I think it is pretty well understood that they weren't successful.
At least to me as far as if he deserves protection as a journalist, I don't think it matters if he was successful. You can help someone try to commit a crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime.
If a journalist is given information that is one thing, offering or even helping someone commit a crime and their role has changed dramatically IMO.
I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's life / career had they used that as cover for Manning?
Using an easily crackable password is unwise, yes. And it increases the risk that it may be cracked and misused - and therefore the risk of having to deal with the fallout of a crack. But I would suggest that even so, the only criminal in the picture is the person doing the cracking. The victim may have been foolish to have a weak password, but should that really be a punishable offence?
If part of your job is security, and you don't secure something obvious, then it qualifies as a punishable offence. Not a criminal one, a workplace one.
That doesn't mean you need to get punished, but failing to do your job is not nothing.
>Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair.
What qualifies as punished to you?
It's possible that this person's life career could have been ruined if Manning was able to hide behind this other account and the actual owner of the account was blamed...
I don't think pivoting into a different account goes all the way to "framing".
Not that it matters what we call it, since everyone seems to be in agreement that they shouldn't be punished for what the account was hypothetically used for.
If the article and other information is correct, they tried to breach a user named:
ftp
To me, it would make sense that that's not an actual person's username, and instead for it to be used for managerial duties (such as for an FTP server), and would likely have been accessed by more than one person. As such, it would make it an especially juicy target, because it would make the hacker a lot harder to trace, and would also not endanger any one person either. (It might make the IT department's life harder, but that's pretty much always the case in these scenarios.)
Yep. There are ethical rules for Journalism, which are enshrined in law in many places. One of the rules is that a Journalist may receive stolen information and publish it. But a Journalist may not themselves steal the information, or participate or aid in obtaining private information.
Right now, it looks to me like Assange lied that he was going to help hack anything. I don't see how this is a crime under US law. It's a very weak case, and they cannot lawfully charge him with anything not mentioned in the extradition request. This all changes if they have actual proof he did try to hack a password though.
You don't need to trust Assange or the Government.
Manning already stated that the allegation is categorally wrong. And there's no proof that they did it. But they still went with it, just to get him extradited. A common tactic.
People get sent to jail all the time for conspiring to commit a crime yet never following through with it. I spent 10 years in federal prison and met lots of those people.
Do not verbally agree to any illegal act. Doing so is a crime, 1st amendment rights notwithstanding, and regardless of your intent of whether or not you will carry through with the act.
Just don't agree to any crime, whether verbally or in textual communication. If you are talking you can be overheard or recorded. You just need one or two witnesses to testify they heard or saw you discussing the crime.
> There are ethical rules for Journalism, which are enshrined in law in many places. One of the rules is that a Journalist may receive stolen information and publish it.
I think the line is that specific acts of journalism are protected, but there's nothing special about journalists as people.
>I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's life / career had they used that as cover for Manning?
From the affidavit, the password they tried to crack was for the Windows user "ftp," not attributable to any person.
I don't understand how people can claim Assange is somehow at fault for attempting to save Manning from the terrible treatment she is still receiving for her deed.
Trying to help someone evade detection whilst committing a crime is not really 'attempting to save someone from terrible treatment'.
To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got.
But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, Assange now has to content with conspiracy to commit hacking charges himself.
>But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information,
This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat.
>To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got.
This already happened. For example, only 75,000 of the 91,000 Afghanistan war documents have ever been released. The defense used this in her trial.
If the facts as presented are correct, ruling Assange's actions as illegal would violate the rights of a free press. Which is why the distinction is important, protecting a source is the duty of the press while trying to acquire additional information is not.
This is not about the minor charges against this individual that helped expose some actual crimes against humanity. It's about spreading the message that whistle blowers face a life time of harassment and should fear for their freedom. It's vengeful and it is being orchestrated by the very people that got exposed.
The UN, excluding basically the US and not many others organized an international court of justice specifically to prosecute the severe type of crimes exposed by wikileaks. There are quite a few political and military (ex) leaders in the US that would have to fear for extradition to The Hague for these crimes if it wasn't for the fact that the US does not support this court and refuses to extradite US citizens for the severe types of crimes under the jurisdiction of this court. This will of course never happen.
