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?
Even if you think so the name is still Chelsea Manning.
The burden of protection from unwanted, non-violent interaction should be on the Government, not The People.
The NSA's protections should be so good, that they don't mind if people try to tinker with their stuff, and should instead invite it, so as to help them find their weaknesses. If the NSA exposes its infrastructure to the rest of the world, that's the fault of the NSA.
What's next? You can't take video of a federal building?
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
That has no effect on the legality of the name change.
You think they're going to have trouble making charges stick? You're crazy.
Government, especially the justice system, is not as logical as you think. It's complicated on purpose: Any outcome is justifiable to enough people.
Speculation: He were probably more worried about being convicted of rape. His narcissistic tendencies combined with PR makes being a "martyr" for many years better than spending a year or so in prison if convicted, add the ridiculous crap about Swedish collaboration with USA plus torture plus death penalty etc. which are obvious bullshit feeding his ego.
Now while these things are true and he offered to help crack a code that would perhaps be worthy of a conspiracy charge however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction. Let's see if UK courts are reasonable.
At the time of the incident, the suspect's name was Bradley. Not sure what the legal procedure is when a suspect changes their name in the middle of a case, but I can see how it would be confusing if half of the documents had one and and half the other.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
It's not clear to me if Assangs actually attempted to crack the password of simply said he would in a chat.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
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
Bro, you can have a lethal injection of lead.
Captcha: flowed
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.
Jesus its 'for all in tents and purple sits' don't any of you know english?
They only need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Assange tried.
If and when he faces it he's screwed on this charge -- a jury is going to pay attention to all the other flaws in his character and if he opts for a bench trial a judge is going to have a government bias.
This could turn into a long world tour. Assuming this is all the US will pursue (big IF), we're looking at 3 years fighting the extradition, 5 years being tried (time served) and serving a sentence for this in the US, another 3 years fighting extradition to Sweeden, lets be nice and give another 5 years there and finally a deportation to Australia.
2035.
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.
Maybe its 'the suspect formerly known as' like prince...
Had I not commented I would mod you up. The most well put manner I have seen this discussed in. And respectful. Thank you.
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
At the time of the incident, the suspect's name was Bradley. Not sure what the legal procedure is when a suspect changes their name in the middle of a case, but I can see how it would be confusing if half of the documents had one and and half the other.
In such cases, you often find "AKA" listed in the header (or at least near the top) of subsequent documents, and all previous names, aliases, and (popular-enough) nicknames listed after that.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
For the same reason that the rest of the world controls people's behaviour in the USA. Extradition treaties are not one sided and the typical condition for extradition to be successful is that the alleged crime is a crime in both the country where it took place and the extraditing country.
So no, the US isn't controlling shit.
So, apparently, Manning should have changed name to "Bradley Manning (not guilty of all charges)". Then the reporters would always write it that way, since that's the rule.
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.'"
Attempted hacking is totally hacking yo, but attempted conspiracy to commit treason against the USA and obstruction of justice are petty crimes not worthy of the government's time.
Just ask Trump, Don Jr and Jared!
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
however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction.
Where was the US Gov't server they attempted to hack?
In a very publicized case the US Govt is charging a couple dozen Russians (sorry, RUSSIANS! ) that never set foot on US soil with charges surrounding attempts to influence The US election in 2016, so I think someone that specifically targeted a US govt server falls within the IS's jurisdiction.
Let's see if UK courts are reasonable.
Meaning if they agree with your layman's interpretation of jurisdiction and extradition they are "reasonable"? If that's the definition of reasonable then I'm hoping they are "unreasonable"!
Ken
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
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.
As long as he didn't aid/abet and just published what he was given passively then he's protected by longstanding case law around journalism.
If he crossed that line at any point then he's done for. This is one of the reasons you go to school for Journalism. A big part of your education is law. You have to know exactly what you can and can't publish.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Now while these things are true and he offered to help crack a code that would perhaps be worthy of a conspiracy charge however he wasn't on US soil at the time and so for the civilized world the USA can't have jurisdiction
That's not how jurisdiction works. Your physical location at the time of the crime does not matter. The physical location of the crime itself does.
