Password-cracking theory against Assange unravels at extradition trial(dissenter.substack.com)
dissenter.substack.com
Password-cracking theory against Assange unravels at extradition trial
https://dissenter.substack.com/p/prosecutors-password-cracking-conspiracy
134 comments
That's not truly what's broken. If it were a truly fair system, no one would fear showing up to say they were innocent.
The problem is that the courts regularly ignore due process because there isn't any incentive for them to uphold the letter of the law. The side with the more expensive team of lawyers regularly wins.
If you could bet on court decisions, you would see the odds heavily in favor of the more moneyed party.
There should be a monetary incentive that encourages people who can read the law to evaluate past court decisions, and that punishes legal bodies (maybe even in a criminal court) that ignore due process.
The problem is that the courts regularly ignore due process because there isn't any incentive for them to uphold the letter of the law. The side with the more expensive team of lawyers regularly wins.
If you could bet on court decisions, you would see the odds heavily in favor of the more moneyed party.
There should be a monetary incentive that encourages people who can read the law to evaluate past court decisions, and that punishes legal bodies (maybe even in a criminal court) that ignore due process.
The issue is the long-standing gentleman’s agreement not to enforce the laws regarding classified information against journalists. The computer intrusion charge is prosecutors’ strategy to get him behind bars while preserving that tradition. Give the facts here, he probably would be acquitted. But then the government might decide to use the classified information laws, under which it has a slam-dunk case. Prosecutorial policy convention is not due process. Those charges are what he really has to fear if he’s extradited.
Except ... factual impossibility is not a defense to a charge of conspiracy, or indeed most charges of inchoate offenses.
If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder.
If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder.
The problem with the analogy is that committing a murder is a crime for everyone everywhere. For a US citizen who has been given classified information it may be illegal and treasonous to leak classified US information to some one who doesn't have the clearance to get access to it.
But a journalist, should have the right to ask people to come forward if they have information with a public interest, even if it is classified. If someone comes forward, they may break the law, but not the journalist.
Further more, Assange is not a US citizen, and is there for under no obligation to be loyal to or protect US interests or secrets. He cant by definition be treasonous again any country besides his own.
If he on the other hand, provides material support to someone committing a crime, (like helping to crack a password), then he can be tried as an accomplice. This evidence seems to imply he did not.
But a journalist, should have the right to ask people to come forward if they have information with a public interest, even if it is classified. If someone comes forward, they may break the law, but not the journalist.
Further more, Assange is not a US citizen, and is there for under no obligation to be loyal to or protect US interests or secrets. He cant by definition be treasonous again any country besides his own.
If he on the other hand, provides material support to someone committing a crime, (like helping to crack a password), then he can be tried as an accomplice. This evidence seems to imply he did not.
>For a US citizen who has been given classified information it may be illegal and treasonous to leak classified US information to some one who doesn't have the clearance to get access to it.
Actually, here in the US, we don't have licensed journalists. As such anyone may act as one. Government employees (including members of the military) and contractors can be and have been charged and convicted with misuse/dissemination of classified information. What's more, private citizens working in the employ of a foreign government have also been charged and convicted for providing classified information to that foreign government.
However, no US journalist (and remember, anyone can be a journalist) has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act. Ever.
As such, it seems incredibly unlikely that Assange would be convicted under that Espionage Act. I guess we'll just have to see.
I take issue with the title of this posting, as (at least in the UK[0]), an Extradition Hearing is not a trial, nor is it intended to be one.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
Actually, here in the US, we don't have licensed journalists. As such anyone may act as one. Government employees (including members of the military) and contractors can be and have been charged and convicted with misuse/dissemination of classified information. What's more, private citizens working in the employ of a foreign government have also been charged and convicted for providing classified information to that foreign government.
However, no US journalist (and remember, anyone can be a journalist) has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act. Ever.
As such, it seems incredibly unlikely that Assange would be convicted under that Espionage Act. I guess we'll just have to see.
I take issue with the title of this posting, as (at least in the UK[0]), an Extradition Hearing is not a trial, nor is it intended to be one.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
While it is true anyone can be a journalist not anyone is, just as anyone can be a novelist. This is distinguished by conduct and product and that distinction has legal consequences.
The Adrian Lamo chat logs (published by Wired) show Assange was contacted by Manning with express intent to leak. So there was no conspiracy.
Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, just pointing this out because there is no reason to retreat to the common sense position you advocate. The fact that you have to make such a sensible point is a reflection of the deep deceit and dishonesty of the prosecutors who clearly know this and are omitting it in order to try and paint a portrait of conspiracy that is factually wrong and they know it.
Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, just pointing this out because there is no reason to retreat to the common sense position you advocate. The fact that you have to make such a sensible point is a reflection of the deep deceit and dishonesty of the prosecutors who clearly know this and are omitting it in order to try and paint a portrait of conspiracy that is factually wrong and they know it.
>The Adrian Lamo chat logs (published by Wired) show Assange was contacted by Manning with express intent to leak. So there was no conspiracy.
Could you please elaborate on why you think that matters to the charge of conspiracy?
Could you please elaborate on why you think that matters to the charge of conspiracy?
austincheney(2)
Leaking info to someone not cleared to read it is not treasonous inherently unless it also meets the actual elements of us law.
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The problem is: why is treason against the US bad, but for others, it’s ok? As in: why are we extraditing Assange to the US, but not US citizens elsewhere when they commit treason against them?
