Julian Assange Arrested On Behalf Of The US, For Trying To Help Manning Crack CIA Password
from the cfaa-and-conspiracy dept
Julian Assange has been arrested in the UK on behalf of the US, as Ecuador has finally tired of their overstaying asylumed house guest. We’re about to see quite a major legal battle, first in the UK and then almost certainly in the US, about Assange. The current charges seem narrowly focused on a CFAA-based “conspiracy” between Assange and Manning to try to hack a CIA computer, but if they expand to other Wikileaks activities, there should be concerns over press freedom issues.
I am no fan of Julian Assange or Wikileaks. However, for years I’ve made it clear that prosecuting him for publishing leaked documents would be a huge mistake by the US. The DOJ spent years trying to come up with an excuse to charge Assange, but kept realizing they had no case, because while he may have had malicious intent, none of his public actions in releasing documents were any different — legally speaking — than what any investigative journalism outlet did in releasing obtained documents. The Supreme Court has made it clear that publishing classified documents is protected by the First Amendment. If he went beyond just releasing documents, as the indictment alleges, it becomes a lot trickier — but there’s a fine line here.
It’s been clear in the last year or so, that despite years of not finding anything, the DOJ was finally moving ahead with plans to charge him. As we noted last year, everyone who believes in a free press should be concerned about what this might mean for press freedoms in the US as the case proceeds. And that’s true, even if the specific charges right now are limited to actions that are unrelated to the publishing of the documents.
A few minutes ago, the DOJ released a fairly barebones 7-page indictment, alleging he was in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to hack into government computers to obtain documents. From the indictment, the charges are separate from releasing the documents that everyone knows Manning provided to Assange, and specifically revolve around Manning and Assange apparently working together to try to hack the CIA after Manning had finished handing over all of the documents we already know about. The indictment claims (and I kid you not) that Manning “used special software, namely a Linux operating system… to obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange.” What was obtained apparently was a hashed password to a CIA computer system, that Assange was allegedly going to try to crack, in order to enable Manning to get more info out of the CIA.
If all of this is true, then it certainly could go beyond issues related to press freedoms. It’s one thing to receive classified documents and publish them. It is a different issue altogether to work with a source and participate in trying to hack a government system. There is no evidence that Assange was ever actually successful in cracking the password, but he’s facing CFAA and conspiracy charges here that may have more staying power. If the indictment is accurate and there’s evidence to back it up, then Assange could potentially be in (and this is the legal term) deep shit.
But so much of what Assange did, even if we might disagree with his reasons for doing it, is little different than what many media organizations do. What will be necessary is watching closely how the case against Assange advances and changes (it is unlikely that these will be the only charges against Assange). If it is narrowly limited to the actions described in the current indictment, the dangers to press freedoms may be limited. However, if it strays beyond that into some of the other, more journalistic efforts of Assange, it could still represent a huge attack on a free press. Given our current President’s near daily attacks on the free press, with repeated announcements that he’d like to change the laws to harm them, going after Assange legally (which may seem a bit ironic, given all the accusations that Assange’s leaks in 2016 were designed to help Trump get elected), might be the best way to actually achieve that goal.
Filed Under: cfaa, chelsea manning, cia, conspiracy, doj, hacking, julian assange, passwords
Comments on “Julian Assange Arrested On Behalf Of The US, For Trying To Help Manning Crack CIA Password”
WTF?
This whole thing makes no sense to me. The people Assange has hurt are all enemies of Trump. So it make no sense to me that the DOJ is working so hard with such a weak case to try to put Assange in jail. I’m sort of surprised that Trump hasn’t just pardoned Assange.
I’m also having trouble understanding why Assange can’t just say "I lied to Manning to get more classified information." isn’t a nearly iron clad defense against the conspiracy charge. Most federal laws require intent to violate them, and if Assange only ever intended to publish the documents, and not try to have the passwords cracked himself, how is he going to be found guilty?
Re: WTF?
If you assume, just for a moment, that the DOJ is not a partisan organisation entirely beholden to the president’s whims, things become a bit more clear. A lot of the DOJ works for multiple administrations, multiple parties. While the DOJ has a number of issues with class and race informing investigative and prosecutorial decisions, one thing that was uncontroversial prior to 2016 is that the DOJ could be seen as non-partisan, despite law enforcement being generally conservative.. And from what I hear, the DOJ has it out for Trump so….shrug.
