4 ms·

Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be a doctor offering them advice on how to better or successfully commit a crime? There's nothing illegal about a doctor offeri

Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be a doctor offering them advice on how to better or successfully commit a crime? There's nothing illegal about a doctor offering medical treatment to someone (obviously it depends on the nature of the medical treatment and licensing and etc.)

mindslight 6y ago
There is nothing illegal about security education in the abstract, just as there is nothing illegal about providing medical care. Physical strength is a necessary component of committing a crime in my analogy, and the doctor is supplying it even though they know the person is likely to use it in furtherance of illegal acts. Still it is the doctor's duty to heal their patient, and the patient's responsibility whether to commit more crimes or not. Even though they're helping their patient, the doctor is not conspiring to rob a convenience store.
- smeeth 6y ago
  I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from analogy and back into the factual realm. The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That two people make an agreement to commit a crime and 2) that at least one person takes an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime. Count 18 of the indictment [0] charges that Assange and Manning "conspir[ed] to commit computer intrusion." The first condition of agreement was easy to show, they clearly agreed they were going to break into a government system. More challenging are the overt acts: they allege that Manning stole the password hash and sent it to Assange, who tried to break it himself, saying "No luck so far." So both the analogies of providing medical care and advice are irrelevant here - Assange didn't just provide information, he allegedly actually participated in the "overt acts" of criminal conspiracy by trying to crack the password. In your analogy, the doctor joined the criminal on the heist. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
  - mindslight 6y ago
    The analogy is purposeful. Medicine is an older field that has had time to develop societally-necessary protections. Whereas computing is young so there is an overriding call to burn the witch, exemplified by monstrosities like the CFAA. I was specifically responding to the idea that telling someone about a program was furthering a crime. You're arguing a different point. And to me it's completely uninteresting to argue over what USG can technically charge him with, because we already know that USG is adept at crafting and twisting law to justify its own actions.

mindslight 6y ago

There is nothing illegal about security education in the abstract, just as there is nothing illegal about providing medical care. Physical strength is a necessary component of committing a crime in my analogy, and the doctor is supplying it even though they know the person is likely to use it in furtherance of illegal acts. Still it is the doctor's duty to heal their patient, and the patient's responsibility whether to commit more crimes or not. Even though they're helping their patient, the doctor is not conspiring to rob a convenience store.

smeeth 6y ago
I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from analogy and back into the factual realm. The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That two people make an agreement to commit a crime and 2) that at least one person takes an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime. Count 18 of the indictment [0] charges that Assange and Manning "conspir[ed] to commit computer intrusion." The first condition of agreement was easy to show, they clearly agreed they were going to break into a government system. More challenging are the overt acts: they allege that Manning stole the password hash and sent it to Assange, who tried to break it himself, saying "No luck so far." So both the analogies of providing medical care and advice are irrelevant here - Assange didn't just provide information, he allegedly actually participated in the "overt acts" of criminal conspiracy by trying to crack the password. In your analogy, the doctor joined the criminal on the heist. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...
- mindslight 6y ago
  The analogy is purposeful. Medicine is an older field that has had time to develop societally-necessary protections. Whereas computing is young so there is an overriding call to burn the witch, exemplified by monstrosities like the CFAA. I was specifically responding to the idea that telling someone about a program was furthering a crime. You're arguing a different point. And to me it's completely uninteresting to argue over what USG can technically charge him with, because we already know that USG is adept at crafting and twisting law to justify its own actions.