US Looking To Use Computer Hacking Law Against Assange

from the stretchety-stretch-stretch dept

Thu, Dec 16th 2010 9:10am — Mike Masnick

It appears that the US government is realizing the fact that an espionage charge against Julian Assange over Wikileaks is unlikely to succeed and would probably freak out the press (at least those in the press who remember the details of the First Amendment). So, instead, it's moved on to trying to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), commonly known as our anti-hacking law.

Of course, as we noted a few months ago, this law has been twisted and abused regularly to bring charges against people by pretending it covers things it doesn't. The most famous, of course, was the Lori Drew case, where prosecutors tried to charge Lori Drew with computer hacking, because she was part of a trio of people who used MySpace to bully a young girl, who later committed suicide. How was that "hacking"? Well, the prosecutors claimed that she didn't obey MySpace's terms of service, and thus "illegally accessed" MySpace. Luckily, the judge eventually tossed that out.

So what about Julian Assange? How could he have possibly violated a US anti-hacking while not being in the US at all? Well, the feds are apparently scanning through the chat logs between Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo to see if there's any evidence at all that Assange could be charged with conspiracy under the CFAA in somehow aiding Manning in leaking the secrets. You can read the CFAA here if you want to see the full act. The argument, then, is that if they can drum up enough proof that Assange somehow aided Manning, it becomes a conspiracy and Assange can be charged under that act as well. So far, about the best they've apparently come up with is that Manning hinted that he had a "relationship" with Assange -- but the details in the chat logs suggest they talked a few times and that's about the extent of the "relationship." Separately, Assange gave Manning (and potentially other sources) a more direct FTP account to upload materials. Once again, this seems like grasping at straws, and seems so trumped up that it will continue to do more to hurt America's reputation than anything leaked by Wikileaks.

The problem is that it seems pretty clear that any association between Assange and Manning was a loose one. Suggesting that working with a source, and offering them an easy way to give you information is a conspiracy to commit computer hacking would create a massive chilling effect on anyone in the press who regularly reports on secret information. Bob Woodward, Seymour Hersh and a variety of other famous investigative reporters have clearly been much more closely connected to their sources, but it would be ridiculous to charge them with "conspiracy." It's really sad that our government is wasting tax dollars trying to find trumped up charges for Assange.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bradley manning, hacking, julian assange, us government, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Seibzehn (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:29am

Come on!
Wow, they're going to do anything to nail this guy. Such a waste of time, money, and effort...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greevar (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:40am

Censorship in its true form.
Let this be a lesson boys and girls, don't violate the norms of the dominant group or you will be labeled a deviant and pursued by the authorities to maintain the status quo. There should be no such thing as government secrets. Those that seek to hide the truth are not working in anyone's best interest but their own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:45am

Too broad
You know the laws are too broad if it takes a weeks-long "investigation" to determine if they've been broken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:46am

Re: Censorship in its true form.
I think it is time for someone to post again that old Richelieu quote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:47am

Re: Too broad
Not necessarily. It can also mean that their borders are too fuzzy and it did happen to hit right near that fuzzy zone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:53am

I think it's likely they'll go to Manning, who's probably quite desperate by now, and offer him a better deal if he 'remembers' Assange assisting in ways that makes him chargeable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MRK, 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:58am

Course if the US Govt. goes through with this, China will start demanding we hand over American citizens who break Chinese internet laws...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:01am

Re: Come on!
Such a waste of time, money, and effort...

Sounds like a true government program. :[
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James C, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:06am

Hahahahahahahaha sometimes I laugh at hoe stupid our government is. Assange didn't do shit. You can't sue Youtube for hosting copyrighted videos so what makes them think that some guy who didn't actually leak anything AND IS NOT EVEN IN OUR COUNTRY is any way obligated to follow US laws. You can't tell China that they now have to follow our laws. God bless America....hahahahhahahahahahaha! I laugh at you Uncle Sam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I-blz, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:11am

Pooooooork...
Pork pork pork pork pork.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:14am

Re: Re: Too broad
Not necessarily. It can also mean that their borders are too fuzzy and it did happen to hit right near that fuzzy zone.

So, what do you think is fuzzy about the anti-hacking law that would allow its application in the charge of Assange?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:17am

We hear they're torturing Manning, and now we hear they're looking at him for evidence to use against Assange.

They'll force him to confess something, anything at all, that by some incredible stretch of the law can be used to extradite Assange from Sweden. The moment he's on US soil, he's as good as dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:19am

House Judiciary Hearing on Wikileaks
Today the United States House of Representatives held its Hearing on the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks. Prepared witness testimony and webcast is available at the House website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:20am

Re:
I believe that's the most valid reason that not even Sweden will extradite him though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tor (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:24am

Slightly off-topic, but there was an interesting article (machine-translated from Swedish) published some days ago that I didn't notice until now.