Assange has given the US a black eye repeatedly since Manning, and the DOJ is known for holding grudges since at least Roosevelt’s FBI, specifically against whistleblowing on government malfeasance. As for the strength of the case against Assange, we don’t know any of the evidence, so assessing the strength of the charges is premature.
Since the charges were just released, that is a picture for the future. We don’t know the evidence against him. He was only extradited from the embassy this morning. He hasn’t given a statement or a defense. CFAA might require intent, but if there is a record of him claiming to attempt to crack the password, claiming that "I was lying to her but I’m totally not lying now, even though what I am saying now is totally self serving" is certainly not guaranteed to convince a jury of your innocence.
So many of our trolls complain when Techdirt takes a week or even 2 or 3 days to discuss a news story, and here you are complaining they are commenting on what is very literally breaking news and so you don’t know every angle yet?
Re: Re: WTF?
"If you assume, just for a moment, that the DOJ is not a partisan organisation entirely beholden to the president’s whims"
AAAHHHHHhaaaaHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Re: Re: Re: WTF?
I imagine we wouldn’t have a large number of indictments of Trump associates that Trump is clearly unhappy with if the DOJ as a whole was subject to Trump’s whims.
Its clear that AG Barr is covering for trump, but even then he is no where near as effective in it as he could be.
Re: Re: Re: WTF?
…you do realize that Assange released damaging information about the Bush Administration, during the Obama Administration, and that the DoJ has been trying to get him extradited ever since, yes?
Re: WTF?
Trump loves a Free Press. He wants a Free Press.
He has the nuke launch codes, he has the Red Button. Why won’t the military let him have a Free Press? Come on guys. Just a test Free Press.
Re: WTF?
"This whole thing makes no sense to me. The people Assange has hurt are all enemies of Trump. So it make no sense to me that the DOJ is working so hard with such a weak case to try to put Assange in jail."
Trump needs to appear strong, and that’s gotten harder to do given how he keeps rubbing shoulders with dictators his own electorate aren’t too keen on.
So he’ll take his scapegoats and sacrificial offerings where he can get them.
Re: Re: WTF?
"Trump needs to appear strong"
Odor is not everything
Re: Re: Re: WTF?
"Odor is not everything"
Part of his 10 billion dollar Brand, you know.
Not sure what proportion the pungent unforgettable smell of said Brand costs in itself, but according to Trump math it’s propably 11 billion USD.
The Purge is Real People
Assange ,Robertson ,Jones ,Southern
Once their gone Who comes next ????
YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!
Do as I say not as I do , they say or you will be next .
Re:
What, couldn’t fit Manning and Snowden on your list?
Re: Re: Re:
Why of course not. He ment the purge of actual terrorists and not true patriots. ????
Hack The Planet
They also released the actual footage submitted into evidence as proof of Manning and Assange hacking with their specialized software:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFUlAQZB9Ng
Re: Hack The Planet
This is just from a movie. Here’s the real non-movie video of them hacking.
https://youtu.be/msX4oAXpvUE
Re: Re: Hack The Planet
Assange would be the one to use the left side of the keyboard.
Selfish interest
Yeah, come on, going into hiding because you think the USA is out to get you? That’s crazy talk. And why can’t you and your lawyer stop advancing your own interest and just agree with the state?
Re: Selfish interest
thing is, this indictment is from 13 months ago.
it’s not from when he went into hiding.
And if it were, at the time he ran, it wouldn’t have mattered. The Swedish extradition warrant was filed, and finalized 2 days earlier. No US extradition request would even be considered at that point. The 624 days before the Supreme Court’s final ruling, yes then it’d be considered (to a diminishing amount as time went on), but with the rejection of his final appeal, and the SCOTUK setting an extradition timetable, US extradition is a non-possibility.
So, he ran from a thing that couldn’t happen, then made up a justification after the fact. And that is fed by his continued lies leading up to that, including lying to his own defense witnesses to extract favourable testimony, which they later recanted in court when the lies were exposed.
I’m pretty sure THAT is what Snow was referring to.
Re: Selfish interest
I thought the opposite of selfish interest was socialist? Is the District Judge saying that Assange’s behaviour was anti-socialist?
Re: Selfish interest
If "the behaviour of a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" would be a crime, your president would be in for a lifetime.
Ah, this is what it is about
Trump fears competition.
It’s just pure vengeance from the US and friends for having their misdeeds exposed. I’m also no fan of Assange but this is ridiculous just like what they did/are doing with Chelsea Manning.
