Slashdot Mirror
US Government Admits It Doesn't Know If Assange Cracked Password For Manning (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The U.S. government does not have any evidence that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange succeeded in cracking a password for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, according to a newly unsealed affidavit written by an FBI agent. Last week, Assange was escorted out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and arrested for breaching bail in connection to allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. The day of Assange's arrest, the U.S. government unsealed an indictment against Assange with a hacking conspiracy charge. The Department of Justice accused WikiLeaks' founder of agreeing to help Manning crack a password that would have helped the former military analyst get into a classified computer system under a username that did not belong to her, making it harder for investigators to trace the eventual leak.
On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia unsealed the affidavit, which is dated December 21, 2017. The document contains more details on the interactions between Assange and Manning. And, most significantly, contains the admission that the U.S. government -- as of December of 2017 -- had no idea whether Assange actually cracked the password. Until now, we knew that the U.S. was aware that Assange attempted to crack a password for Manning once, but didn't know if it had more evidence of further attempts or whether it thought Assange was successful. "Investigators have not recovered a response by Manning to Assange's question, and there is no other evidence as to what Assange did, if anything, with respect to the password," FBI agent Megan Brown said in the affidavit. According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley, a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia unsealed the affidavit, which is dated December 21, 2017. The document contains more details on the interactions between Assange and Manning. And, most significantly, contains the admission that the U.S. government -- as of December of 2017 -- had no idea whether Assange actually cracked the password. Until now, we knew that the U.S. was aware that Assange attempted to crack a password for Manning once, but didn't know if it had more evidence of further attempts or whether it thought Assange was successful. "Investigators have not recovered a response by Manning to Assange's question, and there is no other evidence as to what Assange did, if anything, with respect to the password," FBI agent Megan Brown said in the affidavit. According to lawyers, the simple offer to help can be considered part of a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley, a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
Even if you think so the name is still Chelsea Manning.
That was my understanding.
I am no fan of Assange, but Manning is the real criminal/hero (depending on your point of view) for the leaks. Assange, is just a glorified blogger who is just full of himself.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
That has no effect on the legality of the name change.
You think the federal government doesn't have cases fall apart on them all the time? Hint: they do. Do you believe that juries ALWAYS side with the prosecutors in cases? Juries can and do disagree on cases...
Despite what you may think the US government isn't a monolith of people that completely agree with the exact same thing.
Even with all of that said, Assange would be facing how much time exactly in a prison in the US? The real irony would be that Assange put himself in a prison of his own design and then only to find out, absolutely nothing happens to him. Seven years of your life wasted for not wanting to face justice.
This is not just some normal case where quasi-working machinery of State is going through the motions.
The Dumbocrats think Assange is responsible for Hillary losing the election, and Republitards are butthurt that Assange made them look weak; there are a lot of Unamericans out for blood.
Because people are assigned names, not born with them. Yes, there are definitely intersex individuals but barring those people everyone else is assigned a gender based upon sex.
Human history is full of societies who have recognized additional genders outside of a simple male/female dichotomy. Some such as eunuchs were created (usually at a young age), other from birth.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
But now they're saying they don't have evidence of a crime.
Try reading TFS:
"For purposes of a conspiracy charge, it is not necessary for the action to be successful. All that is needed is an overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely Assange's efforts to crack the password for Manning," Bradley [Moss], a lawyer at the Mark Zaid P.C law firm in Washington, DC, told Motherboard via email. "That he failed is irrelevant."
They're saying they have evidence (to the point of proof) that he attempted to crack the password. They don't have any evidence that he succeeded, but they don't need it for this charge.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I don;t know Assange. Never met him, had a beer, been on a hike with him, had dinner. Glad to know you have and can form a valid opinion of him.