously. He was also banned from using any computer or phone for three years after release.
- craftyguy 7y ago
  Still seems pretty light compared to what Assange may face when convicted (I seriously doubt there is an 'if' in this case).
gjmacd 7y ago
He tried to brute force password hack with Chelsea Manning. Worked with her directly -- to me, that's pretty much a clear and cut case of "hacking". Regardless of the attempt was successful or not.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  If we're going to base his guilt off of the similarity in his actions to Manning then remember that Manning was pardoned. It would be pretty piss poor precedence to ignore that and charge assange in a different light.
  - astine 7y ago
    Manning was convicted. Pardons are not a statement of guilt or non-guilt but a political tool. Assange might yet be pardoned, but I'd be surprised.
  - plugger 7y ago
    Let's not forget that Manning's sentence was commuted by Obama (which technically isn't a pardon) in part because Assange stated on twitter that if Obama granted Chelsea clemency then he'd submit himself to US extradition. Obama called his bluff and Assange reneged on his offer.
amyjess 7y ago
> Aaron Schwartz was looking at 35 years prison time for what basically amounted to a wget loop, or he could give the state its prosecutorial pound of flesh and plead guilty for six months house arrest. Faced with this he took his own life in 2013. Aaron Swartz was charged for his disrespect for other people's private property. He was banned from their network for violating TOS, and he immediately turned right around and got back on and continued doing the same exact thing that got him banned the first time. I'm okay with making an example out of people who show such flagrant disrespect for other people's property.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Your misrepresentation of the reasons why Aaron Swartz was being made an example of is gross.
micmil 7y ago
Swartz was never going to get anywhere remotely near 35 years and people need to stop spouting this nonsense as it makes them look completely ignorant of every single fact in the case. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is designed to prosecute all computer crime from minor mischief to advanced terrorism. As such its maximum sentences are extremely high and the press just loves to throw around maximum sentences with no regard to the actual cases. Swartz accessed a system he did not have permission to access. He did so by entering a restricted area he did not have permission to access. While I agree with his general ideal, what he did was an act of civil disobedience. The single most basic tenet of civil disobedience is that you are willing to go to jail. Swartz was apparently unable to think beyond the immediate and to the inevitable, obvious, end result of him being charged with a crime that he blatantly and admittedly committed. Six months house arrest, which given that he had no criminal record, would likely have been halved or reduced even further. This is absolutely in line with the crime that he, again, admitted to committing. Mitnick's sentence shows exactly what these maximums mean in regards to real-world sentencing.
- passwordreset 7y ago
  "Swartz accessed a system he did not have permission to access. He did so by entering a restricted area he did not have permission to access." These two sentences appear incorrect. I can simply refer you to Wikipedia, where it states that he accessed "JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT." If Wikipedia is wrong, please correct them. Certainly, if you know facts about this case that Wikipedia is getting wrong, then the whole world would benefit by the modification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz "Swartz was never going to get anywhere remotely near 35 years and people need to stop spouting this nonsense as it makes them look completely ignorant of every single fact in the case." Incorrect and inflammatory; again, a simple check of Wikipedia suggests that you don't have your facts right. From Wikipedia: "Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release." Again, if you know something that Wikipedia doesn't, please update them; however, it certainly doesn't make ANY sense to say that others are "spouting nonsense" simply because they've received what may be incorrect information from a source like Wikipedia.

harryf 7y ago

Basically Julian Assange is screwed. They may make a show of the trial but you can be sure he’ll spend the rest of his life in prison.

empath75 7y ago
I would be absolutely stunned if that was the case. I bet he gets less than a year. He probably won’t even be convicted unless they come up with something better than their current indictment.
- cyphar 7y ago
  The indictment is in the Eastern District of Virginia. This court is a favourite of the DoJ, since IIRC it has never (or maybe only very rarely, I can't remember where I read this) ruled in favour of the defendant in an Espionage Act case. The idea Assange will have a fair trial is a joke -- though I do hope he does.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    This is a bit of a weird statement. Criminal courts don't "rule". Judges make rulings (which, if my understanding is correct, are binding and set precedent). Assange will be put in front of a jury. The jury will make a determination of guilt or lack thereof. But such a finding isn't a ruling in the legal sense. It's not precedent setting. It's that a prosecutor managed to convince a group of 12 randomish people that Assange really did whatever bad thing they claim he did, and Assange's own council wasn't able to convince them otherwise.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      Judges can and often do, set expectations on scope and consideration the jury should take into consideration. That doesn't mean that jury nullification cannot happen, however no judge will generally let any jury know that they're even allowed to do that.
      - empath75 7y ago
        acquittal is not nullification.
        tracker1 7y ago
        When someone technically violated the law, but the jury doesn't convict is.
        8note 7y ago
        when somebody technically violated the law, but there's reasonable doubt, it's not nullification
        tracker1 7y ago
        I'm not talking about when there is doubt... I'm literally talking about jury nullification. Why do you keep insisting on setting it up as though I'm saying something else?
- 292355744930110 7y ago
  Why would the US go to all this trouble just to put him in jail for less than a year?
  - empath75 7y ago
    The point is disrupting wikileaks, not putting him in jail.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - koolba 7y ago
    Radical idea: to get him out of the Ecuadorian embassy and eventually on with his life The alternative was him being locked in self-imposed exile forever. By getting him out, extraditing him, and finally sentencing him to a min term sentence, they can say they did something and still let him go in a reasonable amount of time.
    - sireat 7y ago
      I do not see /s tag so I am extremely confused. Why would USA do this? Since when has any country acted with benevolence towards those individuals it deems its enemy?
savethefuture 7y ago
Probably with attitudes like this around..
dawnerd 7y ago
and even if he doesn't spend life in us prison, he'll be passed around the other allied countries he "attacked" and spend time for whatever crimes they come up with.
FDSGSG 7y ago
I wouldn't bet on him getting extradited, in the end it'll be a political decision and historically the UK press hasn't exactly been kind on the UK/US extradition treaty.