And you can bet the process will be rigged. Dotcom is there to show us that when you touch the US govt in the wrong side everything will be done to screw you. Even if it’s illegal.
Re: Re:
Confirmed correct. Assange will be railroaded even though everyone knows it’s a stitch-up.
Re: Re: Re:
"Confirmed correct. Assange will be railroaded even though everyone knows it’s a stitch-up."
There’s a certain tradition in the US of government putting the screws on whistleblowers as hard as they possibly can, with the type of grudge you generally only see in bad revenge thrillers.
https://www.whistleblower.org/bio-thomas-drake/
He will never make it to a court room
He will meet the same fate as Khashoggi.
Let this be a warning, Destroyers of free speech are coming.
About the use of Linux
Paragraph 9:
So, assuming the allegation to be true, Manning booted a machine using a live CD to get around security restrictions on the harddrive within the machine. Meaning that though manning didn’t have administrator/root access to the machine, she 1) had physical access to it, and 2) either the machine had no BIOS password, she knew the BIOS password, or she could open up the computer’s chassis so as to reset the BIOS password.
In other words: what kind of crappy security practices did they have in place?
Re: About the use of Linux
The same crappy security practices found at any government facility. Many corporations and even small-medium businesses have better security. Security is apparently hard and requires security professionals to implement, a skill that seems rare if you monitor IoT and government security at all.
Re: About the use of Linux
Remember, Manning was a soldier, operating in an overseas base.
Of course there was physical access, and much of the restrictions are to prevent unauthorised persons accessing it at all if the room is unattended, not bad deeds by one of the rooms operators.
Making a system too locked down to use reasonably might work in, say, an embassy, but in a military base in (I think it was) afghanistan, less so.
Re: Re: About the use of Linux
If the computer is being left alone with someone who isn’t trusted with administrative access, they can set a BIOS password and put a lock on the computer’s chassis. Such a setup would only be a hassle when someone had to mess with the computer’s innards.
Re: Re: About the use of Linux
You would think that security would be higher on a military base in a foreign country, not lower. This level of security is what I’d expect in a recruiting center in mainland USA.
Re: About the use of Linux
It’s normal for people to have physical access to the computers they use, and of course someone with physical access can open it. All a BIOS password or tamper-resistant hardware would do is make it harder to hide what you’re doing; it might help it an open-office situation, but not if it’s a laptop you can use in a private room (or not if it’s normal for you to be opening computers).
Had there been a password, the disk could’ve been hooked up to another machine (built-in disks might require special hardware to be hooked up, connecting two machines). No, the real problem is a weak hash and weak password, or decent hash and very weak password. And that there was way too much information on the computer; had Manning had to request each document (or at least a key for each) from a remote server, someone might have noticed thousands of requests.
Re: Re: About the use of Linux
A BIOS password would have prevented booting from a live CD. Putting a lock on the chassis would have prevented the BIOS password from being reset.
Re: Re: Re: About the use of Linux
And that leads to the functionality/security tradeoff. The military in this remote location likely relied on controls to the physical location, rather than controls on the system, because if they need to perform maintenance now to get that information back up, a locked down system might impact operational conditions. It works right up to the point where you have a mole, which is why Manning got the book thrown at her.
Re: Re: Re: About the use of Linux
It only stops booting that computer from a CD, if configured correctly. Chassis locks are usually crap, though perhaps the military can do better. Anyway, if that lock were picked/bypassed, you’d just move the drive to an unlocked computer and attack it. (It seems Assange was not successful though, so maybe the computer security was actually fine. Still, why would one person have legitimate access to the entire trove?)
Re: About the use of Linux
Thats the problem. General Purpose Computers can go General Things. Example in point, boot another operating system.
We need to stop this!
quite a lot to unpick
There’s a lot in this, and as usual, Assange’s supporters are busy trying to shape narratives.
I’ve seen people claiming that any US extradition is a violation of an agreement to not extradite to a country with the death penalty, when it was the [utterlyustandard extradition requirement not to extradite someone facing the death penalty
He’s facing one count, of attempting to access a protected computer system (CIA system) by cracking a password, so basically a CFAA violation in conspiracy with Manning. its a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, and 18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers (that’s the CFAA)
Now there’s some claiming 18 usc 793 (Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information) but that’s what Manning was charged with (with its UCMJ version) but its inclusion in para 15B is referential. it’s not listed in the charges he’s facing.
