6 ms·

I disagree. This is clearly a hugely important case. It's not that day 17 isn't significant to the media, it's that the whole case has been treated with hardly

by k1m 6y ago

I disagree. This is clearly a hugely important case. It's not that day 17 isn't significant to the media, it's that the whole case has been treated with hardly any interest at all from day 1. Another HN commenter pointed out earlier that the BBC, for example, devoted far more coverage to Johnny Depp's libel case than this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24491707 As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silent-assange-trial/ https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...

gimboland 6y ago
The Guardian reported on the case yesterday [1] and last week [2] and on the 10th [3] and on the 8th [4] and on the 7th [5]. Perhaps it's less than we'd like, but it's hardly silent. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked-wikileaks-rival-cryptome-remove-leaked-cables-court-told-assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-in-return-for-democrat-hacking-source-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange-hearing-paused-for-lawyer-to-get-covid-test https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange-rapped-by-judge-after-outburst-during-extradition-trial https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-begins-at-old-bailey-wikileaks https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange... (Edit: newlines beteween references.)
- kmlx 6y ago
  yes, but that doesn't have Craig Murray's conspiracy theories.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    What "conspiracy theory" are you suggesting is being served here?
- k1m 6y ago
  The Guardian has been very hostile toward Assange. I helped compile a list of its coverage a while ago: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ As for its coverage of the case, the most important aspect, which Jonathan Cook refers to, is that two of its journalists (David Leigh and Luke Harding) are implicated in releasing the password that led to everyone being able to access the unredacted cables that Assange is being blamed for publishing. Cook writes: > The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords. > Much of the furore about Assange's supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh's much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks' work. I'm sure you'll agree that's a hugely significate aspect of the case. Can you find anything in the Guardian accepting responsibility for this? The Guardian journalists responsible have stayed silent and have not appeared in court. Yet the prosecution quotes from their book repeatedly.
  - Ntrails 6y ago
    There's an old fashioned concept that a thing known by only you is a secret. A thing you've told somebody else, is just on a countdown to being public information. The journalists obviously fucked Assange by being idiots, but he is 100% culpable for putting the information somewhere it could be leaked in the first place. I simply don't think it has any bearing on the case at all.
    - simion314 6y ago
      I read that if you keep the password only in 1 head then you just painted a giant target on that head, where if you have it shared to a few trusted people if one of them is "suicided" then you can release the secrets so you have a way to prevent the assassinations attempts.
- acqq 6y ago
  The Guardian is actually involved in the case: the "Guardian’s 2011 WikiLeaks book" contained the full password of the encrypted file containing the unredacted documents and that encrypted file was already (it is argued, not per the instructions of Wikileaks) mirrored to different locations. The Guardian of course denies its own responsibility, because if they wouldn't, it would mean that it was the Guardian who de facto "published" the files by publishing the password to the file, and not Assange, and it would be them fighting the extradition now.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Why did Assange given them a password to any documents he didn't share with them?
