4 ms·

it's not illegal to crack your own password hash, according to this US Gov expert witness, it's never communicated or proven what this is the hash of.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
That is the whole point. If Manning and Assange think that a recipe for fruit salad is a hash of a root password for some U.S. Government computer and then attempt to identify a collision for it, with the goal of allowing Manning unauthorized access: that's still conspiracy.
- DoctorOetker 6y ago
  you missed the point: what if Manning remembered his old box his own password of which he forgot, then asking this "Nathaniel Frank" does not automatically involve "Nathaniel Frank" into a conspiracy, as it is plausible Manning is asking help for non-nefarious personal reasons. It's up to the prosecution to prove that J.A. == "Nathaniel Frank" (and yes, whistleblowers have a long history of leaking to multiple players in case one or more of them are in bed with the oppressor). It's up to the prosecution to prove that "Nathanial Frank" couldn't have believed he was simply helping Manning regain access to whatever non-governmental stuff Manning has legitimate access to, and hence Manning has the right to grant others permission to crack his own hash...
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    *her
  - tedunangst 6y ago
    The obvious defense then would be to provide the chat log where manning says hey, I forgot the password to my laptop and really want to play some counter strike, can you help me out?
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      You're both right, but the prosecution must make an affirmative showing before the defense has to do anything.
    - DoctorOetker 6y ago
      I'm not talking about what I believe happened, I'm talking about the law. The law states you are innocent until proven guilty, the law effectively states "Nathaniel Frank" was thinking about having permission for cracking the hash to the fruit salad recipe... until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, not the defense
      - singron 6y ago
        It's not necessarily so clear cut. Without evidence directly linking the cracking to a specific password, the conversation is circumstantial. There often isn't enough direct evidence to be 100% sure of a conviction, so circumstantial evidence is often accepted to get to the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        It's the prosecutions job to prove that that is not a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. Edit: I originally mispoke and had this backwards, but it doesn't actually affect the point.
        nobody9999 6y ago
        >It's the defenses job to prove that that is a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. No. At least in the US, it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. The defense needn't prove anything. Although, it's often a good idea to find some evidence that exonerates the defendant. Here's a little primer[0] for you. [0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/defense/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

That is the whole point. If Manning and Assange think that a recipe for fruit salad is a hash of a root password for some U.S. Government computer and then attempt to identify a collision for it, with the goal of allowing Manning unauthorized access: that's still conspiracy.

DoctorOetker 6y ago
you missed the point: what if Manning remembered his old box his own password of which he forgot, then asking this "Nathaniel Frank" does not automatically involve "Nathaniel Frank" into a conspiracy, as it is plausible Manning is asking help for non-nefarious personal reasons. It's up to the prosecution to prove that J.A. == "Nathaniel Frank" (and yes, whistleblowers have a long history of leaking to multiple players in case one or more of them are in bed with the oppressor). It's up to the prosecution to prove that "Nathanial Frank" couldn't have believed he was simply helping Manning regain access to whatever non-governmental stuff Manning has legitimate access to, and hence Manning has the right to grant others permission to crack his own hash...
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  *her
- tedunangst 6y ago
  The obvious defense then would be to provide the chat log where manning says hey, I forgot the password to my laptop and really want to play some counter strike, can you help me out?
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    You're both right, but the prosecution must make an affirmative showing before the defense has to do anything.
  - DoctorOetker 6y ago
    I'm not talking about what I believe happened, I'm talking about the law. The law states you are innocent until proven guilty, the law effectively states "Nathaniel Frank" was thinking about having permission for cracking the hash to the fruit salad recipe... until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, not the defense
    - singron 6y ago
      It's not necessarily so clear cut. Without evidence directly linking the cracking to a specific password, the conversation is circumstantial. There often isn't enough direct evidence to be 100% sure of a conviction, so circumstantial evidence is often accepted to get to the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      It's the prosecutions job to prove that that is not a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. Edit: I originally mispoke and had this backwards, but it doesn't actually affect the point.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >It's the defenses job to prove that that is a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. No. At least in the US, it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. The defense needn't prove anything. Although, it's often a good idea to find some evidence that exonerates the defendant. Here's a little primer[0] for you. [0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/defense/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...