Treason in the context of the United States is the act of a citizen betraying his/her fellow citizens by aiding our enemies against us. Neither Assange nor any other non citizen can commit the act of treason against the United States.
Assange is being accused of conspiring to break into a government computer not treason.
The fact that extradition isn't an equal thing isn't exactly shocking its a function of treaties between the relevant nations and wherein a power imbalance exists between those nations the terms are less likely to be equal and the US is still one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
The US does rarely extradite for example
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/u-s-citizens-extra...
Ivo is getting extradited for attempted extortion which he committed in the Czech Republic and when people commit crimes from the US against international parties they can also be charged with the a crime for those acts supposing they are against the law here.
Punishing acts where victim and criminal are members of different nations is often complicated. Few nations are eager to subject their citizens to foreign laws.
Assange is being accused of conspiring to break into a government computer not treason.
The fact that extradition isn't an equal thing isn't exactly shocking its a function of treaties between the relevant nations and wherein a power imbalance exists between those nations the terms are less likely to be equal and the US is still one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
The US does rarely extradite for example
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/u-s-citizens-extra...
Ivo is getting extradited for attempted extortion which he committed in the Czech Republic and when people commit crimes from the US against international parties they can also be charged with the a crime for those acts supposing they are against the law here.
Punishing acts where victim and criminal are members of different nations is often complicated. Few nations are eager to subject their citizens to foreign laws.
If his defense against treason is that he's a foreign agent attacking the US, then he'll rightly end up in a POW prison. So he needs a better defense than that
It seems like he didn’t actively attack the US, he simply passed on information freely given to him by US citizens. It’s hard to see how him doing that, not being a US citizen and not being in the US, is any worse than anything hundreds of journalists do all over the world every day.
Agree. Nonetheless feds are making him pay through the legal expense and stress of deflecting these charges.
What I wonder more about is our own guys: how does manning and Snowden walk out the door with this info anyway? Our search procedures apparently suck.
For the record my assessment of our involvement in Iraq is not kind: we should have escalated to armed intrusion to vet wmds base by base instead of invading wholesale on the reason Iraqi's were evasive. Second torture is unamerican, not reliable, and wholly wrong. Not proud at all of what we did here. Our response before after 9/11 was incompetent.
What I wonder more about is our own guys: how does manning and Snowden walk out the door with this info anyway? Our search procedures apparently suck.
For the record my assessment of our involvement in Iraq is not kind: we should have escalated to armed intrusion to vet wmds base by base instead of invading wholesale on the reason Iraqi's were evasive. Second torture is unamerican, not reliable, and wholly wrong. Not proud at all of what we did here. Our response before after 9/11 was incompetent.
That's how the FBI has caught terrorists in the past. Agents work with the terrorist and build a dud bomb, then arrest them when it fails to go off.
If you really want to see how crazy this can get, a quick search for 'voodoo doll attempted murder' will be eye-opening.
Canada lost a case against a couple of dimwitted "terrorists" that the mounties engaged in an expensive, drawn out plot to recruit them to build a bomb [1]. In that case, the conduct of police was judged to be entrapment based on a precedent in which it is written, "The state must conduct its law enforcement operations in a manner that is consonant with the community’s underlying sense of fair play and decency. It cannot manipulate suspects’ lives without limit, turning their day-to-day existence into a piece of theatre in which they are unwitting participants."
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...
This has happened again and again, the world over, with the purpose of playing up the perceived threat of terrorism. For example, Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber', was mentally retarded, and caught trying to ignite the C4 he had somehow acquired, using matches.
They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them.
But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
> They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them.
> But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance.
So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1.
Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first.
EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.
> But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance.
So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1.
Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first.
EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.
That seems like it sails very closely to entrapment.
By any reasonable interpretation, it is entrapment, and a fair number of lawyers out there were pretty unhappy, some vocally so, with the outcome of that whole shitshow.
Please compare and contrast "reasonable" and "legal" interpretations.
While such a comparison might rub you (and me, for that matter) the wrong way, it's the "legal" interpretation that holds in a US Article III court[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_Unite...
While such a comparison might rub you (and me, for that matter) the wrong way, it's the "legal" interpretation that holds in a US Article III court[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_Unite...
My point was, it rubbed lawyers the wrong way. I'm going to listen to a lawyer when they speak of their own craft.
It does. My understanding is that as long as the police don’t make the suggestion, then it’s not entrapment.
If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.
If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.
My understanding of entrapment is that it's convincing someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily. I don't think "Wanna bomb that building?" Qualifies as entrapment. It would be difficult for undercover police to catch drug dealers, for example, if they couldn't ask the dealers to sell them drugs.
Entrapment would be more like "We're going to bomb that building, and if you don't join us, I'm going to kill you... Hah! Just kidding, you're under arrest!"
"Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes."
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33...
Entrapment would be more like "We're going to bomb that building, and if you don't join us, I'm going to kill you... Hah! Just kidding, you're under arrest!"
"Government agents do not entrap defendants simply by offering them an opportunity to commit a crime. Judges expect people to resist any ordinary temptation to violate the law. An entrapment defense arises when government agents resort to repugnant behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes."
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33...
With the terrorism examples it seems like a form of peer pressure is the main force used, which may not make it a crime but it still feels like entrapment.