So under 371 he’s looking at 5 years.
under 1030 he’s looking at 5 years.
potentially 10 years max, is a LONG way from the death penalty. In fact, there’s only two crimes that don’t involve physical violence against large numbers of people or government officials in federal land or across state lines, and that’s Treason and Espionage.
Treason’s out, as he’s not a US citizen.
Espionage would have to be a serious case of it to get it.
But there are no espionage charges listed.
The case is more akin to Gary McKinnon or Richard O’Dwyer now, than anything else.
Re: quite a lot to unpick
Shouldn’t literally every charge be out since he is not a US citizen? How exactly do we impose our laws on people who have not ever lived in the US yet claim immunity from every other crazy country in the world?
Re: Re: quite a lot to unpick
well, theres a requirement for dual criminality.
if you access a protected computer in a contry you commit a crime, if you do it now over international borders, its still a crime, or else any crime could be gotten away with by just doing it over a border.
The reason treason is out, is because it specifically requires you to have given an oath of allegiance to the US, which Assange has never done. You, by definition, can’t commit treason against a country not your own.
Re: Re: quite a lot to unpick
In addition to K’Tetch’s response, I can’t cite your claim that the US claims immunity from every other law in the world. The common claim of immunity I see is in Speech-based crimes. The US has the SPEECH Act which prevents foreign judgments against US citizens from being enforced in the US by either the federal or local governments if the criminal speech would be non-criminal in the US.
And just as foreign courts can find US citizens guilty of local laws based on actions facilitated by our global communications network, we can indict foreigners for violations of our laws. If they enter our jurisdiction, we can try them and/or enforce judgements on them now that they are within our power. Extradition is the act of two countries agreeing to assist in the administration of justice in each other’s jurisdiction by apprehending and transferring those wanted for trial (or imprisonment, ect) under specific formal circumstances, not unlike individual states will assist each other by apprehending those with warrants in other jurisdictions and shipping them to the appropriate jurisdiction.
Re: Re: quite a lot to unpick
I don’t know how they negotiated it, but the US-UK extradition treaties are famously one-sided: much easier to extradite to the US.
The Americans also just ignore foreign rulings they don’t like, often claiming not to recognize the authority of the courts that made them (like the International Criminal Court). History has shown they’re able to get away with that, so why not?; foreign countries won’t retaliate in any significant way (sanctions etc.)
Re: Re: Re: quite a lot to unpick
the major difference int he two sides is that in US->UK extradition, the uk government has to provide the evidence that is the basis of the complaint to the uk court during the extradition hearing.
In UK->US hearings, the US does not have to provide that evidence, but it does have to testify that it exists..
I think thats the only imbalance in the 03 treaty.
Of course, the question is, knowing that, and if he actually did fear US extradition, why leave SWeden (which he himself boasted does not extradite to the US for political crimes) for the UK, which has this ‘express treaty’.
The only answer I can find that makes sense is that after his lawyer was informed that he was to be arrested the following day at interview, he needed to leave the country fast. There were no flights to Australia that would land before he was late for hte interview (and so would be detained before clearing the international zone, if there were any he could take that day at all); he had ~25 days left on his Schengen visa, which means he could go elsewhere in schengen, but only for nearly 4 weeks before he violates that law. Every other country requires a visa, except the uk, so as a commonwealth citizen, he could stay for 180 days visaless, and hope to run out the clock, especially with a radically different legal system.
And he never feared Us extradition, because he would have run to the embassy sooner, rather than 620 days later, especially as with the final supreme court ruling, it was then too late for a US extradition request to be made, as Sweden’s was fully granted and final, meaning his justification for hiding doesn’t make sense.
Re: quite a lot to unpick
McKinnon and O’Dwyer dared to violate the holy copyright (amen).
Assange is a git but he’s a git who helped expose the murder of innocents.
If the hacking (however easy) charge is valid, fair enough, but are they really going to use hacking as an excuse to lock him up for exposing the atrocities?
Re: Re: 'Hey, it worked for Capone.'
Magic 8-ball says… ‘They’ll sure as hell try’.
Special
"used special software, namely a Linux operating system"
Re: Special
A Linux OS is special – don’t ja know ….
What’s next? These mental midgets will proclaim Linux to be a hacking tool and it is illegal for little people to possess. Followed by headline news about Microsoft shares.
Re: Re: Special
Probably Knoppix. Knoppix Linux specialized for forensic uses.