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      The encryption key was to the archive that Assange shared with the Guardian journalist working on the story, David Leigh. The encrypted archive was apparently mirrored on several sites, meaning that when Leigh published the key, anyone could access the full archive of unredacted cables. I guess Assange could be faulted for working with traditional journalists who aren't so competent with technology. That would be an ironic reversal of the usual complaints about WikiLeaks. But at the very least, Leigh should have known to at least ask Assange before publishing the encryption key. The Guardian turned around and blamed WikiLeaks, throwing it under the bus for the Guardian's own screw-up.
  - atq2119 6y ago
    There's no way that the prosecution in this case would go after the Guardian at this point in time. Remember, the whole playbook here is to target the weakest possible link, i.e. an individual not associated to a traditional publisher, who is being attacked personally (i.e., casting doubts on his mental health after ensuring that he was forced for years to live under circumstances that would erode anybody's mental health). They are doing this against a chosen target because they hope to establish precedent which can then later on be used against more difficult targets.
DanBC 6y ago
> This is clearly a hugely important case. It really isn't. It's a simple extradition case. They're going through the procedure to make sure the extradition is lawful, but that's simply checking that rules have been followed. There's no element here of "did he do it or not?"
- acqq 6y ago
  > simply checking that rules have been followed One of the rules is one should not be extradited for political reasons, and that is what is obviously happening here and what is argued on the court by the defense. But as the US representative can decide what is included as the evidence and the judge accepts that or even directly helps cherrypicking(!), there's where the tragedy starts. Moreover, a political process against somebody whom the US likes to support would be a top title in all media. Because that's what we have learned, it matters: one should not be punished for that. That idea was even present in the legal agreements, including these about extradition. It is that "simple."
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    The parent comment can only be described as trolling. Your response is valiant but probably best to just ignore that one. There’s no way to help someone if they don’t think Assange’s extradition hearing is one of the most critical legal moments of the last hundred and next hundred years.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      This ludicrous hyperbole is ridiculous. The only things the hearing will look at are "The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights." You not knowing nor liking the law doesn't change it. Almost no-one in the thread understands what an extradition hearing is. (How do I know? Look at all the people saying the judge makes the decision.)
amoshi 6y ago
>As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' Long story short: they've been neutralised by the UK security apparatus. I could try to summarise the article below but that won't be doing it justice, just give it a read. Declassified UK, the below source, has a few former members of The Guardian on the team. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-uk-security-services-neutralised-the-countrys-leading-liberal-newspaper/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-u...
marcus_holmes 6y ago
> "The Guardian wants journalism as a closed club, one where journalists are once again treated as high priests by their flock of readers, who know only what the corporate media is willing to disclose to them." This matches perfectly my experience when working with journalists and discussing both Assange and any kind of blogging with them. Journalism (and journalists) would love to return to the pre-internet world where only they got to publish things and everyone had to listen to their version of events. Newspapers still haven't found a viable business model: advertising is earning less and less each year. The Guardian's "wikipedia model" is probably the best new attempt, but even that is very flaky and unreliable compared to their pre-internet days. Increasingly, I see the best journalism coming from independent bloggers. And I see support for draconian measures in suppressing "fake news" from large media organisations that would benefit hugely from any government-imposed regulations on publishing.