On the same basis that would mean its fine for China to extradite US journalists for conspiracy as well.
Legally, there's nothing stopping China from making that extradition request. There's also nothing requiring the US to comply with that extradition request.
There are reasons for extradition hearings, and one is to give one country an option to say "No".
its probably more a political decision to treat gender dysphoria thru conformation than anything based on science.
And there's where you're wrong.
fMRI studies have demonstrated differences between "male" and "female" brains. Transgendered people in these studies were between the two.
Most of the statics show these people are not 'happier' after and just as likely to harm themselves
And in reality, the suicide rate plummets after treatment. Full SRS is generally not required and not always advisable anyway, since it's pretty risky (and utterly ineffective in transgender men).
I would purposely have hacked email servers, especially for the state dept. I'd use obscure things for serious work but a lot of the stuff you know the big government spy agencies know already would be just fine on there. Just so long as they do not know you know they are listening. Nobody ever seems to even remotely suggest that it may have been intentional (it's just normal email after all, WTF? who'd trust normal email??!) and naturally a fuss has to be made about your ignorance while dirty politicians will milk the situation knowing you can not admit your true motives/policies.
Who really thinks that nobody has briefed officials about how bad email is? for decades now?
On some level they know better. nobody in their right mind is moving nuclear launch codes around with secured email servers.
I remember when the state dept's email server was hacked as well... like that is so safe.... Oh and remember other officials used private email servers too and likely still do. That dull movie "dick" did remind people that the bush people were using private email servers on purpose only touching on it; but it was far worse back then and they also knew better. It also was quite useful in hiding actual crimes back then as well.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Obama let Chelsea Manning off so he/she has nothing to lose or gain to help any one.
With trump it may of been death by firing squad
Actually she does. Since she would be a witness and not a defendent shew can be compelled to testify concerning events, although she could plead the fifth in regards to specific criminal activities she may have engaged in. Since she was not pardoned she may be able to invoke the fifth more readily; since a pardon would have prevented further prosecution for wjhat she did, depending on its scope.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Why was that a crime?
From the summary:
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."
It also doesn't matter the contents of what was accessed.
This is the part where you say that Trump wasn't offering to help. No, but he was soliciting the activity. And when the fruits of that activity were offered to Trump Jr. he accepted it.
Nope, no sig
It's 'hey zeus' not 'Jesus'... Don't any of you know Spanish?
They've just had their bits swapped.
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life. Imagine if you, as a man, decided to dress in women's clothing, shave your legs, put on make-up, get a feminine hair-cut, speak with a feminine voice, and ask that people use female pronouns, for the rest of your life. Imagine you were quite successful and people treated you just like any other woman. How much difference would it make in most of your daily interactions if you hadn't also had the surgeries?
Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people?
You refuse you to use new pronouns like ze and hir, but ask why we don't have a genderless way to refer to people. Unfortunately we are where we are, gender does matter to most people, English isn't going to change overnight.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting article about this, where he suggests "person", "per" and "pers". Not sure any of it will catch on, but he is also very clear that if someone asks him to use particular pronouns he will, regardless of what they are.
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.
None of those examples work I'm afraid. The police don't really care what gender someone is, only what they look like and what their fingerprints and DNA are.
When it comes to procreation it's far more complex than just gender, and many normative male/female couples struggle.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter, in others gender is really just a bad way of creating divisions, little different to different weight categories in sports like boxing. In the best sports such things are unnecessary, e.g. there is no weight division in Grand Sumo and 100kg guys can and do beat 200kg guys at the very top level. Maybe it's time to re-think these things.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm having a hard time thinking of cases when "legal gender" comes up for non-government employees, and using pronouns to talk about someone in their presence is also strange. Someone complaining about these issues is looking to be offended, not a victim, like a drill instructor screaming at recruit who forgot to call him "Sir"...oh wait, I think "Sir" can be offensive to non-commissioned officers? Luckily as a civilian I don't have to care since I am no sergeant's or tranny's bitch.
If I break into your bank's computers from the USA and steal all your money, you'd probably like your government to actually charge me with a crime. 'Cause If the bank doesn't have a US branch, the US doesn't have jurisdiction to charge me.