"Sting" operations are nothing new for the FBI. And depending (as your link states) how the FBI goes about it (case in point[0]), it may or may not be "entrapment."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
>If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder.
IIUC, at least in the US, a charge of conspiracy requires an overt act by at least one of the conspirators[0]: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."
As such, in the scenario you present, unless those who discuss murder actually do something in furtherance of that discussed goal, it's not conspiracy.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
N.B.: IANAL
IIUC, at least in the US, a charge of conspiracy requires an overt act by at least one of the conspirators[0]: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."
As such, in the scenario you present, unless those who discuss murder actually do something in furtherance of that discussed goal, it's not conspiracy.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
N.B.: IANAL
Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. That’s doing an act. Incompetently perhaps because unbeknownst to the its not a functioning firearm, but they’re still acting on their intentions.
>Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun.
The example mentions a gun, but does not mention that it was procured for the purpose of committing murder. At least in the US, having a gun (there are more guns than people here) by itself isn't very remarkable.
If, however, the gun was procured specifically for that purpose, it could be construed as an overt act.
Alternatively, if someone retrieved the gun from a storage facility (as was suggested by another commenter) for the purposes of committing murder, that would still be an overt act.
ISTR a case where a woman contracted with someone (who turned out to be police acting on a tip from the owner of a website that claimed to put folks in touch with hit men) to kill her husband[0].
Just asking someone to do so wasn't enough. The police had to get the woman to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (in that case, paying the undercover cop).
[0] https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-t...
The example mentions a gun, but does not mention that it was procured for the purpose of committing murder. At least in the US, having a gun (there are more guns than people here) by itself isn't very remarkable.
If, however, the gun was procured specifically for that purpose, it could be construed as an overt act.
Alternatively, if someone retrieved the gun from a storage facility (as was suggested by another commenter) for the purposes of committing murder, that would still be an overt act.
ISTR a case where a woman contracted with someone (who turned out to be police acting on a tip from the owner of a website that claimed to put folks in touch with hit men) to kill her husband[0].
Just asking someone to do so wasn't enough. The police had to get the woman to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (in that case, paying the undercover cop).
[0] https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-t...
It makes sense, for charges about an attempt. Presumably if you attempt to kill someone in a way that doesn't work, you may try again in a way that does later. Also, a case can probably be made that while attempted murder may not be harmful to the intended victim (in some cases), it's still harmful to society.
This gun and murder analogy strikes me as being in bad taste, in this instance. Julian Assange is not being accused of murder by the US government, the particular charges in this case revolves around a hash of a password and alleged attempts to compare that hash to a table of similar hashes and, possibly, finding the matching clear text password for that specific hash value.
This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.
This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.
Actually, that particular issue (the alleged attempt to crack a password hash) isn't covered under the Espionage Act[0].
Rather, it's a separate charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1]. And that matters because the penalties are enormously more severe for the the former than the latter.
>This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.
Conspiracy is defined[2] as: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."
As such, the example was just that, an example. Would you be less butthurt if the example was conspiracy to steal office supplies from a US Post Office, and the overt act was to bring a hand-cart to the post office in order to cart away said office supplies?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
Edit: Fixed grammatical error
Rather, it's a separate charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1]. And that matters because the penalties are enormously more severe for the the former than the latter.
>This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.
Conspiracy is defined[2] as: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."
As such, the example was just that, an example. Would you be less butthurt if the example was conspiracy to steal office supplies from a US Post Office, and the overt act was to bring a hand-cart to the post office in order to cart away said office supplies?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
Edit: Fixed grammatical error
You still have to prove who had the gun in the first place
No, actually.
Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty.
The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.
Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty.
The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.
No, actually, you need additional steps to achieve conspiracy to commit murder in that hypothetical.
What's the legal basis for that? The "overt steps" are you giving me the key, and me going to the locker.
[deleted]
You could get the gun to prevent the conspiracy from taking place.
Does the overt act not have to further the conspiracy?
Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder?
There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
> Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder?
Well arguably that didn't happen.
> There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
I'd say that going to a place where you would get equipment is not something that substantially advances the conspiracy, even if there was a gun! It's actually getting the equipment that might do so, depending on what the equipment is. And if you're still collecting necessary equipment, or especially doing a prerequisite to collecting equipment, you're nowhere near the point of no return.
Well arguably that didn't happen.
> There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
I'd say that going to a place where you would get equipment is not something that substantially advances the conspiracy, even if there was a gun! It's actually getting the equipment that might do so, depending on what the equipment is. And if you're still collecting necessary equipment, or especially doing a prerequisite to collecting equipment, you're nowhere near the point of no return.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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?
You're both right, but the prosecution must make an affirmative showing before the defense has to do anything.
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
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
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
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.
Edit: I originally mispoke and had this backwards, but it doesn't actually affect the point.
>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/resource...
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/resource...
You're correct, I misspoke. It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case. I've corrected the initial comment.
>It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case.
Huh? How would a prosecutor get to try (and attempt to prove) a case if they don't bring the case to the court in the first place?
Perhaps I'm missing something here?
Huh? How would a prosecutor get to try (and attempt to prove) a case if they don't bring the case to the court in the first place?
Perhaps I'm missing something here?
Exactly. They can bring a case before having proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.
*her
By that logic also:
"If I'm God, and we agree that I will kill everyone with my God powers, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that I'm not God, that's still conspiracy to commit murder."
Promising impossibility is not a conspiracy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/6le3hy...