If any of this is even true
Re: Re: Re: Special
Actually Knoppix is a showcase Linux with lots of applications to try, while Kali Linux is the penetration testing, recovery and forensic distribution. System rescue CD does what its says on the tin for Linux and Windows systems.
Re: Special
I think it uses ‘special’ not in that it’s wondrous, or whatever, but to imply in a legal sense that it is not the software that would normally be used, but that it was used eSPECIALly for the purpose of attempting to circumvent restrictions.
So it’s "special" in the meaning of deliberately chosen, non-usual software picked to do a job the underlying system was not normally used for. Not in that it’s extraordinary in its abilities or non-normal in other or ordinary use.
Re: Re: Special
You can make a bootable Windows CD or USR key, too, for the same purpose. Linux isn’t special in this regard either.
Re: Re: Re: Special
again, not saying its ‘special’ meaning it’s unique or unprecedented.
It’s ‘special’ in that it was software deliberately chosen for the purpose of gaining unprotected access to a system.
It’s the fact of being an external program introduced solely for the purpose of committing the alleged crime that makes it ‘special’, the premediational use, you might say.
Re: Re: Re:2 Special
But it wasn’t specially written for the sole purpose of gaining unprotected access to a system. That’s why the term "special" here is nonsense.
It’s the same kind of non-sense like when they arrest some one on a drug related offense and tack on a charge for "drug paraphernalia" because they had a box of empty plastic bags.
Are cars a special device used for robbery getaways? Are pens a special device used for forgery?
They might as well have said that they used a set of special hacking devices known as a keyboard and mouse, along with the special hacking hardware: a computer monitor and it’s super special hacking data transfer conduit called an "hdmi cable".
Re: Re: Re:3 Special
at no point did I say it had to be written for that express purpose.
it’s special in that it was brought in for the purpose. It was deliberately chosen with deliberate premeditation to be used for that purpose, as an external program not usually found on that system.
That’s what makes it ‘special’ in the legal context.
In the ordinary course of work, did manning have need or use of that software on that system? no, then it was "otherwise different from usual" (the adjective definition of special) – see also Special election, special prosecutor, etc. – and thus ‘special software’.
it’s really not a hard term to grasp, if you don’t keep trying to think about it as an elitist coder.
Re: Re: Re:4 Special
"at no point did I say it had to be written for that express purpose."
Exactly, *I AM" saying it must be written for that express purpose to be considered special.
Re: Re: Re:5 Special
Thank you for that, I’m sure the judge will find that useful
… to line the litter box of assange’s cat.
Re: Re: Re:4 Special
it’s really not a hard term to grasp, if you don’t keep trying to think about it as if normal analogies and words just go out the window as soon as it’s on a computer.
Re: Re: Special
"So it’s "special" in the meaning of deliberately chosen, non-usual software picked to do a job the underlying system was not normally used for."
I’ll maintain that’s a very misleading use of the word. Like saying "A special tool was used to force the window open" which in direct analogy would be the description of using a mop handle to push open an unlocked window.
It’s highly deceptive, which is what raises warning flags on this case for me. An indictment published by the Department of justice – direct law enforcement, which uses cheap rhetoric to bolster its case?
Re: Re: Re: Special
it’s not cheap rhetoric though, it indicates premeditation and deliberative acts.
if they’d brought a jemmy to force the window, that would, int he same parlance, be a ‘special tool’.
If they’d used a slimjim to open cars, that’s also a ‘special tool’
if you brought something with you to do a job of getting around some impediment to commit a crime, whatever that something is must be special enough to bring, right? And without it you couldn’t continue, or you’d have to improvise, being less effective.
or to look at it another way, the only reason you have that item (‘special software, or special tool’) with you at that time, is to commit that act. I doubt manning routinely packed a liveCD in their fatigues for a days work, just as most people don’t carry a slimjim around, ‘just in case’.
Now, if it were some software that was on the machine, or that people in manning’s job routinely carry around in the ordinary course of business, then it wouldn’t be classified as ‘special software’. Just like how carrying a knife is bad, but a landscaper can carry a machete in the van no problems, to say nothing about mobile butchers.
its just a legal term, much like how US filings tend to start ‘comes now through lawyer defendant zero’ or something.
Re: Re: Re:2 Special
I follow your argument but…i, as a private citizen, actually DO have a liveCD of kali in my laptop case – which i carry around quite a lot of my free time.