The remarkable thing is actually how openly incompetent the whole thing is being conducted. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if the whole extradition thing collapses based on the notion that there is no good case that Assange actually did anything to make extradition possible. Years of effort and preparation and all they came up with is this. It's certainly putting the UK on the spot for basically very openly having to go through the motions of extraditing Assange on obviously BS charges to please a key ally. I imagine this might drag out for quite some time in the British courts so this has a lot of potential to get quite embarrassing for them.
"Admits?" This was clearly communicated by the very fact that he was indicted for conspiracy. By definition, conspiracy is an inchoate crime. It's a bit disingenuous for Vice to paint this as some kind of revelation or admission.
Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done"
It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement.
Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a "big old but" coming. Even if you never produce the but, they still have the feeling what was just stated is about to be refuted.
A while ago "allegedly" was very popular with some TV news networks.
They'd take some pure BS story from the internet that aligned with their politics and report it as "allegedly" to sound fair... and then list out the lies word for word as they came from some conspiracy site and then just move on. They'd sprinkle their whole broadcast withe these tidbits. You couldn't help but get the impression that controversy and scandal was surrounding whomever the target of the day was, despite no evidence of any kind being offered.
Well in fairness these words have a basis in the legal system.
Think of an insurance claim and/or civil claim. In response to a civil complaint initiating a civil lawsuit, the defendant must answer the complaint by “admitting” or “denying” each allegation.
And “allege” is the entire basis of US criminal law...as in innocent until proven guilty. As in the defendant allegedly committed the crime until and unless convicted.
Hacking computers shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Fraud, theft, etc. are the types of crimes many "hackers" could be charged with, but computer intrusion itself shouldn't be counted among them.
Not at all, however I don't know the full extent of his charges. I don't actually even know if he actually hacked into anything or if he just abused the system he already had access to, in order to disseminate information that would normally cost money via a subscription. However, if I recall I believe he did break into a computer lab or something and hacked into the university computers to bypass their regular security. But it is my understanding the University itself didn't own the content he distributed either, so it isn't like he stole directly from the University but instead abused the access he had and likely violated some terms of service. I see it more as a civil issue, minus the breaking and entering.
However, there is strict law regarding hacking confidential government documents and trying to break into government systems. I see it a vastly different matter with very different implications.
Breaking into houses shouldn't be a crime in the first place.
Stealing things, breaking stuff, or photographing ID's are
crimes that people can be charged with, but I don't think
that breaking into houses should be counted.
See where this falls apart? I can easily get into your home without damaging anything by picking the lock, and if someone was in my house, I'd want them out as fast as possible, and the police saying I have no right to do anything to them until they do something first is a bad idea- if they shoot me, how to I fire back? If they break my valuables, how do I react?
Similarly, while hacking things doesn't directly endanger people, doing anything with the information does, and this includes reconnaissance for a later hit.
>See where this falls apart? I can easily get into your home without damaging anything by picking the lock, and if someone was in my house, I'd want them out as fast as possible, and the police saying I have no right to do anything to them until they do something first is a bad idea- if they shoot me, how to I fire back? If they break my valuables, how do I react?
Stealing is a crime. Shooting you is a crime. Simply "being there" should qualify as a crime, or perhaps maybe a misdemeanor, only after some scrutiny. Intent as a factor should have more weight.
Using your house analogy, if a bystander notices the door to your home is wide open, they shouldn't be afraid to check if anyone inside is potentially incapacitated or is having some other emergency, just because entering an open door is a crime under your logic. In one society, a concerned neighbor finds you lying on the floor unconscious, dials 9/11, and emergency services arrives on time for you to be saved. In the other society, nobody checks on you, because why take the risk?
Similarly, the whole concept of "white hat" hacking is something you seem either unfamiliar with and/or at odds with.
The thing that was missing for me earlier was the intent part- thank you for mentioning that.
Furthermore, I'm sorry I attacked you- I took a bit too cynical of a position here- I do understand the concept of White Hatting, and recognize its importance. I have also dealt with one too many "White Hats" that expect a monetary reward for finding bugs when I'm not in a position to do so, and have then gone and attacked me hard. It's not fun.