Surgery is just one relatively small part of the transition process. It's mostly about living as your gender in day-to-day life.
That doesn't require surgery.
You refuse you to use new pronouns like ze and hir, but ask why we don't have a genderless way to refer to people.
Because they are stupid. Hir should only refer to people who are both genders, not people of indeterminate gender, because the word itself implies both male and female. Ze sounds like someone is doing a bad French accent. Sie has the same problem as Hir.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting article about this, where he suggests "person", "per" and "pers".
That at least makes some kind of sense. Maybe I'll try those out.
In some sports gender doesn't or shouldn't matter,
What? Name one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Trump asked for it to be done, and then it was done, it could be conspiracy to access a computer without authorization. If Trump heard that Russia had already done it and was thus not actually involved in the process, then it's not.
Doesn't matter if Clinton was utterly incompetent when it comes to IT security. The access was still unauthorized.
Trump jokingly asked the Russians to provide copies of the emails that they already had to U.S. officials.
Nope. Clinton only turned over emails that she felt were "work related". There were additional emails she did not turn over to the government.
The government gained those emails as part of the investigation into unauthorized access to the email server (since they had the server), but that was after Trump's comments.
He couldn't commission a crime that had already been committed. He was only asking that the emails, that had already been copied from the server, be released. Unless the Russian knew (no just guessed) in advance that Trump was going to ask them to release the emails (assuming they are the ones who had them), his after the fact request can't be commission of a crime.
All Trump was doing (like any good politican) is make the event (illicit server being hacked) more memorable so it would continue to hang over his opponent's head for the rest of the campaign. There is no crime in that. I wish that more people had long enough memories, then she wouldn't have even been a candidate.
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
fMRI studies have demonstrated differences between "male" and "female" brains.
Unfortunately most "transgenders" have females brains and can't understand this, and undercut their own claims of being born different by joining feminists in denouncing men for their "privilege" of having higher (or even lower) ability at something compared to women
The rest of the sentence was "I won't crack it since that's illegal" so the government deleted it and left it as is so the jury will assume the worst.
it is not necessary for the action to be successful
0000
0001
0002
0003
Have I got your luggage combo yet?
Have gnu, will travel.
How about snooker? Or chess? Or darts? Or eSports?
My wider point was that maybe we should ditch the gender categories, and come up with other ones to match athletes of similar skill/ability levels? That's the point isn't it, to create a competitive field?
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?
Legal name is an arbitrary thing that's assigned at birth, but can be changed through proper channels. Gender is not and is tied to the chromosomes. If I bleached my hair, could or would I call myself a natural blonde?
You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people...
So you agree w/ OP? You and Manning have no right to force your different, and seemingly arbitrary, definition of gender on anyone else?
That's the point. He didn't ask them to hack her. It was quite clear that he was referring to them already having her emails. What could they have hacked? Her server had already been wiped and out-of-commission when he made that comment.
because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part.
We suffer from the fact that the creators of English failed to create the proper super/subclass object types to contain a singular instance of either gender. But this is Slashdot, which is largely populated by software geeks. By now an effort should be underway to create a new language which properly handles this construct.
But odds are that language would give white space syntactic meaning. Which is sort of like my wife staring at me, expecting me to understand the message.
Have gnu, will travel.
since the proper security response is to accept the fact that all his credentials are public domain and act accordingly.
;)
Just my 2 cents
Assange was worried about being extradited to Sweden, because Sweden is apparently more willing to extradite to the US. Since the US is making its request to Britain, not Sweden, it might have gone with more innocuous charges than it would have otherwise.
There's little reason to believe that the US would limit themselves to only those charges once he was in US hands. I think there's a rule against this, but the US is often willing to flaunt those rules.
Attempting to crack it, even claiming to be attempting to crack it is actions in furtherance of the conspiracy.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
So it's fine for someone in another country to crack US computers, infect them with ransomware, SWAT Americans, blackmail them, or any number of awful things that can be done remotely?
Sounds like a fair deal to me, in light of past US internatinal involvement.