"Just like how carrying a knife is bad, but a landscaper can carry a machete in the van no problems"
In many countries that example would work, but with a US under the 2nd amendment that argument would probably be a case of basic judicial principles going very very wrong.
Coming as a DoJ statement it turns into rhetoric. If there is a solid case it doesn’t need to be embellished by underscoring that the suspect in question carried a linux liveCD ‘specially’.
That is particularly true as Manning has, as far as I know, confessed all the details.
When everybody is special, nobody is special
Anyone with an Android phone or a Chromebook is running a Linux-based kernel. Even the poorly-named Windows 10 "Windows Subsystem for Linux" has the GNU toolset, although it’s not strictly Linux because it doesn’t use the kernel.
I guess we’re all suspicious hacker types now.
Re: When everybody is special, nobody is special
Plus anyone who uses a macbook.
Re: Re: When everybody is special, nobody is special
MacOS is not a derivative of Linux. It comes from the BSD side of the Unix family tree.
Re: Re: Re: When everybody is special, nobody is special
It contains parts of BSD. macOS’ kernel is based off of the Mach kernel, and their current kernel is called XNU (for Mac OS X is not UNIX, despite it being UNIX certified since 10.5). IIRC, the kernel is split up into three parts: the mach portion, the BSD portion, and the IOKit/driver portion.
Re: Re: Re: When everybody is special, nobody is special
It’s also not Windows and therefore "special" had one been used for this attempted "cracking".
I never understood why he was never smuggled out of the embassy and taken to Ecuador. Especially after the UK police stopped camping outside.
I’ve got to wonder, If Julian Assange were to pull off a miracle and defeat the US charges, could Sweden still re-file the twice-dropped rape charges against him?
And then there’s also the statute of limitations issues, as well as why it took the US government eight years to issue an indictment. (Let”s not forget that Assange’s legal problems had absolutely nothing to do with his role in Wikileaks, as we were constantly being reminded for many years — it was all just a pure coincidence of course)
Finally, it would be interesting to learn what Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen have had to say about Assange’s arrest, as they were basically the ones who spearheaded this whole nine-year+ ordeal.
Re: Re:
" If Julian Assange were to pull off a miracle and defeat the US charges, could Sweden still re-file the twice-dropped rape charges against him?"
Yes
The first dropping was just the generic prosecutor not wanting to bother, so it was appealed by a lawyer retained by the women (this is also why anyone claiming the women never wanted him prosecuted are extremely stupid, and have only gotten their info from the wikileaks ‘defense’ site, which was the only place that ever claimed this) and it went to a specialist sex crimes prosecutor (Ny)
So not really a dropping.
The second ‘dropping’ is an administrative drop. In that Swedish law requires active cases to be actively pursued. Ny could not take the next step in her case, which was the arrest, the charge/trial, because of the embassy situation. As such because the case was stalemated, she administratively halted the prosecution, making it no longer an active case, but she specifically stated that should the situation change before the statute of limitations expires in August 2020, that she would reactivate the charges.
Re: Re: Re:
"As such because the case was stalemated, she administratively halted the prosecution, making it no longer an active case…"
There have been multiple swedish law sites having a field day with the Assange indictment and investigation. Even leaving out the issue of guilty or not (and for the record as i understand from the public records of the case, "guilty" is the only usable term under swedish law), it’s pretty clear that the case was handled with abysmal ineptitude from all levels of law enforcement. Telling Assange "You’re free to go" only to issue an arrest warrant after he left the country is only the start of that shit-show. A lot of the conspiracy theory starts here, where Hanlon’s Razor starts creaking under the burden.
Of course, we also have to say that Assange was royally dumb. If I knew my actions would, albeit legal and necessary, be akin to pissing right on the carpet in the oval office, then I’d take very good care to live my life like a highly law-abiding ascetic monk, just in case.
Now…No means No, even if the involved parties had consensual sex an hour earlier. Assange is, at the very least, a sleazebag of an all too common kind.
Unfortunately it’s been heavily used, by all the vested interests, in an attempt to marginalize his creation of wikileaks and the fact that he revealed what should have been prosecuted as war crimes taking place in US military operations.
So all the good he did is now diluted by the image the common person knows – that of the rapist hiding in an embassy for seven years.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
" Telling Assange "You’re free to go" only to issue an arrest warrant after he left the country is only the start of that shit-show."
yeah, about that….
They never said he was free to go.
