4 ms·

He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it. There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it we

by btilly 6y ago

He is charged with hacking for receiving a hashed password and failing to successfully crack it. There is absolutely no way that this would be pursued if it were not for his running Wikileaks. This is a clear case of using selective enforcement to enforce a rule that could not be created on a law. (Given the first amendment, what he did that we really don't like is very squarely protected by the Constitution.)

foldr 6y ago
All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him. Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.
- btilly 6y ago
  The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM. Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Oh, do you have a friend on the prosecution team who’s presented the entire prosecution case to you before the trial? Or do you mean that that’s the only evidence that’s publicly known at the moment?
    - btilly 6y ago
      That's the only evidence that's publicly known at the moment. And, given the extraordinary lengths that the USA has gone to to persecute Assange, it would take a high bar before I'd believe the government at this point. What Assange is actually guilty of is running Wikileaks with the explicit purpose of making it hard for interest groups within the government to conduct "business as usual" against the interests of both the world and the American public. On the positive side, Wikileaks helped convince the USA to get out of Iraq, and helped cause the Arab Spring uprisings that removed several dictatorships. On the downside, Wikileaks has become a pawn used by foreign espionage groups attempting to manipulate the US public. See the DNC email dumps which appear to be the work of Russian hackers attempting to manipulate the US election. Go ahead and charge him with what he actually did, and convince the world that on the balance it does more harm than good. But don't manipulate governments around the world to pursue him by dishonest means.
      - foldr 6y ago
        I don't follow. If he's been charged with things that he's not actually done, then he's innocent and can show that in court.
        btilly 6y ago
        The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court. Can you prove whether or not you sent a particular IM a dozen years ago on a device that you no longer have access to? And the rest of my point stands. The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.
        foldr 6y ago
        >The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court. He doesn't have to prove it, just show that it's plausible. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. >The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people. I think they probably are upset that he tried to help someone hack into a DoD system.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
But he's not a USA citizen, and wasn't in the USA when the activity occurred. What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant. First, if Assange did not violate the law of the US, then there is no cause for extradition. And so it does make sense to be talking about the US legality at this point, since USG going against its very own charter indicates that he will not receive a fair trial. More generally, the United States Bill of Rights is framed as listing natural rights that everyone has. Yes, NSA is violating your US fourth amendment rights, despite you not being a US citizen. YMMV with practical enforcement though.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    In legal practice this is not true at all. The recognition of natural rights and legal enforcement of them are two different things. The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clearly states that the Constitution is for the people of the U.S. The Declaration of Independence went further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" However, no legal guarantees of rights are made in the declaration.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      I acknowledged the mechanical legal aspect - "YMMV with practical enforcement though." But we should hold our governments to the standards they are purportedly founded on, rather than buying into the justifications that they themselves have created. The opportunities to concretely do this are rare, but extradition trials being judged by a different government are one of those places.

by btilly 6y ago

foldr 6y ago

All laws are selectively enforced. I think the more interesting question is whether he's guilty. I don't know. But if he did it, it's pretty clearly illegal, and it's reasonable to charge him. Note that it's completely irrelevant that he failed to crack the password. Failure to successfully carry out a crime to completion just means that you're incompetent, not that you're innocent.

btilly 6y ago
The only evidence we have that he is guilty is what is claimed to be an intercepted IM. Were I on a jury, I would refuse to convict because I would consider there to be a reasonable doubt that the IM was real and not invented by the government to make their case.
- foldr 6y ago
  Oh, do you have a friend on the prosecution team who’s presented the entire prosecution case to you before the trial? Or do you mean that that’s the only evidence that’s publicly known at the moment?
  - btilly 6y ago
    That's the only evidence that's publicly known at the moment. And, given the extraordinary lengths that the USA has gone to to persecute Assange, it would take a high bar before I'd believe the government at this point. What Assange is actually guilty of is running Wikileaks with the explicit purpose of making it hard for interest groups within the government to conduct "business as usual" against the interests of both the world and the American public. On the positive side, Wikileaks helped convince the USA to get out of Iraq, and helped cause the Arab Spring uprisings that removed several dictatorships. On the downside, Wikileaks has become a pawn used by foreign espionage groups attempting to manipulate the US public. See the DNC email dumps which appear to be the work of Russian hackers attempting to manipulate the US election. Go ahead and charge him with what he actually did, and convince the world that on the balance it does more harm than good. But don't manipulate governments around the world to pursue him by dishonest means.
    - foldr 6y ago
      I don't follow. If he's been charged with things that he's not actually done, then he's innocent and can show that in court.
      - btilly 6y ago
        The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court. Can you prove whether or not you sent a particular IM a dozen years ago on a device that you no longer have access to? And the rest of my point stands. The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people.
        foldr 6y ago
        >The fact that someone is innocent is no guarantee that they can prove it in court. He doesn't have to prove it, just show that it's plausible. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. >The US government is not particularly upset that he failed to crack a password. They are upset that he created Wikileaks and publicly embarrassed a lot of influential people. I think they probably are upset that he tried to help someone hack into a DoD system.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

But he's not a USA citizen, and wasn't in the USA when the activity occurred. What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant.

mindslight 6y ago
> What the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA has to say about it is completely irrelevant. First, if Assange did not violate the law of the US, then there is no cause for extradition. And so it does make sense to be talking about the US legality at this point, since USG going against its very own charter indicates that he will not receive a fair trial. More generally, the United States Bill of Rights is framed as listing natural rights that everyone has. Yes, NSA is violating your US fourth amendment rights, despite you not being a US citizen. YMMV with practical enforcement though.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  In legal practice this is not true at all. The recognition of natural rights and legal enforcement of them are two different things. The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clearly states that the Constitution is for the people of the U.S. The Declaration of Independence went further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" However, no legal guarantees of rights are made in the declaration.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    I acknowledged the mechanical legal aspect - "YMMV with practical enforcement though." But we should hold our governments to the standards they are purportedly founded on, rather than buying into the justifications that they themselves have created. The opportunities to concretely do this are rare, but extradition trials being judged by a different government are one of those places.