Ezekiel 23:20
The physical location of making the offer? That was inside the embassy, apparently.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Usually" is a ridiculous benchmark for top level sport. There's nothing in it related to "usual" performance.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm missing the basis of the funny mod, even after digging back into the thread. It may be because I'm confused whether you mean "not guilty of any crime" versus "not guilty of all of the crimes in the set of accusations". Which is it? Or some other meaning? Or is it irrelevant to the joke, whatever that is?
(However I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I didn't know the spaniards were vikings!
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.
Sure, just have someone cut off your testicles.
Human history is full of societies who have recognized additional genders outside of a simple male/female dichotomy.
That's a good one!
Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Whenever someone drags Hillary or REAL President Obama into a defense of Trump, you know (1) They are trying to change the subject because their own position is untenable, and (2) They are trapped in a paradox of attributing superpowers and supervillainy to someone who, if the attributions were correct, would have long since used those superpowers to dispose of the moronic puppet that is Trump
(I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Of the 13 comments currently moderated as insightful, I think yours [fourtythirteen's] is probably the highest concentration. I feel like your underlying analysis is probably similar to mine as of several days ago, and you led me to a new thought:
Why doesn't Assange use a Trumpish defense? Either "I was only joking when I suggested Manning commit a crime" or "I was just telling Manning what some other people say about how to hack passwords".
My real objective is to find comments offering a better analysis than my comment on a related poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap opinion (too weak to be regarded as a judgment), but so far...
In short summary form, I concluded that Assange is a bad journalist, stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments....
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If you're not having sex with someone, who gives a shit what their gender is?
For many people you have set the bar unreasonably high anyway. A mouth is a mouth, and an ass is an ass :)
Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Yes, but the only way to counter the big lie is to point it out every time it's repeated. It sucks, but it's a game of attrition and persistence.
Nope, no sig
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.
They, their, them work naturally for groups of people, but they are awkward for individuals. We don't seem to have an established genderless way to refer to *individuals* - or genderless singular pronouns.
JESUS CHRIST. Not he/she it is a HE. HE WAS BORN A DUDE. I can dress a pig as a cow doesnt change the fact it is a pig!
Funny how most folks who have an issue with the LBGTQ set try to bring god into the argument.
Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
I wish it were so easy, but I think the timing is against you (and me). The worst liars are just playing games with the timing. Of course the truth will ultimately come out, but they don't care as long as they cashed in their chips (or equities) before the lie collapsed. Another phrasing is "He who dies with the most toys wins", though I beg to differ.
I think a better approach involves discrediting the liars in advance. I don't want to go into all the details of MEPR (Mutlidimensional Earned Public Reputation) again (at least not just now or maybe if you're that interested), but the short summary is that "identities" that lie should be recognized as liars and ignored. (Using one easily understood dimension as an example.) There are too many liars exploiting the "good will" we politely accord to strangers, so I think strangers should be offset on the low side. That would make them relatively less visible until they earn positive reputation, whereas acting in negative ways (for example by lying) would render them less and less visible.
Another way to think of it is from the time perspective, as in mine (and yours) is limited. Therefore I want to use the time to see more posts from good people and fewer comments from people who don't deserve my time.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You spend a lot of time fantasising about fucking wilderbeest?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Then why is in jail dumbfkuc?
> At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries
Using the word "should" is a condescension. The GP does not know better than anyone else and it would be more honest for them to say "I think", because that's all it is. One person's opinion.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable
The neckbeard thrives on the cognitive dissonance of the host. If they attempt too much reason they'll be flooded with adrenaline and cortisol and they'll start lashing out randomly.
That is also why removal is so dangerous.
Nobody called them Vikings anymore after they converted to "hey zeus."
Don't you know any History of Western Civilization?
I just laid out eighteen ways till Sunday how Assange was right and his haters have no idea wtf they're talking about. With citations. Which means you're like those Russiagate dead enders who would still be insisting Trump was a Putin Puppet if Trump had ICMB's in the air on their way to Moscow.
For the sake of our species, please don't breed.