"If I'm God, and we agree that I will kill everyone with my God powers, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that I'm not God, that's still conspiracy to commit murder."
Promising impossibility is not a conspiracy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/6le3hy...
I believe that what you've linked to is legally incorrect.
Refer to, e.g. United States vs. Thomas: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-u... ... which is an actual appeal court decision.
The defendants were at a bar. A drunken woman collapsed. The defendants put her in their car, took her home, and had sex with her while they believed she was unconscious.
In fact, the woman had died at the bar, and they had been having sex with a corpse. They could not be convicted of rape, but they could be convicted of attempted rape because they believed the woman was alive at the time.
Being factually mistaken about the possibility of a crime is not a defense to a charge of attempt, conspiracy etc.
Refer to, e.g. United States vs. Thomas: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-u... ... which is an actual appeal court decision.
The defendants were at a bar. A drunken woman collapsed. The defendants put her in their car, took her home, and had sex with her while they believed she was unconscious.
In fact, the woman had died at the bar, and they had been having sex with a corpse. They could not be convicted of rape, but they could be convicted of attempted rape because they believed the woman was alive at the time.
Being factually mistaken about the possibility of a crime is not a defense to a charge of attempt, conspiracy etc.
That’s slightly charitable. They believed they raped a woman, but they actually desecrated a corpse.
Given that someone has actually been convicted of attempted murder by voodoo doll (ridiculous as that is), that reddit discussion sounds a bit like wishful thinking.
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2004/dec/09/attempted-vo...
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2004/dec/09/attempted-vo...
A) that sounds like a legend and b) low level judges are not the measure of law.
Summary quote:
> Manning never provided the two files necessary to “reconstruct the decryption key” for the password hash, Eller testified. “At the time, it would not have been possible to crack an encrypted password hash, such as the one Manning obtained.”
> Manning never provided the two files necessary to “reconstruct the decryption key” for the password hash, Eller testified. “At the time, it would not have been possible to crack an encrypted password hash, such as the one Manning obtained.”
> ASSANGE Agrees to Help Manning Crack a Password [1]
Is this what Assange is accused of doing?
1. Receiving a password hash from Manning
2. Telling Manning he'll try to crack it
3. Following up asking for more info about it (related usernames or something)
4. Never actually cracking it and no further action
Does anyone have any more specifics on what Assange actually did here to break the law? The indictment is pretty vague on this and it seems to be the central issue.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... (page 9)
Is this what Assange is accused of doing?
1. Receiving a password hash from Manning
2. Telling Manning he'll try to crack it
3. Following up asking for more info about it (related usernames or something)
4. Never actually cracking it and no further action
Does anyone have any more specifics on what Assange actually did here to break the law? The indictment is pretty vague on this and it seems to be the central issue.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1289641/downl... (page 9)
Conspiracy is the agreement to commit a crime.
Assange and Manning agreed to try to gain unauthorized access to some U.S. government computer system.
Unauthorized computer access is a federal crime, see 18 U.S.C. section 1030.
The federal conspiracy charged (18 U.S.C section 371 in this case) also requires that one of the conspirators take an 'overt act' to further conspiracy. This is to stop idle talk about crimes being prosecuted as conspiracies.
In this case, Manning actually provided Assange with the hashed password. That's the overt act.
But, fundamentally, the conspiracy is the agreement to commit a crime.
Assange and Manning agreed to try to gain unauthorized access to some U.S. government computer system.
Unauthorized computer access is a federal crime, see 18 U.S.C. section 1030.
The federal conspiracy charged (18 U.S.C section 371 in this case) also requires that one of the conspirators take an 'overt act' to further conspiracy. This is to stop idle talk about crimes being prosecuted as conspiracies.
In this case, Manning actually provided Assange with the hashed password. That's the overt act.
But, fundamentally, the conspiracy is the agreement to commit a crime.
The salient point in this case is that one of those persons was a journalist.
Conspiring with sources to obtain secret information is what investigative journalists do. Doing so illegally is sometimes clearly bad (like the UK Daily Mail hacking celebrity phones), and sometimes clearly good (Manning and Snowden).
Journalists are never normally prosecuted for breaking the Official Secrets Act (and equivalents in other countries). This case is the first time that's happened. It sets a precedent for other cases against journalists in the future as the US and UK governments get more authoritarian and less open.
The initial indictment against Assange was an attempt to draw some kind of line between him and "proper" journalists. The new indictment (which had to be created because, as the prosecution admitted, the first one would have failed) makes no such distinction.
This is bad for society. Assange is a bit of a twat, but this needs to stop because the ramifications are enormous.
Conspiring with sources to obtain secret information is what investigative journalists do. Doing so illegally is sometimes clearly bad (like the UK Daily Mail hacking celebrity phones), and sometimes clearly good (Manning and Snowden).
Journalists are never normally prosecuted for breaking the Official Secrets Act (and equivalents in other countries). This case is the first time that's happened. It sets a precedent for other cases against journalists in the future as the US and UK governments get more authoritarian and less open.
The initial indictment against Assange was an attempt to draw some kind of line between him and "proper" journalists. The new indictment (which had to be created because, as the prosecution admitted, the first one would have failed) makes no such distinction.
This is bad for society. Assange is a bit of a twat, but this needs to stop because the ramifications are enormous.
I think there's a genuine argument about whether Assange is a journalist; but let's leave that aside (more heat than light in that discussion as I have found out).