by k1m 6y ago

gimboland 6y ago

The Guardian reported on the case yesterday [1] and last week [2] and on the 10th [3] and on the 8th [4] and on the 7th [5]. Perhaps it's less than we'd like, but it's hardly silent. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked-wikileaks-rival-cryptome-remove-leaked-cables-court-told-assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/24/us-never-asked... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-in-return-for-democrat-hacking-source-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/18/trump-offered-... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange-hearing-paused-for-lawyer-to-get-covid-test https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/10/julian-assange... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange-rapped-by-judge-after-outburst-during-extradition-trial https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/08/julian-assange... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-begins-at-old-bailey-wikileaks https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange... (Edit: newlines beteween references.)

kmlx 6y ago
yes, but that doesn't have Craig Murray's conspiracy theories.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  What "conspiracy theory" are you suggesting is being served here?
k1m 6y ago
The Guardian has been very hostile toward Assange. I helped compile a list of its coverage a while ago: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/ As for its coverage of the case, the most important aspect, which Jonathan Cook refers to, is that two of its journalists (David Leigh and Luke Harding) are implicated in releasing the password that led to everyone being able to access the unredacted cables that Assange is being blamed for publishing. Cook writes: > The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords. > Much of the furore about Assange's supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh's much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks' work. I'm sure you'll agree that's a hugely significate aspect of the case. Can you find anything in the Guardian accepting responsibility for this? The Guardian journalists responsible have stayed silent and have not appeared in court. Yet the prosecution quotes from their book repeatedly.
- Ntrails 6y ago
  There's an old fashioned concept that a thing known by only you is a secret. A thing you've told somebody else, is just on a countdown to being public information. The journalists obviously fucked Assange by being idiots, but he is 100% culpable for putting the information somewhere it could be leaked in the first place. I simply don't think it has any bearing on the case at all.
  - simion314 6y ago
    I read that if you keep the password only in 1 head then you just painted a giant target on that head, where if you have it shared to a few trusted people if one of them is "suicided" then you can release the secrets so you have a way to prevent the assassinations attempts.
acqq 6y ago
The Guardian is actually involved in the case: the "Guardian’s 2011 WikiLeaks book" contained the full password of the encrypted file containing the unredacted documents and that encrypted file was already (it is argued, not per the instructions of Wikileaks) mirrored to different locations. The Guardian of course denies its own responsibility, because if they wouldn't, it would mean that it was the Guardian who de facto "published" the files by publishing the password to the file, and not Assange, and it would be them fighting the extradition now.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Why did Assange given them a password to any documents he didn't share with them?
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    The encryption key was to the archive that Assange shared with the Guardian journalist working on the story, David Leigh. The encrypted archive was apparently mirrored on several sites, meaning that when Leigh published the key, anyone could access the full archive of unredacted cables. I guess Assange could be faulted for working with traditional journalists who aren't so competent with technology. That would be an ironic reversal of the usual complaints about WikiLeaks. But at the very least, Leigh should have known to at least ask Assange before publishing the encryption key. The Guardian turned around and blamed WikiLeaks, throwing it under the bus for the Guardian's own screw-up.
- atq2119 6y ago
  There's no way that the prosecution in this case would go after the Guardian at this point in time. Remember, the whole playbook here is to target the weakest possible link, i.e. an individual not associated to a traditional publisher, who is being attacked personally (i.e., casting doubts on his mental health after ensuring that he was forced for years to live under circumstances that would erode anybody's mental health). They are doing this against a chosen target because they hope to establish precedent which can then later on be used against more difficult targets.

DanBC 6y ago

> This is clearly a hugely important case. It really isn't. It's a simple extradition case. They're going through the procedure to make sure the extradition is lawful, but that's simply checking that rules have been followed. There's no element here of "did he do it or not?"

acqq 6y ago
> simply checking that rules have been followed One of the rules is one should not be extradited for political reasons, and that is what is obviously happening here and what is argued on the court by the defense. But as the US representative can decide what is included as the evidence and the judge accepts that or even directly helps cherrypicking(!), there's where the tragedy starts. Moreover, a political process against somebody whom the US likes to support would be a top title in all media. Because that's what we have learned, it matters: one should not be punished for that. That idea was even present in the legal agreements, including these about extradition. It is that "simple."
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  The parent comment can only be described as trolling. Your response is valiant but probably best to just ignore that one. There’s no way to help someone if they don’t think Assange’s extradition hearing is one of the most critical legal moments of the last hundred and next hundred years.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    This ludicrous hyperbole is ridiculous. The only things the hearing will look at are "The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights." You not knowing nor liking the law doesn't change it. Almost no-one in the thread understands what an extradition hearing is. (How do I know? Look at all the people saying the judge makes the decision.)

amoshi 6y ago

>As for papers like the Guardian, who benefited the most from Assange's work, they've been even more conspicuously silent. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, explains why in his piece 'The US is using the Guardian to justify jailing Assange for life. Why is the paper so silent?' Long story short: they've been neutralised by the UK security apparatus. I could try to summarise the article below but that won't be doing it justice, just give it a read. Declassified UK, the below source, has a few former members of The Guardian on the team. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-uk-security-services-neutralised-the-countrys-leading-liberal-newspaper/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-09-11-how-the-u...

marcus_holmes 6y ago

> "The Guardian wants journalism as a closed club, one where journalists are once again treated as high priests by their flock of readers, who know only what the corporate media is willing to disclose to them." This matches perfectly my experience when working with journalists and discussing both Assange and any kind of blogging with them. Journalism (and journalists) would love to return to the pre-internet world where only they got to publish things and everyone had to listen to their version of events. Newspapers still haven't found a viable business model: advertising is earning less and less each year. The Guardian's "wikipedia model" is probably the best new attempt, but even that is very flaky and unreliable compared to their pre-internet days. Increasingly, I see the best journalism coming from independent bloggers. And I see support for draconian measures in suppressing "fake news" from large media organisations that would benefit hugely from any government-imposed regulations on publishing.