In fact, in the first extradition hearing (11 feb 2011) his lawyer admitted that was a lie. he then tried to claim that sure, he arranged an interview with assange on SEptember 21, for the 28th (i think) and it was a total coincidence that shortly after his lawyer was told on the 27th, that assange left hte country, because, you see, he hadn’t spoken to assange since the 20th, and couldn’t get hold of him until the 29th…
From the court ruling:
Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made
to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.
Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. There were then questions about DNA. It was suggested to him that a reason for the interrogation taking place in Sweden was that a DNA sample may be required. He seemed to me to at first agree and then prevaricate. He then accepted that in his submissions to the Swedish court he had said that the absence of DNA is a weakness in the prosecution case. He added “I can’t say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden”. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back. He was asked if Julian Assange went back to Sweden and replied: “Not as far as I am aware”.
In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened."
yeah, his lawyer claims that Ny said he could leave, but forgets conversations, apparently forgets to tell Assange he can’t leave, forgot he told Assange that the next day he’ll be possibly be arrested, which is coincidentally when Assange left very suddenly (he had no events planned, and I believe he was supposed to stay in Sweden for his residency application)
Also, his own defense expert (Sven-Erik Alhem), after the judge corrects the lies that this lawyer had told him about this stuff, changed from ‘this was improper’ to ‘Why wasn’t he in custody as is normal’ and then says he would have applied for the EAW himself.
See, the problem is, Wikileaks is great at getting their side out, telling the lies of ‘he was free to go’ and so on, when he wasn’t. Much later, they point tot he stipulations for the later court cases, where all the irrelevant stuff is marked out to avoid litigating trivialities, and they’ve agreed ‘he was ok to go’, along with a bunch more stuff that earlier in cases they’ve pointed out were lies. It’s not that they’re saying it’s true, it’s saying it doesn’t matter legally to the case, we’ll not argue the point any more because we don’t want to waste time. The judge, reading the case notes beforehand though, understands that it was a lie, and one they’ve avoided bringing in as irrelevant nonsense.
Factually, he was never told he could leave.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"yeah, his lawyer claims that Ny said he could leave, but forgets conversations, apparently forgets to tell Assange he can’t leave, forgot he told Assange that the next day he’ll be possibly be arrested, which is coincidentally when Assange left very suddenly"
True, but…
"See, the problem is, Wikileaks is great at getting their side out, telling the lies of ‘he was free to go’ and so on, when he wasn’t."
…actually, he was. The thing about the law is that what isn’t specifically prohibited is explicitly allowed. Until there is an actual arrest warrant no one is obligated to remain in a given area.
I have little doubt that the accusations of the events leading to his arrests are as described. But that still doesn’t change the fact that swedish law blundered badly. If you have reason to assume a crime has been committed and have a reasonable suspect at hand you either arrest that person or at the very least tell them that as a primary suspect they are not free to leave the country.
Assange was free to leave the very second he had the initial contact with swedish law enforcement and no one arrested him or even informed him he was a suspect in a rape case, so could he please stay available for further inquiries.
No one may have told him he could leave but wikileaks statement that he was free to go is quite correct. Everyone is, until the point where law enforcement decides to infringe that right.
the rest is an embarrassing mess of swedish judiciary trying to patch up a number of bad decisions after the fact, combined with, as you illustrated, a great deal of prevarication by Assange.
So as far as I’m concerned this is a muddle of a case involving; One chauvinist git forgetting that "No" means exactly that, no matter previous consent.
Swedish law enforcement demonstrating traditional incompetence and ineptitude.
US intelligence chomping at the bit, eager to remedy their well kept grudge in their time-honored way of nailing whistleblowers to the mast any way they can.
Re: Re:
no conspiracy here foljs. Move along.
(Those fake rape hoaxers affiliated with CIA anti-Castro b.s. front group, etc)
https://shadowproof.com/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
The sad truth is that most people don’t care about a free press. They care that their side is able to publish its views, but when it comes to information that they don’t agree with, a large section of the public would be happy to see it banned/censored, regardless of what damage that does.
Even if there isn’t any real evidence, I’m sure the government will get the judge to instruct the jury that they MUST find him guilty if the government presents even one piece of "evidence" that makes him look guilty.
Re: Re:
yeah, what next? criminalizing ATTEMPTED murder? Since when should you face a judge for attempting to commit a crime, and failing?
Re: Re: Re:
Attempted murder? Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize in attempted chemistry?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeah, that was the sideshow bob quote i was trying to call to indirectly…
funnily enough, I just referenced another of Grammar’s characters on the Ars story on this, speciflcally General Partridge from Pentagon Wars, and hos edited report on Col Burton’s report on the Bradley, much like Barr’s version of Mueller’s summery.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Wow. That is funny.