One of the counts of the indictment is not about cajoling a source, or receiving secret documents: it's about actively engaging in an attempt to gain unauthorized access to a U.S. Government computer system.
Isn't there an ethical line, at some point, in terms of the length a journalist can go to get the story? The UK scandal (News of the World; I think; not Daily Mail) you mentioned resulted in journalists going to prison for similar crimes.
I think we're in a really peculiar place if distinctions like this turn on whether it's the right or wrong kind of public interest.
One of the counts of the indictment is not about cajoling a source, or receiving secret documents: it's about actively engaging in an attempt to gain unauthorized access to a U.S. Government computer system.
Isn't there an ethical line, at some point, in terms of the length a journalist can go to get the story? The UK scandal (News of the World; I think; not Daily Mail) you mentioned resulted in journalists going to prison for similar crimes.
I think we're in a really peculiar place if distinctions like this turn on whether it's the right or wrong kind of public interest.
"Journalists are never normally prosecuted for breaking the Official Secrets Act "
So what is the legal definition of 'journalist' ...
... and what kinds of things are they allowed to hack? Because there are surely some things that are not in the public interest. So where is that line drawn?
It seems like a lot of shades of grey there, it's hard to fathom what's a crime and what's not if it's not clear.
So what is the legal definition of 'journalist' ...
... and what kinds of things are they allowed to hack? Because there are surely some things that are not in the public interest. So where is that line drawn?
It seems like a lot of shades of grey there, it's hard to fathom what's a crime and what's not if it's not clear.
That's part of the problem here: there is no legal definition of journalist.
A journalist is "someone who does journalism". Traditionally that meant publishing stories in a newspaper, radio or television company, and it was fairly clear-cut who was a journalist and who wasn't. Nowadays not so much - the main question being "is a blogger a journalist?".
Assange was supplying information to, and co-operating with, major media organisations. I think any definition of journalism would have to include the activities of Wikileaks, and therefore Assange is a journalist.
Where the line is drawn is also a good question. Government would like it drawn at the lines laid out in the pertinent secrecy laws. But clearly if just classifying something as "Secret" would then put it out of reach of journalists and make unauthorised knowledge of it a criminal offence, then that's not serving society. All sorts of political misbehaviour would be classified.
And yeah, there are lots of shades of grey. Lots of things we have to decide as a society:
Are governments allowed to keep things secret?
Who should decide what is kept secret?
If someone discovers that a government agent is doing something illegal, but the activity (or agent) is covered by secrecy laws, how do they make sure that the activity is prevented and/or punished?
A journalist is "someone who does journalism". Traditionally that meant publishing stories in a newspaper, radio or television company, and it was fairly clear-cut who was a journalist and who wasn't. Nowadays not so much - the main question being "is a blogger a journalist?".
Assange was supplying information to, and co-operating with, major media organisations. I think any definition of journalism would have to include the activities of Wikileaks, and therefore Assange is a journalist.
Where the line is drawn is also a good question. Government would like it drawn at the lines laid out in the pertinent secrecy laws. But clearly if just classifying something as "Secret" would then put it out of reach of journalists and make unauthorised knowledge of it a criminal offence, then that's not serving society. All sorts of political misbehaviour would be classified.
And yeah, there are lots of shades of grey. Lots of things we have to decide as a society:
Are governments allowed to keep things secret?
Who should decide what is kept secret?
If someone discovers that a government agent is doing something illegal, but the activity (or agent) is covered by secrecy laws, how do they make sure that the activity is prevented and/or punished?
It's not clear that the person who agreed to decoded the password hash was, in fact, Assange. This is another US allegation but it is by no means proven.
That makes sense, thanks. What is Assange's alleged overt act? Or is it just required of one of the conspirators?
Is it clear Assange knew the password was to a U.S. government computer system?
Let's say Manning had the files at some point and encrypted them on his own machine with some password which would NOT give access to any U.S. government computer system? Then it wouldn't be a conspiracy to gain access to a U.S. government computer system, would it?
Let's say Manning had the files at some point and encrypted them on his own machine with some password which would NOT give access to any U.S. government computer system? Then it wouldn't be a conspiracy to gain access to a U.S. government computer system, would it?
> Is it clear Assange knew the password was to a U.S. government computer system?
Yes, very clear. Skim the indictment a bit, it goes into some detail re: their communication.
Yes, very clear. Skim the indictment a bit, it goes into some detail re: their communication.
There's no proof, at this time, that Assange is one using this Jabber account to talk to Manning.
No! conspiracy is the agreement to commit a crime AND an overt action in furtherance of the plan.
Cracking a hashed password isn't obviously part of a crime. Using it may be.
Cracking a hashed password isn't obviously part of a crime. Using it may be.
Sorry, which part of what I wrote above are you saying "No!" to? I point out the agreement part and the overt act part.
If you're suggesting that the overt act has to itself be criminal: that's wrong.
If you're suggesting that the overt act has to itself be criminal: that's wrong.
I still don't understand how the Eastern District of Virginia can claim that "Nathaniel Frank" was in fact Julian Assange. The reasoning presented in their affidavit looks clearly fallacious to me (starting at p13):
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2019/04/2017-12-21_Vir...
There are two assumptions they use to infer the identity of NF:
1- The belief of two persons that the person who they were talking with was probably Assange.
2- That only one single person was using that jabber account.