Yes, because foreign intelligence would have ignored Clinton's servers if not for Trump's encouragement. I guess it's a good thing the servers were already exposed and offline because Judicial Watch wanted to know why there was no emails for the secretary of state available for their FOIA requests. Unless the Russians have time travel?
But the suggestion that Russians take the top secret and SAP classified information they would find from the unsecured server, and provide that to the news media, is the real felony. After all, Comey proved Clinton did nothing wrong with her 'extreme carelessness', because who needs a SCIF when you have Platte River to watch over your exchange server?
But where I'm confused, is that Trump Jr. supposedly receives this information as a quid pro quo bribe in exchange for getting rid of the Magnitsky Act once Trump is elected. Yet for some reason Mueller announces 'no further indictments'. You'd think evidence of receiving stolen top secret information would be easy to find, especially considering the Trump Tower was under surveillance by the FBI at the time.
So was Mueller secretly working to protect Trump also?
Yes, but the only way to counter the big lie is to point it out every time it's repeated. It sucks, but it's a game of attrition and persistence.
Tell me about it.
Which science?
The science that recognises multiple chromosomal variants that exist in nature?
The science that recognises that brains differ by gender?
The science that recognises people can be born with one or more sets of genitalia?
Or the science that you've just made up, mislabelled 'science' and are trying to use to justify basic bigotry?
Eunuch isn't a gender. Similarly castrato isn't a gender.
Cutting someone's testicles off doesn't stop them being a man. Eunuchs are men with no balls.
Women can't compete on level terms with men in any of those sports. There is occasionally a single woman capable of entering top-tier tournaments, but when it comes to outliers Damore was right.
My wider point was that maybe we should ditch the gender categories, and come up with other ones to match athletes of similar skill/ability levels?
We already have those. Take football, you can play in the Premier League and Champions League, or you can play on a Sunday on a muddy bog by the pub.
Women's football excludes men so that women don't all end up playing on a muddy bog by the pub, because if they tried playing against men that's the level they'd find themselves.
There are very few men only sports. Most sports have 'women only' and 'everybody can play'.
That's the point isn't it, to create a competitive field?
Fuck no. The point is to let women actually win something.
Remove 'women only' sports and women will start bitching like hell that they keep losing to men and it's unfair and it's damaging girls to make them compete with men.
It is in fact a joyful topic to raise with feminists.
I'm not familiar with bowling or curling but snooker and frisbee both heavily favour men.
I'm not sure why snooker so much but good luck finding a woman competing in the World Championship when it starts at the weekend.
Someone complaining about these issues is looking to be offended, not a victim
Indeed, but why are they so offended that woman born in a man's body is now able to live as her rightful gender?
I don't understand their need to shout about this.
Hmm, no. Most transgender people get on with their lives.
Don't mistake the noisy transtrenders on the internet for genuine transgender people.
Sorry, that reference is lost on me. Something I should know about?
Technically it doesn't matter. They just need to demonstrate 'reasonable suspicion' to justify extradition.
I know the history back to 1987. But most of the olden shit is too weird for me, so I just pretend it doesn't exist. This way I can view life the way I want and All of the old people something something. fuck I lost it. I was on a roll and, well. I just can't think by today's standards enough to even come up with a joke.
Well, you're just being pedantic. Because really you should ALWAYS 'try' to be respectful. Sure, it doesn't always end up working that way. But you should at least give it a whole hearted effort. Part of the problems we have today stems around people not respecting others. And it disgusts me honestly. But to each their own.
Shotgun shells are not bullets. And their pellets are not bullets. But furthermore, many real bullets ARE still made mostly of lead. Most are in fact lead jacketed with copper. So BOTH of you are absolutely ignorant on this topic. Why either of you would choose to comment is the real question.
So I hope Assange likes eating British prison food because he could be there a very long time if he appeals. And most likely the hacking is just a placeholder and further charges will follow. The hilarious part to me is how self inflicted all this is. If Assange hadn't skipped bail, or run into an embassy to commit a bunch more crimes against the US, it's possible he might not have been extradited at all.
Mods: please read this in greater detail before writing it off as a troll. The subject line and some of the story I'm going to be about relay may sound a bit ridiculous, but it's dead serious. My screeds may be lengthy but I have a pretty good track recorded here (I'm not certain I've ever been modded troll, except for insufficient praise of Elon Musk.)