Now, I have been, and still am, one of those people that do occasionally poke at other people's stuff, and when I find something, I will tip them off. This is also not my day job, and as such, outside of official bug reporting platforms, I always specify that I will not accept compensation for what I have found. Many people are not that principled, and that bothers me to no end.
Why would we believe them either way? They've overplayed their hands, and now they're panicking. Even if Assange actually cracked the password, it would only have given Manning access to material to which she already had access. The reason she wanted to use a different login was because she didn't want to be caught. With good reason, because once they caught her they tortured her for years. The primary reason for the torture was to force her to falsely implicate Assange in actual crimes, which she steadfastly refused to do. Now they've charged Assange anyway.
Protecting an anonymous source from the authorities is a basic journalistic duty. Journalists these days have spent so much time protecting authoritarian sources from the public they've forgotten how it's supposed to work.
For these reasons, Assange will not be extradited from UK. Those who now cheer Trump's attack on journalism will soon complain that it's not a more effective attack.
Meanwhile, what about those CIA people who broke into Senate computers to interfere with the torture report? I'm sure we are hot on the trail of that prosecution.
I am scratching my head to why cracking a password is a crime?
Generally that means you already have a hash. Then your trying see if passwords match that hash... It's also not really cracking anything, but just guessing.
That's just math.
The crime was hacking the system to get the hash.
Moreover, what about all those researchers who compiled lists of the most common passwords was the act of guessing those hashes a criminal act these seems to be a very dangerous idea of a crime. As in it could ensnare innocent people.
Where does anyone say that cracking a password is a crime?
The allegation is that there was an agreement between Manning and Assange to crack the password for a US military network. Manning gave a hash to Assange, Assange tried (but failed) to crack it, and told Manning that the crack attempt failed. He also asked for more information that might help with the cracking.
The alleged illegal activity is the conspiracy to break into a protected computer system, not the (attempt at) cracking a password.
Those researchers are not doing their work as part of a conspiracy to break into other computer system. The feedback loop corresponding to 'asking for more information' by those carrying out illegal activities doesn't - at least for the most part - exist.
By analogy, locksport fans are not part of a conspiracy to break into people's houses, nor - at least for the most part - working with potential robbers to figure out how best to open a given house's lock.
I see what your saying, and looked a little closer to the indictment.
However, I don't think it still quite the same thing as a key/lock. A password can contain information and as a Assange could have just been trying to see the password contained any useful information. What if the password was something like "I.like.blank" and it's known who the administrator of the computer system was. A hash is just a piece of information.
Like the details are not entirely clear in the indictment. The only thing clear is that he was given a hash. The indictment does not say if trying to guess the password hash was going to be used to login into the system. Although, it seems like that what the indictment assumes, and without a full transcript of the conversation I feel the indictment is pretty weak.
However, after reading there are multiple things that make really doubt who ever wrote that has any idea what they are talking about.
For instance: Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange.
Analogies are imperfect. I don't think it's important to explore the flaws in the analogy to understand the point I explained earlier, which is that the indictment is not specifically about trying to crack a password.
"Assange could have ...". That is something for the defense to argue. This is an indictment. They need only convince a grand jury that there's a reasonable likelihood of conspiracy.
"Special" in this case almost certainly means "does not come as a standard part of computer she was using."
EDIT: I just remembered that a physical key can also contain information about the person. I had a landlord who keyed all the room doors on the building. He asked me for 4 digits, for the pin depths I wanted on my door. I used "2718", which hints at a math background. Feyman has a similar story about guessing safe combinations while at Los Alamos - I chose 2718 as an homage to that story. A key pattern or a combination is "just a piece of information".
52 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadAt least to me as far as if he deserves protection as a journalist, I don't think it matters if he was successful. You can help someone try to commit a crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime.
If a journalist is given information that is one thing, offering or even helping someone commit a crime and their role has changed dramatically IMO.
I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's life / career had they used that as cover for Manning?
Sure, but in this case it seems like he didn't even help. He decided on his own to back out of that.
If you promise to help, then don't, it should not count as "furthering" the conspiracy.
> I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they tried to access had hey been successful.
Not sure, but it would presumably be their fault that the password was crackable. [edit: reworded slightly]
Pretty sure the fault also lies with the person who would have used their identity too.