The only thing I can personally infer from the information they presented is that NF was (very likely) a member of Wikileaks at that time.
What am I missing?
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2019/04/2017-12-21_Vir...
There are two assumptions they use to infer the identity of NF:
1- The belief of two persons that the person who they were talking with was probably Assange.
2- That only one single person was using that jabber account.
The only thing I can personally infer from the information they presented is that NF was (very likely) a member of Wikileaks at that time.
What am I missing?
Your not missing anything. this isn't a criminal trial it's an extradition hearing. They're not required to prove their case on the merits, just show they have sufficient facts to make a pro forma case at the criminal trial.
The argument is based on NF referring in the first person to doing things that JA did (debate in Iceland, conference in Norway), that other members of Wikileaks didn't do.
As far as I can tell they only state that for the conference in Norway: "[...] Assange was identified as a 'lecturer.' A review of the other names on the list revealed no other persons known to be associated with WikiLeaks"
To me the fact that they wrote "other persons known" indicates that they are not sure if there were other members present.
To me the fact that they wrote "other persons known" indicates that they are not sure if there were other members present.
That's standard legalese since they don't have any context to identify who "I" is. And the real identity of many people involved with WikiLeaks seems to be unknown, so it isn't impossible that it was someone else. It makes it the weakest evidence that NF is Assange, but it has some circumstantial value.
> the real identity of many people involved with WikiLeaks seems to be unknown
It seems I wasn't clear before but this is exactly what I intended to imply: If they cannot attest that JA was the only member present at that conference then that line of argument is insufficient to make the claim they are making.
It seems I wasn't clear before but this is exactly what I intended to imply: If they cannot attest that JA was the only member present at that conference then that line of argument is insufficient to make the claim they are making.
other persons known sounds like normal legalese to me.
[deleted]
You're not missing anything. This is a mockery of an extradition hearing, designed to give an air of legitimacy to an act of naked corruption.
Nothing - those kind of shady "proofs" are used all the time by states.
"Take a word for it" has been taken to a whole new level in the 21st century...
"Take a word for it" has been taken to a whole new level in the 21st century...
Some background that helped me understand why any of the is is important -
The government want a way to charge assange with something, that they don’t then have to also charge all the national newspapers with who helped him - because that would then be a much more blatant attack on press freedom.
They want to charge him as some form of hacker instead of what it’s really about - that they don’t like what he did as a journalist.
The government want a way to charge assange with something, that they don’t then have to also charge all the national newspapers with who helped him - because that would then be a much more blatant attack on press freedom.
They want to charge him as some form of hacker instead of what it’s really about - that they don’t like what he did as a journalist.
Further releasing about this, posted earlier in the week on HN. https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...
This reminds me of Particularism[0]. Instead of applying consistent moral principles to this case to determine right or wrong, they have already decided that this particular case is wrong and are figuring out what moral principles they can come up with to make it wrong.
0: https://iep.utm.edu/morlpat/
0: https://iep.utm.edu/morlpat/
They do a similar thing to this with hackers in general. The various computer misuse acts essentially criminalise so many things we all do all the time - like if go to a coffee shop and put in fake info into the wifi sign up form, technically it's illegal but obviously something they'll never bother to enforce - unless they want to for some other reason. As soon as you start applying the law (or not) on a whim, you're in trouble.
Which in turn reminds me of the (apocryphal) quote from Óscar Benavides, former president of Peru:
"For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_R._Benavides
"For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_R._Benavides
Yes. The Cook Guardian piece did a great job of making me understand the weaselly underpinnings of this case.
Do you have a link to that? It's good the guardian are finally saying something about it - even if too quietly.
I think that this was the article I was referencing. I apologize for not linking it with my comment.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-22/guardian-silen...
Ah I misunderstood - I thought the Guardian had changed tack and published an article by Cook, rather than him just writing about how they had not said anything. I got my hopes up for a minute that they'd grown a pair.
I'm surprised why "lawfare" is not more commonly used to classify what is happening to Assange and others by Western-sphere dissidents. maybe I'm not really surprised.
This isn't a trial.. It's an extradition hearing. They don't need to prove their case. They just need to make a showing of sufficient evidence that they could prove their case at trial.
Evidence that one of the crimes Assange is charged with never happened makes it difficult to see how they could prove their case at trial.
It's a kangaroo court. America and the UK are both banana republics.
Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN, no matter how you strongly feel about the underlying issues.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> “At the time, it would not have been possible to crack an encrypted password hash, such as the one Manning obtained.”
Wrong. Rainbow tables have always worked, even 20 years ago.
Wrong. Rainbow tables have always worked, even 20 years ago.
Twenty years ago Rainbow Tables didn't exist. Philippe Oechslin published his paper explaining them in 2003. Hellman's improved time-space trade-off is older, but the actual Rainbow Table, popularly used to attack Windows hashes, dates only to Oechslin's paper.
The claim is that the hash is from an offline SAM. Windows by that era has an encrypted SAM file, so when it isn't running the raw hashes are actually encrypted with RC4.
In principle 128-bits of RC4-enciphered data is useless. RC4 is not good encryption by 2020 standards (nor indeed in 2010) but it's enough that if the 128-bits is from an encrypted SAM they're useless. But the trouble is that tools to decrypt the SAM certainly did exist in 2010.
The claim is that the hash is from an offline SAM. Windows by that era has an encrypted SAM file, so when it isn't running the raw hashes are actually encrypted with RC4.