Apparently, if the UK extradicts Assange to Sweden then any question about an extradiction to the U.S would be up to the UK to decide about up. That would apply until some weeks after the sexual crime allegations have been cleared up. Maybe Assange would even be safer from the US in Sweden, since he might then have two layers of protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:24am

Re: House Judiciary Hearing on Wikileaks
CSPAN video of today's House Judiciary Commitee Hearing on Wikileaks.
(Hopefully this link will persist. Now that the hearing has ended, CSPAN seems to be in the process of moving their urls around.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:25am

Right! What was hacked? If you send me something is that hacking? They are trying everything to suppress freedom of speech. It must drive the US gov crazy that China can get away with it and they can't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tor (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:31am

Re:
If he is extradited from the UK to Sweden then the UK would have a final say on whether any extradiction request to the US should be granted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:39am

Re: Re:
Interesting. Any more info on how that works?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: Re:
Nvm, just spotted your other comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:44am

Re: Re: Re: Too broad
I was not talking about his situation, I was just responding to your statement that "you know the laws are too broad if it takes a weeks-long "investigation" to determine if they've been broken.", pointing out there is another situation where it could "take a weeks-long "investigation" to determine if they've been broken". And the law does not have to be fuzzy, only its border (and every law will have "corner cases" where it is hard to know whether it has been broken or not).

I believe the situation in this case is more like it is taking a weeks-long investigation to find a law with a fuzzy enough border near enough what he's done and say he broke it (no need for an investigation on whether he broke it when you already have a predetermined answer).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:45am

Re:
> That would apply until some weeks after the sexual crime allegations have been cleared up.

Given how weak they are said to be, would it take long for them to be cleared up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:49am

Re:
Hm.. I wonder how this ties in with Gary McKinnon's extradition, and if Assange planned to be in the situation he's in right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:52am

What was hacked?

I'm pretty sure it was the MCP, which will bring Disney down on his ass hard.

Without a doubt, however, following the politics flailing around this story is a direct hack on reason. I want justice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tor (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:09am

Re: Re:
I guess that depends on whether the prosecutor would charge him or not after the questioning, so it's difficult to know. With the whole world following the matter I guess the prosecutor would try to make a decision quite speedily though.

Btw. it has also been said that Sweden appealed against the bail decision but the prosecutor claims that this is not true. I'm not sure what's true in this case. However I know that some other widespread claims that Assange is charged "sex by surprise" is false. There is no such charge in Sweden.

Assuming that Assange's lawyer has not been misunderstood by the media I must say I found some of his statements a bit odd. And the fact that Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US if he was first extradited to Sweden for another reason that is as far as I understand governed by European rules, so shouldn't a lawyer be aware of that?

I do understand that Assange may feel let down by Swedish authorities that unlawfully leaked personal information to the press and in many other ways seem to act quite unpredictably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: Re:
> Btw. it has also been said that Sweden appealed against the bail decision but the prosecutor claims that this is not true.

I read today that it was the UK prosecutors which appealed, not the Sweden ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Kulawiec, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Too broad
So, what do you think is fuzzy about the anti-hacking law that would allow its application in the charge of Assange?
Not sure. But I think a partial answer to your question may be found here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/17/anti_spam_activist_lawsuit/
In that case, Ritz used the same basic tools that all competent system and network administrators use every day, and he used them to access to public information being published by the spammers in question. This is in no possible way, shape or form, "hacking"...yet the court, in its profound ignorance, held otherwise.
So all that's required, really, is to find a technically illiterate court (not a difficult task) and to convince that court that some routine activity like formatting a disk drive or looking at an HTTP server identification string or somesuch is "hacking". Voila!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rabbit80, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been home watching the news most of the day. It seems that there is some uncertainty as to who gave the orders to appeal the bail. There is speculation that a third party may be involved.

I suspect that the whole process is being deliberately lengthened in order to give the US time to fabricate charges whilst Assange is in custody - Sweden could easily have questioned him by now!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that Assange was hiding out in the UK and was purposely avoiding returning to Sweden suggests that he has no interest in answering their questions, any more than he wants to answer question on CNN.

Watch out for this guy, he is a slippery little git who probably has a whole collection of skeletons in his closet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Kulawiec, 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that Assange was hiding out in the UK and was purposely avoiding returning to Sweden [...]

The facts do not support this assertion.

1. Someone who is "hiding out" does not have his attorney contact the police and inform them where he's staying -- so that they don't have to look for him.

2. Have you forgotten that Assange remained in Sweden (initially) for a considerable period of time in order to make himself available to answer questions, and only left the country after he requested and received approval from Swedish authorities?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greevar (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Censorship in its true form.
�Secrecy is the first essential in affairs of state�

That quotation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:21pm

Re: Come on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: Come on!
The russians will take care of assange soon enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:34pm

i find it slightly amazing that they can review the chat logs. how does that work? did someone store them on their computer? or did the ISP store them? or the service provider? who stored the chat logs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Censorship in its true form.
"I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you darn kids^H^H^H^Hmusketeers (and your dog too)"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:35pm

Re: Come on!
He must be good in bed, if they're trying so hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:00pm

We are all waiting for the "ham sandwich" indictment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Assange was in the UK, rather than in Sweden. He could have easily boarded an aircraft and gone to Sweden. He did not. Instead, he stayed at an "unnamed location" in the UK, and only turned himself in where there were not other options left.

2. As soon as the Swedish authorities finished round 1, Mr Assange found the airport and left as quickly as possible. Oddly, he wasn't able to return to Sweden with the same haste that he left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tor (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 12:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Considering that Assange was hiding out in the UK and was purposely avoiding returning to Sweden suggests that he has no interest in answering their questions"

Not at all. He wanted to answer the questions. He apparently just didn't want to travel to Sweden for some reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 4:04am

Re: Re: Re: Censorship in its true form.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
only turned himself in where there were not other options left.

Except for, you know, not turning himself in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]