dingaling 7y ago

Mr Mitnick spent eight months of his five year sentence in solitary confinement in case he tried to initiate a nuclear war - seriously. He was also banned from using any computer or phone for three years after release.

craftyguy 7y ago
Still seems pretty light compared to what Assange may face when convicted (I seriously doubt there is an 'if' in this case).

gjmacd 7y ago

He tried to brute force password hack with Chelsea Manning. Worked with her directly -- to me, that's pretty much a clear and cut case of "hacking". Regardless of the attempt was successful or not.

thatoneuser 7y ago
If we're going to base his guilt off of the similarity in his actions to Manning then remember that Manning was pardoned. It would be pretty piss poor precedence to ignore that and charge assange in a different light.
- astine 7y ago
  Manning was convicted. Pardons are not a statement of guilt or non-guilt but a political tool. Assange might yet be pardoned, but I'd be surprised.
- plugger 7y ago
  Let's not forget that Manning's sentence was commuted by Obama (which technically isn't a pardon) in part because Assange stated on twitter that if Obama granted Chelsea clemency then he'd submit himself to US extradition. Obama called his bluff and Assange reneged on his offer.

amyjess 7y ago

> Aaron Schwartz was looking at 35 years prison time for what basically amounted to a wget loop, or he could give the state its prosecutorial pound of flesh and plead guilty for six months house arrest. Faced with this he took his own life in 2013. Aaron Swartz was charged for his disrespect for other people's private property. He was banned from their network for violating TOS, and he immediately turned right around and got back on and continued doing the same exact thing that got him banned the first time. I'm okay with making an example out of people who show such flagrant disrespect for other people's property.

jacquesm 7y ago
Your misrepresentation of the reasons why Aaron Swartz was being made an example of is gross.

micmil 7y ago

Swartz was never going to get anywhere remotely near 35 years and people need to stop spouting this nonsense as it makes them look completely ignorant of every single fact in the case. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is designed to prosecute all computer crime from minor mischief to advanced terrorism. As such its maximum sentences are extremely high and the press just loves to throw around maximum sentences with no regard to the actual cases. Swartz accessed a system he did not have permission to access. He did so by entering a restricted area he did not have permission to access. While I agree with his general ideal, what he did was an act of civil disobedience. The single most basic tenet of civil disobedience is that you are willing to go to jail. Swartz was apparently unable to think beyond the immediate and to the inevitable, obvious, end result of him being charged with a crime that he blatantly and admittedly committed. Six months house arrest, which given that he had no criminal record, would likely have been halved or reduced even further. This is absolutely in line with the crime that he, again, admitted to committing. Mitnick's sentence shows exactly what these maximums mean in regards to real-world sentencing.

passwordreset 7y ago
"Swartz accessed a system he did not have permission to access. He did so by entering a restricted area he did not have permission to access." These two sentences appear incorrect. I can simply refer you to Wikipedia, where it states that he accessed "JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT." If Wikipedia is wrong, please correct them. Certainly, if you know facts about this case that Wikipedia is getting wrong, then the whole world would benefit by the modification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz "Swartz was never going to get anywhere remotely near 35 years and people need to stop spouting this nonsense as it makes them look completely ignorant of every single fact in the case." Incorrect and inflammatory; again, a simple check of Wikipedia suggests that you don't have your facts right. From Wikipedia: "Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release." Again, if you know something that Wikipedia doesn't, please update them; however, it certainly doesn't make ANY sense to say that others are "spouting nonsense" simply because they've received what may be incorrect information from a source like Wikipedia.