In principle 128-bits of RC4-enciphered data is useless. RC4 is not good encryption by 2020 standards (nor indeed in 2010) but it's enough that if the 128-bits is from an encrypted SAM they're useless. But the trouble is that tools to decrypt the SAM certainly did exist in 2010.
> Twenty years ago Rainbow Tables didn't exist.
Maybe they weren’t called rainbow tables back then, but lookup tables of pre-computed hashes for password cracking existed. I was there. However, I may be off by a year... I cannot recall the exact date I first became aware of them. I am fairly certain it was in the 90s.
Maybe they weren’t called rainbow tables back then, but lookup tables of pre-computed hashes for password cracking existed. I was there. However, I may be off by a year... I cannot recall the exact date I first became aware of them. I am fairly certain it was in the 90s.
Rainbow Tables are not just lookup tables of pre-computed hashes.
Pre-computation is obvious. Hellman comes up with chained pre-computation in the 1980s. Rainbow Tables are further improvement on Hellman's idea.
Let's use LM hash as the example, the core idea in LM hash is you can turn up to 7 characters of password into a 64-bit value. LM hash does this twice (so up to 14 character passwords) but we can divide it into two 64-bit hashes.
In 1975 LM hash hasn't actually been invented, but if you somehow went back and showed people from 1975 how it works they can pre-compute hashes. There are 2^56 possible hashes. So if you've got somewhere to store 2^56 hashes and passwords you can do the work and then reverse any LM hash. Hmm, 2^56 is a lot though. In 1975 nobody can store this data.
By 1995 LM hash does exist, and Hellman has proposed his chaining optimisations. So, you do 2^56 calculations still (this is a bunch of work but it's certainly possible) but they form long chains so now you don't need to store 2^56 answers somewhere. Maybe you store 2^40 answers, you need to do 2^16 calculations for every reverse and you need 2^40 storage and sadly your recall is now poor. Maybe it only works 80% of the time. Storing 2^40 answers in 1995 is expensive, you can't afford to do it, but the government or a rich company can.
By 2005 there are Rainbow Tables. Phillipe's idea massively improved recall. You can have say 99.9% recall, store 2^40 answers and do 2^16 calculations to reverse a hash. Also in 2005, storing 2^40 answers seems reasonable, you can just walk to a store and buy many gigabytes of storage space no problem.
Pre-computation is obvious. Hellman comes up with chained pre-computation in the 1980s. Rainbow Tables are further improvement on Hellman's idea.
Let's use LM hash as the example, the core idea in LM hash is you can turn up to 7 characters of password into a 64-bit value. LM hash does this twice (so up to 14 character passwords) but we can divide it into two 64-bit hashes.
In 1975 LM hash hasn't actually been invented, but if you somehow went back and showed people from 1975 how it works they can pre-compute hashes. There are 2^56 possible hashes. So if you've got somewhere to store 2^56 hashes and passwords you can do the work and then reverse any LM hash. Hmm, 2^56 is a lot though. In 1975 nobody can store this data.
By 1995 LM hash does exist, and Hellman has proposed his chaining optimisations. So, you do 2^56 calculations still (this is a bunch of work but it's certainly possible) but they form long chains so now you don't need to store 2^56 answers somewhere. Maybe you store 2^40 answers, you need to do 2^16 calculations for every reverse and you need 2^40 storage and sadly your recall is now poor. Maybe it only works 80% of the time. Storing 2^40 answers in 1995 is expensive, you can't afford to do it, but the government or a rich company can.
By 2005 there are Rainbow Tables. Phillipe's idea massively improved recall. You can have say 99.9% recall, store 2^40 answers and do 2^16 calculations to reverse a hash. Also in 2005, storing 2^40 answers seems reasonable, you can just walk to a store and buy many gigabytes of storage space no problem.
us_failure(1)
Almost all of this is about a 2013 trial and not this present proceeding at all. And the claim (from that trial) is that Manning provided Assange with bytes from an encrypted SAM or that it's only part of the password hash.
It's actually pretty aggravating reading trial documents when nobody present knows what they're talking about, it might as well be a Star Trek script, this is why it's so nice when the trial judge or at least some of the lawyers know what they're talking about (e.g. the Horizon scandal in the UK) but we can't have nice things most of the time.
Here's what the transcript says Manning provided:
80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c
That's 16 bytes = 128 bits = one Windows password hash.
So straight away it's completely reasonable that this is in fact a Windows password hash, and in the absence of evidence of how Manning obtained that value it's only speculation that this is actually encrypted somehow (e.g. because it is from an encrypted offline SAM). And yet Assange's defence apparently has hours of such speculation on tap, for whatever they suppose that's worth.
What Assange talks about doing is using Rainbow tables. This would be applicable regardless of which type of Windows hash it is (or Assange thought it was) but crucially if the password is strong then you only get a result if this 128-bit value is an LM Hash. The risible LM Hash turns the first seven characters into one 64-bit value using DES, the next seven into another 64-bit value (DES again). It doesn't work on long passwords, if you have a long password then you can't have an LM hash. This of course is one reason somehow who tried to obtain both hashes would only get one...
The NT Hash is MD4(password). If the password is "qwerty" or "manning" that's not difficult to find, and Rainbow Tables that will be fairly reliable for simple passwords with NT Hash are readily available and would have been years ago too.
