3 ms·

> aiding and abetting a crime You are using this word as a taint, free of context. In the way people toss away drug users because after all possessing drugs is

> aiding and abetting a crime You are using this word as a taint, free of context. In the way people toss away drug users because after all possessing drugs is a crime. Therefore, they are a criminal. You don't ask, why is this a crime? Should we respect this law? Forget all that, obviously someone made up this great law and people who don't follow it are bad. Classification blocks real journalists from pursuing stories all the time. It works. It literally almost worked in Watergate. The fist hearings into Nixon's dirty money machine closed with little to show because of government secrecy. The government classifies millions of documents per year. It's not just state secrets. It's anything that could be embarrassing, anything that might undermine a government position, etc.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
So give it some context. What other crimes should journalists be allowed to commit that "normal" people would be tried for?
- naasking 5y ago
  Nothing. Journalists are normal people. The mistake you're consistently making is thinking that Assange actually committed a crime. He didn't, although that's certainly the narrative that the government wants you to believe.
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    So is it that you believe that offering to crack passwords and encouraging further network intrusion is not a crime, or that it shouldn't be? And if it's OK for journalists to do those things, what other special compensations do they get? To be clear, I don't have a clear opinion on whether he committed those crimes or not. I do think there's enough evidence to support an indictment.
    - naasking 5y ago
      > So is it that you believe that offering to crack passwords No such "offer" was extended, nor is there any evidence that cracked passwords were ever used to obtain any data. If you're suggesting that merely talking about password cracking is a crime, well then you've just criminalised a lot of discussions here on HN and reddit. > encouraging further network intrusion is not a crime Cite the transcript entries [1] where this alleged encouragement happened. > I do think there's enough evidence to support an indictment And you formed this opinion from actually reading the official transcripts [1]? [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html#document/p8 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html#d...
      - cookie_monsta 5y ago
        > No such "offer" was extended dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 15 55:28 any good at lm hash cracking? pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:00:29 yes pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:02:23 we have rainbow tables for lm dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:04:14 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c … dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:05:07 I think its lm + lmmnt … dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:09:06 not even sure if thats the hash...l had to hexdump a SAM file,since I dont have the system file... pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:06 what makes you think its lm? pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:19 its from a SAM? dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:24 yeah pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:26 passed it onto our lm guy dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:40 thx > Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened. dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 06:31:42 after this upload,thats all I really have got left pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 0806:32:15 curious eyes never run dry in my experience
        naasking 5y ago
        > No such "offer" was extended Yes I'm familiar with the exchange. I ask again, where is the offer to crack the password exactly? Assange claims an ability to crack, and claims that he passed the hash on, but notice the complete absence of promises to attempt to crack, or statements of intent to use it to compromise computer systems, or corroborating evidence that Assange actually passed it on or actually attempted to crack the password. Assange could be lying or exaggerating or any number of other things. And you think this constitutes sufficient evidence for an indictment? If so, you have really low standards of evidence. > Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened. And where is the encouragement? All I see is you projecting an unjustified interpretation. Even if I steelman your position and we both agree that Assange was encouraging further leaks, are you suggesting that a journalist cannot ask their sources to continue feeding them information? Because if so, you are suggesting we indict every journalist with a source.

cookie_monsta 5y ago

So give it some context. What other crimes should journalists be allowed to commit that "normal" people would be tried for?

naasking 5y ago
Nothing. Journalists are normal people. The mistake you're consistently making is thinking that Assange actually committed a crime. He didn't, although that's certainly the narrative that the government wants you to believe.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  So is it that you believe that offering to crack passwords and encouraging further network intrusion is not a crime, or that it shouldn't be? And if it's OK for journalists to do those things, what other special compensations do they get? To be clear, I don't have a clear opinion on whether he committed those crimes or not. I do think there's enough evidence to support an indictment.
  - naasking 5y ago
    > So is it that you believe that offering to crack passwords No such "offer" was extended, nor is there any evidence that cracked passwords were ever used to obtain any data. If you're suggesting that merely talking about password cracking is a crime, well then you've just criminalised a lot of discussions here on HN and reddit. > encouraging further network intrusion is not a crime Cite the transcript entries [1] where this alleged encouragement happened. > I do think there's enough evidence to support an indictment And you formed this opinion from actually reading the official transcripts [1]? [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html#document/p8 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/886185-pe-123.html#d...
    - cookie_monsta 5y ago
      > No such "offer" was extended dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 15 55:28 any good at lm hash cracking? pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:00:29 yes pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:02:23 we have rainbow tables for lm dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:04:14 80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c … dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:05:07 I think its lm + lmmnt … dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:09:06 not even sure if thats the hash...l had to hexdump a SAM file,since I dont have the system file... pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:06 what makes you think its lm? pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:19 its from a SAM? dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:10:24 yeah pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:26 passed it onto our lm guy dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 16:11:40 thx > Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened. dawgnetwork@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 08 06:31:42 after this upload,thats all I really have got left pressassociation@jabber.ccc.de 2010 03 0806:32:15 curious eyes never run dry in my experience
      - naasking 5y ago
        > No such "offer" was extended Yes I'm familiar with the exchange. I ask again, where is the offer to crack the password exactly? Assange claims an ability to crack, and claims that he passed the hash on, but notice the complete absence of promises to attempt to crack, or statements of intent to use it to compromise computer systems, or corroborating evidence that Assange actually passed it on or actually attempted to crack the password. Assange could be lying or exaggerating or any number of other things. And you think this constitutes sufficient evidence for an indictment? If so, you have really low standards of evidence. > Cite the transcript entries where this alleged encouragement happened. And where is the encouragement? All I see is you projecting an unjustified interpretation. Even if I steelman your position and we both agree that Assange was encouraging further leaks, are you suggesting that a journalist cannot ask their sources to continue feeding them information? Because if so, you are suggesting we indict every journalist with a source.