3 ms·

The allegations against him (and there is evidence to support this) is that he didn’t just coordinate to publish, but provided instructions and technical traini

The allegations against him (and there is evidence to support this) is that he didn’t just coordinate to publish, but provided instructions and technical training to Manning on how to steal them.

foldr 7y ago
I think you've misread my post. I wasn't talking about Assange.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
This is not true. The allegations are that he attempted to crack a password on a different Windows account so that the documents would not he tied to Manning. And most of the charges against him are related to publishing.
- droithomme 7y ago
  Manning leaked the info proving US war crimes and lying, including the "collateral damage" video. She got these leaks using her own access, and sent them to wikileaks. There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to. She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access and tried to crack the password, but was unsuccessful. She then sent the hash to wikileaks, not something wikileaks asked for, along with a request for help. There was no response. Later she was in a chat with someone using a known wikileaks chat account. The identity of this person has not been established. She asked if they had been able to crack the password hash and that person said no they had not cracked it. They did not say they tried to crack it or they approved of cracking it. They answered the question factually, no, they had not cracked it. Manning never hacked the system, but did try to. There's no evidence Assange attempted to hack the system. There's pretty solid evidence someone at wikileaks told Manning that they had not cracked the hash she had sent them, but none that they had attempted to do so. As far as the leaks that were published, none of these involved hacking, they were obtained using Manning's granted access. They were however unauthorized exfiltration of state secrets documenting war crimes. This is the case alleging he actively assisted a leaker in hacking crimes.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to. She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access This is where this breaks down. The account in question was a generic local Windows admin account, and she already had the same level of access as the desired account. It was only attempted to hide her identity. This is clearly laid out as what happened in Assange's indictment.
    - foldr 7y ago
      >It was only attempted to hide her identity. This makes no difference, legally speaking. Assange was still helping her to gain unauthorized access to a computer system. This is like giving bank robbers ski masks in full knowledge that they're going to use the ski masks to hide their identities during a robbery. You're still an accessory. It's no defense to say "Oh, I wasn't helping them to gain access to the vault, I was just helping them to hide their identities".
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >This makes no difference, legally speaking. Assange was still helping her to gain unauthorized access to a computer system. Yes, it does. It is the duty of the press to try to protect their sources, and the rights of a free press can not be infringed upon. While the act may be considered illegal by some other law, that law is unconstitutional.
        foldr 7y ago
        The first amendment cannot be used as an excuse for aiding criminals hacking into computer systems. There is zero historical precedent for this, and it makes zero legal sense. You are thinking of reporter's privilege, but massively overextending its scope (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1146/reporter-s-privilege https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1146/reporter-s...). Jorunalists are entitled to "protect" their sources in the extremely limited sense that they cannot, necessarily, be compelled to reveal information about them. They're not in any way entitled to shield their sources from law enforcement.

The allegations against him (and there is evidence to support this) is that he didn’t just coordinate to publish, but provided instructions and technical training to Manning on how to steal them.

foldr 7y ago

I think you've misread my post. I wasn't talking about Assange.

boomboomsubban 7y ago

This is not true. The allegations are that he attempted to crack a password on a different Windows account so that the documents would not he tied to Manning. And most of the charges against him are related to publishing.

droithomme 7y ago
Manning leaked the info proving US war crimes and lying, including the "collateral damage" video. She got these leaks using her own access, and sent them to wikileaks. There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to. She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access and tried to crack the password, but was unsuccessful. She then sent the hash to wikileaks, not something wikileaks asked for, along with a request for help. There was no response. Later she was in a chat with someone using a known wikileaks chat account. The identity of this person has not been established. She asked if they had been able to crack the password hash and that person said no they had not cracked it. They did not say they tried to crack it or they approved of cracking it. They answered the question factually, no, they had not cracked it. Manning never hacked the system, but did try to. There's no evidence Assange attempted to hack the system. There's pretty solid evidence someone at wikileaks told Manning that they had not cracked the hash she had sent them, but none that they had attempted to do so. As far as the leaks that were published, none of these involved hacking, they were obtained using Manning's granted access. They were however unauthorized exfiltration of state secrets documenting war crimes. This is the case alleging he actively assisted a leaker in hacking crimes.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to. She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access This is where this breaks down. The account in question was a generic local Windows admin account, and she already had the same level of access as the desired account. It was only attempted to hide her identity. This is clearly laid out as what happened in Assange's indictment.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >It was only attempted to hide her identity. This makes no difference, legally speaking. Assange was still helping her to gain unauthorized access to a computer system. This is like giving bank robbers ski masks in full knowledge that they're going to use the ski masks to hide their identities during a robbery. You're still an accessory. It's no defense to say "Oh, I wasn't helping them to gain access to the vault, I was just helping them to hide their identities".
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      >This makes no difference, legally speaking. Assange was still helping her to gain unauthorized access to a computer system. Yes, it does. It is the duty of the press to try to protect their sources, and the rights of a free press can not be infringed upon. While the act may be considered illegal by some other law, that law is unconstitutional.
      - foldr 7y ago
        The first amendment cannot be used as an excuse for aiding criminals hacking into computer systems. There is zero historical precedent for this, and it makes zero legal sense. You are thinking of reporter's privilege, but massively overextending its scope (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1146/reporter-s-privilege https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1146/reporter-s...). Jorunalists are entitled to "protect" their sources in the extremely limited sense that they cannot, necessarily, be compelled to reveal information about them. They're not in any way entitled to shield their sources from law enforcement.