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."
Attempting hacking the nsa or us gov is still a crime.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The story I always heard was that Assange came into contact with the material way through the means of an anonymous collection process, which forms the basis of how Wikileaks is supposed to work? Or is that all BS too? All the "hacking" was done on Manning's side, which isn't hacking because his job was analyst for the military and working with cables was his job, didn't he just used his own access to steal the information in the first place?
Or have I got it all wrong here?
I say this as a general supporter of Wikileaks:
If the US actually has correspondence between Assange and Manning, where Assange offers to crack a password (successful or not), then it would completely destroy Wikileak's pure journalism claims and Assange is guilty of attempted espionage.
The question at hand is whether they actually have that hard evidence or if they just finally broke Manning, who was tortured for years in a solitary + lack of sleep environment, and got her to say that Assange offered to assist.
No his name is Chelsea, he legally changed it. We let people do that. We always have. Lots people have lots of reasons for wanting a different name than they were given.
I agree you can't make a woman out of man by cutting things off and pumping him full of hormones. You just get a mutilated man. I would also agree that in the vast vast vast majority of cases when no physical abnormality is present, its probably more a political decision to treat gender dysphoria thru conformation than anything based on science. Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves. So conformation surgeries are expensive, dangerous, unproductive treatments. That said he is an adult he should be allowed to make decisions about his own medical care. Its the people doing this crap to kids that I think ought you should focus your outrage at.
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him. But his name is his name. If he wants to be called Chelsea the respectful thing is to run with.
If someone demands you use pronouns that you do not believe are appropriate for them, I suggest you respond with: I will address you by your legal name then.
and do so. This is a reasonable compromise that respects everyone's rights.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'm not sure why we (rest of the world) allow US to control peoples behavior in other countries. Did anyone vote to allow this? Let's build a wall around US.
But his name is his name.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
And if we are talking about being respectful, is it right to be discussing her body in this manner? What right do you have to inspect her body or check her medical history so that you can make up your mind on which pronouns to use?
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender. Chances are you have met trans people without realizing it, and assumed a cis woman with unusual physical proportions was trans when she wasn't. You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
Let me say up front that I just go ahead and use people's chosen pronouns so long as they are male, female, or neither, because it costs me nothing. (I don't use the made-up ones, like sie or hir, though, because I'd actually have to think about that, and then it makes me think about the whole ridiculous situation. I use its.) But it's perfectly logical not to see someone who has had gender conversion surgery as actually being that other gender. They aren't, necessarily. They've just had their bits swapped. The only [hypothetical] time in which I'm inclined on a scientific basis to call someone by the pronouns of the gender they've swapped to is when their sex was indeterminate at birth, they were assigned a gender, and they actually turned out to have more of the characteristics of the other gender.
The whole argument is just sad anyway. Not stupid, but sad. It's sad because who gives a flying fuck? If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is? Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups. The language assumes that we will always know the gender of the addressed object, which is plainly false, and also gender-biased.
The only times it matters what someone's gender is: when police are trying to ID someone, when you're trying to fuck someone, or when someone is trying to qualify for gender-specific sports. In the first case, there are only four legitimate genders: male, female, both, and none. In the second case, it doesn't matter what they have as long as you like it, and if you're having sex for procreative purposes, if your parts + their parts = baby. In the latter sense, it's up to the regulators. Gender-specific sports leagues should write a gender definition. And they should have the right to apply their definition so long as they're not getting any public funding. What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender.
Yes, that's why we need non-plural, non-gendered forms of address. So we can stop referring to people by their apparent gender. It would solve a number of conversational problems which existed before gender reassignment surgery.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves.
Maybe because people such as yourself refuse to accept or refer to them as their new and preferred gender? The external stimuli hasn't really changed, so why would you assume the emotional response to that stimuli would? If people started treating trans people as their preferred gender, I bet you those "statics" (sic) would show something much different. It doesn't affect you at all, so if someone who may have been born male prefers to be referred to by female pronouns and expresses/presents themselves as a female, just do it. The world is crappy enough for everyone already, no need to make it even worse for someone.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This is less being up against "prosecutors" and more "the federal government".
The Law is designed to be weaponized as necessary, superfluously equipped then your "three felonies a day" are selectively enforced, since yours were surely victimless, trivial ones. Yet technically illegal.
If you're up against another commoner, there's no monolith to fear. If you're up against an eight-figure legal team, expect them to surgically box your precious jury. If you're up against a determined actor who owns the very board game you're playing, expect Calvinball.
>face "justice"
Took you long enough. I don't care where Assange ends up, but even if he murderraped puppy orphans I wouldn't be announcing my loyalty to our cancerous justice trainwreck. Fortunately, being too uninfluential to do anything about it means I can probably live my days without being directly burned by it.
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him.
You've tried very hard to sound reasonable, but you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable: Call them whatever they want to be called and be done with it. You don't have to agree with their claimed gender perceptions, but why do you even care? Call them what they want to be called, and expect them to reciprocate by calling you what you want to be called.
I will grant that I have a hard time with people who consider themselves non-binary and therefore want to be called by the "they/their" pronouns. Not because I actually care, but because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part. But "she/hers" requires no more effort on my part than "he/his", so why in the world would I make a fuss about it?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Speculation: you're a huge fan of Bari Weiss. You know, the NYT reporter who called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' without being able to define or even spell the word.
Because the Swedes handing people over to the Americans to be tortured? Yeah, that actually happened. Sweden going to great lengths to get someone extradited to Sweden where they are promptly interrogated (for weeks in solitary confinement with no outside contact or even a lawyer) for an alleged crime in another country. Another country they were deported to, which mean that was the plan the entire time - that also happened. The UK police spending millions of pounds on a mere bail jumping case while pressuring Sweden not to drop charges against Assange - yes, that also happened.
Finally, Assange has long offered to return to Sweden voluntarily if the country promised they wouldn't hand Assange over to the United States. A promise that could easily be made, given the fact that Sweden is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids extraditing prisoners to regimes that practice torture. Regimes like the United States.
So, in summary, Assange was just proven to be right all this time, and his haters should eat shit for throwing journalists under the bus to support criminal leaders and politicians.
What's the point of having a women's sports league if someone who was born a man can transition and then demand inclusion? The whole point was to feature (and serve) women, not men-who-chose-to-become-women. Forcing women's sporting leagues to permit trans women is like forcing a women's gym to permit men. It defeats the whole purpose.
The majority of your post is insightful, educated, sensitive, and accurate. This part - I've recently learned - isn't accurate though you're trying to be fair.
Disclosure: my source is last week's Jim Jefferies Show. Though the show is comedic in nature and leans towards Trump-bashing, Jim does tend to present interesting and informed arguments. And this is a case where I absolutely was wrong until educated. The argument was presented in an informative manner, convincing enough to change my mind.
Turns out that gender reassignment (surgery and hormone therapy) does a number on a body. As in, born-male athletes who go through gender reassignment end up physically able to perform in the general range of born-female athletes. As in, they lose their "male edge". Similarly, born-female athletes who go through gender reassignment tend to end up in the general range of born-male athletes. Obviously individual bodies vary, just as they do in birth-gendered competitors, but the interesting - and absolutely not obvious - thing is that the consequences of gender reassignment are so vast that the overall athletic performance capacity usually changes to the post-reassignment gender.
Point is that after reassignment treatment is completed, an athlete should be competing with their post-treatment gender.
"Oh no... he found the
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.