US Looking To Use Computer Hacking Law Against Assange
from the stretchety-stretch-stretch dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Come on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on!
Sounds like a true government program. :[
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship in its true form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship in its true form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship in its true form.
That quotation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Censorship in its true form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship in its true form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too broad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too broad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too broad
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too broad
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pooooooork...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re: House Judiciary 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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
Given how weak they are said to be, would it take long for them to be cleared up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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'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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I read today that it was the UK prosecutors which appealed, not the Sweden ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for, you know, not turning himself in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]