Being punished for having a crackable password (on a reasonable hash) is fair.
I adjusted the wording a little, is that clearer?
That doesn't mean you need to get punished, but failing to do your job is not nothing.
What qualifies as punished to you?
It's possible that this person's life career could have been ruined if Manning was able to hide behind this other account and the actual owner of the account was blamed...
Is that fair?
Not that it matters what we call it, since everyone seems to be in agreement that they shouldn't be punished for what the account was hypothetically used for.
Right now, it looks to me like Assange lied that he was going to help hack anything. I don't see how this is a crime under US law. It's a very weak case, and they cannot lawfully charge him with anything not mentioned in the extradition request. This all changes if they have actual proof he did try to hack a password though.
I don't really trust Assange to tell his own story honestly as it is so I kinda want to see what anyone can prove when the rubber hits the road.
Do not verbally agree to any illegal act. Doing so is a crime, 1st amendment rights notwithstanding, and regardless of your intent of whether or not you will carry through with the act.
Its still okay to nod and wink, though.
I think the line is that specific acts of journalism are protected, but there's nothing special about journalists as people.
From the affidavit, the password they tried to crack was for the Windows user "ftp," not attributable to any person.
I don't understand how people can claim Assange is somehow at fault for attempting to save Manning from the terrible treatment she is still receiving for her deed.
To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got.
But by trying to help her gain illegal access to an account for the purpose of enabling her to steal more classified information, Assange now has to content with conspiracy to commit hacking charges himself.
This is not what happened. Access to the account provided no additional information, it just would have protected her identity somewhat.
>To save Manning from being punished Assange could've guided her to only expose documents related to specific wrongdoing. That would've at least given Manning a plausible whistleblower defense. That defense may not have succeeded, but it probably would've led to a much, much shorter sentence if it failed than what she originally got.
This already happened. For example, only 75,000 of the 91,000 Afghanistan war documents have ever been released. The defense used this in her trial.
doesnt matter; it's still a CFAA violation. if the facts as they have been presented are correct, assange is guilty of conspiracy.
The UN, excluding basically the US and not many others organized an international court of justice specifically to prosecute the severe type of crimes exposed by wikileaks. There are quite a few political and military (ex) leaders in the US that would have to fear for extradition to The Hague for these crimes if it wasn't for the fact that the US does not support this court and refuses to extradite US citizens for the severe types of crimes under the jurisdiction of this court. This will of course never happen.
The remarkable thing is actually how openly incompetent the whole thing is being conducted. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if the whole extradition thing collapses based on the notion that there is no good case that Assange actually did anything to make extradition possible. Years of effort and preparation and all they came up with is this. It's certainly putting the UK on the spot for basically very openly having to go through the motions of extraditing Assange on obviously BS charges to please a key ally. I imagine this might drag out for quite some time in the British courts so this has a lot of potential to get quite embarrassing for them.
For further reading: https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/
You identify the issues with someone's story that you don't like and then you make a story about how they 'admit' those things.
God help anyone who actually 'admits' anything these days as to some people that must be instantly discrediting.
Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done"
It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement.
Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a "big old but" coming. Even if you never produce the but, they still have the feeling what was just stated is about to be refuted.
They'd take some pure BS story from the internet that aligned with their politics and report it as "allegedly" to sound fair... and then list out the lies word for word as they came from some conspiracy site and then just move on. They'd sprinkle their whole broadcast withe these tidbits. You couldn't help but get the impression that controversy and scandal was surrounding whomever the target of the day was, despite no evidence of any kind being offered.
Think of an insurance claim and/or civil claim. In response to a civil complaint initiating a civil lawsuit, the defendant must answer the complaint by “admitting” or “denying” each allegation.
And “allege” is the entire basis of US criminal law...as in innocent until proven guilty. As in the defendant allegedly committed the crime until and unless convicted.
These are all legal terms of art.
More like the art of legalese, TBH.
Spelling out male middle names can make anyone sound like a serial killer.
My point is, you aren't doing yourself any favors by championing the ability of big institutions to put you in jail simply for accessing information.
If you interpret a law absurdly, you will get absurd outcomes. Fortunately, we have judges and juries for that.