______________________
Hmm... well, I guess it's story time. If this all sounds overly detailed and prurient, well, I can't really make my point without it. This is a really important point I'm going to try to make with very far-reaching ramifications (including but not limited to the Linux kernel. I wish I were joking).
A few years back I spent the night with a female to male transsexual. Post-hormone, pre op. She had only been on testosterone for something like 6 months, but she could pass as a guy rather well. (She actually had a job that brought her in contact with state politicians and she joked about how she should start a relationship with one of them for blackmail purposes.)
I admittedly had been going through a drought for the past few months, but really more than anything else I was curious about my own desires and psychology on the matter. I've always been attracted to a pretty wide variety of women, but not men. I could never imagine myself with a pre-op male-to-female transsexual and probably not a post-op, either. (I wonder if I'm not the opposite from most guys in this regard, as the "chicks with dicks" genre seems way more popular.... there's weirdly large number of guys who like to go on and on about how female genitals aren't actually attractive to them.)
Anyway, female to male didn't seem like an instant turnoff for me. Well, depends on how "male" the male was. She still had her breasts and everything else, but I was conflicted. But curiousity won out. In the end, it turned out it was only the hair that bothered me. The voice and mannerisms didn't bother me at all; it just registered as a tomboy-ish female. Her clit was still a clit to me, even though it was slightly bigger than my thumb (I'm not joking, even by FTM standards she was big. I think she said that as a teenager she had some suspicions she was actually intersex to some degree.) She still struck me in every way as female except for the hair. She had shaved her beard for me, that was very sweet of her, but she didn't go for a full body wax. That part did feel a bit male. Why is maleness sexually repulsive to so many guys, I wondered. But then things moved along and she felt and and smelled and responded in a familiarly feminine way, and I relaxed.
So why am I saying "she" right now? Well, if she were here and she asked me to, I'd say "he", sure. That's no big deal. Just as a favor from one human being to another.
But if I do find myself telling this story again at some point in my life and I'm rattling off all the sordid little details. at no point will I be hearing myself say "his vagina" . Because I didn't have my fingers in his vagina. I had my fingers in her vagina. Am I a participant in this story at all? If someone asks me if I've ever had sex with a man... am I allowed to say no?
Some people do seem to want to tell me that she's the only one who has the right to perceive and define the femininity and masculinity of herself in that moment. Well, to the degree that these abstract or "constructed" concepts are real (and yes, of course I'd agree that there is an abstract and subjective part to gender beyond biological sex), I would say no one person owns them. These things don't flow in one direction. It's not something that is dictated; it is something that is felt, something that resonates. And while you can force yourself to overlook one thing or another (like I managed to overlook her body hair, which again in that moment was the only thing about her that struck me as male), you can't change your innate perception any more than you can wake up one day decide that you're going to see that the sky
Yes, because foreign intelligence would have ignored Clinton's servers if not for Trump's encouragement.
That's not required for it to be conspiracy.
But where I'm confused, is that Trump Jr. supposedly receives this information as a quid pro quo bribe in exchange for getting rid of the Magnitsky Act once Trump is elected.
Quid pro quo isn't the standard for conspiracy.
You'd think evidence of receiving stolen top secret information would be easy to find, especially considering the Trump Tower was under surveillance by the FBI at the time.
Conspiracy doesn't require that it was successful.
Nope, no sig
The physical location of the computer system he was offering to help breach.
If you send an email to someone at "saudimail" insulting Mohammed your crime has just occurred on Saudi controlled servers; Should you be shipped to Saudi Arabia for your punishment of breaking Sharia law?
Extradition isn't an automatic thing. Just because you broke Saudi law does not mean you must be sent to Saudi Arabia.
Assange was not in/on US soil when the crime occurred.
Doesn't matter. The computer system he offered to help breach was. (Assuming the government actually has the evidence to back this up)
Let's say I hack into your bank from another country and steal all your money. You'd probably like me to be charged with a crime. Under your theory of jurisdiction, I can't. My country has no standing to prosecute - the bank's computer wasn't in it, and my illegal access was gained in your country. You claim I can't be extradited because I wasn't on your country's soil.