😐
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
To quote Frank Carson "It’s the way I tell em"
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then there’s also the "crime" of attempted stalking which is a bullshit charge derived from another bullshit charge, and yes, people have actually been tried and convicted of it. Far to many people involved in legitimate street protests and pickets have been hit with stalking charges, and the abuse will continue until these badly-worded "feminist" laws are rewritten.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Castle reaction gif
UUUhhhh
Reversing a password hash isn’t unauthorized access to a computer system. So he can’t be charge if he just brute forces a password. AFAIK
Re: UUUhhhh
The charge is conspiracy to get unauthorized access to a computer system. For example, if a group of people plan to rob a bank they can be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank even if they haven’t robbed the bank yet.
Re: UUUhhhh
"Reversing a password hash isn’t unauthorized access to a computer system."
I thought a hash was one way.
Perhaps a poorly crafted hash is susceptible – idk.
Re: Re: UUUhhhh
Here’s how password storage typically works:
The system stores a salt and a hash for each user. The salt is something random (technically pseudorandom).
When the user types in a password, the stored salt is added to the password and then it is put through the hashing algorithm. If it matches the stored hash, the user is authenticated.
The purpose of the salt is to stymie common or reused passwords. If my password is "Password1", and the system doesn’t salt it before hashing it, then the hash will be the same as every other idiot who used "Password1" with the same hashing algorithm, and therefore effectively useless. Adding a random string to the end of "Password1" gives it a unique hash. (Technically not unique, but if the hashing algorithm is any good, it will be prohibitively difficult to generate another password that produces the same hash with the same salt. It’s still a weak password, but at least it’s harder to reverse-engineer it from its hash.)
A poorly-crafted hash is susceptible — eg one that doesn’t use a salt, or uses a weak hashing algorithm.
But here’s the thing: if there were any evidence that Assange has successfully broken the password, that would be in the indictment. As such, we can reasonably conclude that he tried but wasn’t able to.
What on Earth are you Talking about?
You have problems with Assange? What exactly are you talking about????
Your essay is infected with mansplaining. It took 8 years for the Federal Government to determine that Assange tried to maybe persuade Manning to maybe try to crack a password, which was not successful? 8 years? If you even consider that to be real? That makes your essay as stupid as the opener: you have problems with Assange.
You aren’t dating him, Mike. He’s just another journalist. You aren’t allowed to have any problems with another journalist, Mike, when they report on facts. Put your "problems" in the dustbin where they belong.
And start defending free speech and jounalism. Redeem yourself, Mike.
Re: What on Earth are you Talking about?
"Your essay is infected with mansplaining"
Examples?
You are all Frogs in a pot of water with the temperature rising
and not realizing your being boiled alive .
This is the DEATH of OUR DEMOCRACY
and you let it happen .
PRESS FREEDOM IS BEING KILLED .
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety’
You have been notified
GET OUT OF THE WATER YOU FROGS
Re: Re:
This boiling frog trope is tired and needs a rest.
The big concern here, I think, is section 230. I think they are trying to find a backwards way to do away with it, without any bills from Congress.
The prosecution of Silk Road already is raising issues about that.
If Assange is convicted and/or the appeals by Dread Pirate Roberts should fail, expect platforms to move out of the United States, and take good paying high tech jobs with them, and go to countries not likely to cooperate with the United States.
Re: Re:
They ignore the law on daily basis, their attempts at law making is only window dressing, a facade for all the worshipers to idolize.
Woodward and Bernstein v. Assange
Woodward & Bernstein= Free Speech Heroes
Julian Assange = evil goy bad guy.
Got it.
Thanks for playing ROGS BINGO!
Just a wee note
Manning already had access to document’s using his/her account. The extra account was designed to provide anonymity (or make the forensics harder). It would not have assisted in document access.
And, there is no evidence that this password cracking succeeded, in any way.
Finally, there is no evidence that Assange actually did this. He could have been just saying that he would to encourage his source.
This indictment servers one purpose only, to be so light on max prison time (5 years) that it would make it easier for the UK to extradite. But, that is not the real point, the real point is to re-open the stoopid swedish case, because that extradition case has already been taken to the supreme court and Assange lost.
That is the goal, as from that start: UK -> Sweden -> USA -> Silence.