However, there is strict law regarding hacking confidential government documents and trying to break into government systems. I see it a vastly different matter with very different implications.
Similarly, while hacking things doesn't directly endanger people, doing anything with the information does, and this includes reconnaissance for a later hit.
Stealing is a crime. Shooting you is a crime. Simply "being there" should qualify as a crime, or perhaps maybe a misdemeanor, only after some scrutiny. Intent as a factor should have more weight.
Using your house analogy, if a bystander notices the door to your home is wide open, they shouldn't be afraid to check if anyone inside is potentially incapacitated or is having some other emergency, just because entering an open door is a crime under your logic. In one society, a concerned neighbor finds you lying on the floor unconscious, dials 9/11, and emergency services arrives on time for you to be saved. In the other society, nobody checks on you, because why take the risk?
Similarly, the whole concept of "white hat" hacking is something you seem either unfamiliar with and/or at odds with.
Furthermore, I'm sorry I attacked you- I took a bit too cynical of a position here- I do understand the concept of White Hatting, and recognize its importance. I have also dealt with one too many "White Hats" that expect a monetary reward for finding bugs when I'm not in a position to do so, and have then gone and attacked me hard. It's not fun.
Now, I have been, and still am, one of those people that do occasionally poke at other people's stuff, and when I find something, I will tip them off. This is also not my day job, and as such, outside of official bug reporting platforms, I always specify that I will not accept compensation for what I have found. Many people are not that principled, and that bothers me to no end.
Protecting an anonymous source from the authorities is a basic journalistic duty. Journalists these days have spent so much time protecting authoritarian sources from the public they've forgotten how it's supposed to work.
For these reasons, Assange will not be extradited from UK. Those who now cheer Trump's attack on journalism will soon complain that it's not a more effective attack.
> On or about March 10, 2010 ... Assange indicated that he has been trying to crack the password by stating he has "no luck so far".
I think that your inference is a reasonable to that description.
Generally that means you already have a hash. Then your trying see if passwords match that hash... It's also not really cracking anything, but just guessing.
That's just math.
The crime was hacking the system to get the hash.
Moreover, what about all those researchers who compiled lists of the most common passwords was the act of guessing those hashes a criminal act these seems to be a very dangerous idea of a crime. As in it could ensnare innocent people.
The allegation is that there was an agreement between Manning and Assange to crack the password for a US military network. Manning gave a hash to Assange, Assange tried (but failed) to crack it, and told Manning that the crack attempt failed. He also asked for more information that might help with the cracking.
The alleged illegal activity is the conspiracy to break into a protected computer system, not the (attempt at) cracking a password.
Those researchers are not doing their work as part of a conspiracy to break into other computer system. The feedback loop corresponding to 'asking for more information' by those carrying out illegal activities doesn't - at least for the most part - exist.
By analogy, locksport fans are not part of a conspiracy to break into people's houses, nor - at least for the most part - working with potential robbers to figure out how best to open a given house's lock.
However, I don't think it still quite the same thing as a key/lock. A password can contain information and as a Assange could have just been trying to see the password contained any useful information. What if the password was something like "I.like.blank" and it's known who the administrator of the computer system was. A hash is just a piece of information.
Like the details are not entirely clear in the indictment. The only thing clear is that he was given a hash. The indictment does not say if trying to guess the password hash was going to be used to login into the system. Although, it seems like that what the indictment assumes, and without a full transcript of the conversation I feel the indictment is pretty weak.
However, after reading there are multiple things that make really doubt who ever wrote that has any idea what they are talking about.
For instance: Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange.
I was unaware linux was special software....
"Assange could have ...". That is something for the defense to argue. This is an indictment. They need only convince a grand jury that there's a reasonable likelihood of conspiracy.
"Special" in this case almost certainly means "does not come as a standard part of computer she was using."
EDIT: I just remembered that a physical key can also contain information about the person. I had a landlord who keyed all the room doors on the building. He asked me for 4 digits, for the pin depths I wanted on my door. I used "2718", which hints at a math background. Feyman has a similar story about guessing safe combinations while at Los Alamos - I chose 2718 as an homage to that story. A key pattern or a combination is "just a piece of information".