But if the password is sixteen random characters then MD4(password) might as well be Argon2id(password) for all the good that'll do you. It's just too many combinations.
So, for all we may ever know that 128-bit value is in fact a legitimate NT Hash of a good password.
It's actually pretty aggravating reading trial documents when nobody present knows what they're talking about, it might as well be a Star Trek script, this is why it's so nice when the trial judge or at least some of the lawyers know what they're talking about (e.g. the Horizon scandal in the UK) but we can't have nice things most of the time.
Here's what the transcript says Manning provided:
80c11049faebf441d524fb3c4cd5351c
That's 16 bytes = 128 bits = one Windows password hash.
So straight away it's completely reasonable that this is in fact a Windows password hash, and in the absence of evidence of how Manning obtained that value it's only speculation that this is actually encrypted somehow (e.g. because it is from an encrypted offline SAM). And yet Assange's defence apparently has hours of such speculation on tap, for whatever they suppose that's worth.
What Assange talks about doing is using Rainbow tables. This would be applicable regardless of which type of Windows hash it is (or Assange thought it was) but crucially if the password is strong then you only get a result if this 128-bit value is an LM Hash. The risible LM Hash turns the first seven characters into one 64-bit value using DES, the next seven into another 64-bit value (DES again). It doesn't work on long passwords, if you have a long password then you can't have an LM hash. This of course is one reason somehow who tried to obtain both hashes would only get one...
The NT Hash is MD4(password). If the password is "qwerty" or "manning" that's not difficult to find, and Rainbow Tables that will be fairly reliable for simple passwords with NT Hash are readily available and would have been years ago too.
But if the password is sixteen random characters then MD4(password) might as well be Argon2id(password) for all the good that'll do you. It's just too many combinations.
So, for all we may ever know that 128-bit value is in fact a legitimate NT Hash of a good password.
Reading over these comments, I feel there are two common takes on the matter. And it’s shows why discussing certain topics is just painful.
one side seems to be just pointing out and clarifying the laws and evidence, the side seems to refuse to accept what seems to be a straightforward explanation.
You might disagree with the laws, you might think they are unfair, or think they are applied unequally or selectively, and that is fine. All those things are unarguably true in general.
But by the definition of conspiracy, I don’t get why so many commenters are trying to argue that what assange did does not fit that description.
If your objections were any of the reasons I mentioned earlier, that would make total sense. But rejecting that what he did technically can be described as conspiracy per the definition under United States law? It just makes you look unreasonable.
Is the USA out for assange? Yes, they’ll throw anything they can find at him. And it looks like they found something. Whether that is a good state of affairs is not relevant for the discussion at hand.
they’ve got him with this charge. Denying it won’t help him. Denial of a fact helps no one. Realize you lost the battle and move on so you can win the war or whatever analogy along those lines you want to use.
one side seems to be just pointing out and clarifying the laws and evidence, the side seems to refuse to accept what seems to be a straightforward explanation.
You might disagree with the laws, you might think they are unfair, or think they are applied unequally or selectively, and that is fine. All those things are unarguably true in general.
But by the definition of conspiracy, I don’t get why so many commenters are trying to argue that what assange did does not fit that description.
If your objections were any of the reasons I mentioned earlier, that would make total sense. But rejecting that what he did technically can be described as conspiracy per the definition under United States law? It just makes you look unreasonable.
Is the USA out for assange? Yes, they’ll throw anything they can find at him. And it looks like they found something. Whether that is a good state of affairs is not relevant for the discussion at hand.
they’ve got him with this charge. Denying it won’t help him. Denial of a fact helps no one. Realize you lost the battle and move on so you can win the war or whatever analogy along those lines you want to use.
There appears to be no proof that it was in fact assange who was communicating with manning.
Wiki leaks affiliated? Almost certainly.
Assange? No actual evidence. (that I am aware of)
IMHO this is the salient weakness in the case for extradition. The fact that the same exact argument could be used against any wiki leaks affiliated individual at that time makes it a witch hunt instead of a legitimate legal proceeding.
Wiki leaks affiliated? Almost certainly.
Assange? No actual evidence. (that I am aware of)
IMHO this is the salient weakness in the case for extradition. The fact that the same exact argument could be used against any wiki leaks affiliated individual at that time makes it a witch hunt instead of a legitimate legal proceeding.
A journalist receiving information from a source is not conspiracy, evne if that information is obtained illegally. That’s the core og he case, if you disagree then all the other journalistic entities involver should be on trial before we even start talking about a potential extradition for Assange.
This whole endeavor is a clear and blatant attack on freedom of information. It should be clear to everyone across the globe by now. The American government does not care if it commits war crimes, however it will go to extremes to punish any journalists or whistleblowers who expose these war crimes.
This whole endeavor is a clear and blatant attack on freedom of information. It should be clear to everyone across the globe by now. The American government does not care if it commits war crimes, however it will go to extremes to punish any journalists or whistleblowers who expose these war crimes.
>But by the definition of conspiracy, I don’t get why so many commenters are trying to argue that what assange did does not fit that description.
Classifying this as "conspiracy" violates the first amendment. What he did should be expected behavior of the press, I won't just abandon this encroachment and move on.
Classifying this as "conspiracy" violates the first amendment. What he did should be expected behavior of the press, I won't just abandon this encroachment and move on.
This is so broken, and add extraditions to a long list of habeas corpus negating tools governments in the West now amass.