What if you post a message online to a company that has servers located worldwide, are you saying because it's online the jurisdiction for the crime should be wherever the servers ("the crime") happens along the way?
That's generally how it works, but laws are applied by people, not mindless automatons.
It is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany. Are you saying if you deny it on social media and it hits a German server along the way, your crime is under Germany's jurisdiction even though you were not physically present in Germany?
"Along the way" probably isn't going to be sufficient for jurisdiction. If the server was hosted in Germany, you could be charged in Germany. Whether or not you would be extradited to Germany is a different matter. Because extradition isn't an automatic thing.
But I also don't agree that any country should be able to extradite people for "crimes" committed online without that person ever having even visited that country.
Great, I'll be along shortly to empty your bank account.
Your google broken?
Also, you didn't quite get around to asking the parent poster for his sources that treatment for gender dysphoria is ineffective.
Brains are complicated, yo.
There's no apparent different in higher-level functioning. Like preference for non-STEM fields. There are detectable differences in fMRI tests.
If a different area of someone's brain "lights up" when figuring out what 2+2 is, that doesn't mean they are better or worse at getting the answer.
"Lemme help you crack that password" is pretty clear-cut.
At this point, we haven't seen the evidence so we don't know exactly how clear-cut this specific case is. But the overall concept is not as murky as you portray.
Clinton had her server wiped with bleach bit
One server was. Turns out it didn't hold the only copy of the data.
Here, lemme help you read up on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Specifically:
An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.
How'd the FBI find those emails if the server was wiped? Golly, it's almost like
Datto, Inc., which provided data backup service for Clinton's email, agreed to give the FBI the hardware that stored the backups
Oh yeah...backups are a thing.
and then dropped the case against Trump despite finding 110 counts of criminal behavior
Storing a classified email in an unapproved server is actually not a crime in-and-of itself. You'd face "administrative punishment", which typically would mean suspension or removal of your security clearance.
To be a crime, you'd have to prove something like espionage, and there's no evidence that Clinton deliberately sent classified information to a foreign nation. Which takes espionage off the table.
If Clinton was part of the military, you could charge her since the UCMJ treats mishandling classified information as a crime. But Clinton was a civilian and civilian laws are remarkably lax given the subject matter.
OTOH, ordering the IRS to not follow the law and hide your tax returns from Congress is a crime.
Let me guess: speech that is broadcasted to the entire nation, if not the world, also falls within your broad definition of conspiracy that is so vague and generalized as to be nearly meaningless.
Something to consider, abject of any reason or rationality in applying such a legal definition is what gave meaning to the phrase "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". This tactic is immoral, it is perverse, and it serves a purpose that is the very opposite of justice. It ruined the life of Aaron Swartz and others like him. "Because Trump" is not an excuse, and I hope that you never find yourself on the receiving end of a life-altering legal inquisition.
On second thought, Russia, if you're listening...
I'm always an asshole. But I do it respectfully..
Which is absolutely ridiculous if that help actually didn't happen. But then again, the US has been kidnapping people for all sort of things, so... I guess imperialism is still alive and kicking!
Ezekiel 23:20
Free as in speech, beer, or Kevin?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
This is shifting my understanding of "conspiracy". I'm not second-guessing whether there was a conspiracy here, but a single interaction seems like weak proof if so. Does this translate into other areas where a single act entwines you in the whole undertaking?
He's accused of offering (but not necessarily succeeding) to crack a password in the furtherance of whistleblowing, and it's not immediately clear that UK courts would consider that to be a crime.
Sweet, if you're correct, I get to steal anything just be declaring it to be "whistleblowing"!!
Tip: The law is not what you wish it to be. The law is what it is. Unauthorized access to a computer system is a crime, and there are no exemptions for "but I wanted to leak what's on it!". Even in the UK.
Saying "I'm going to help you gain unauthorized access" makes you a co-conspirator in that crime. Even in the UK.
Which is absolutely ridiculous if that help actually didn't happen.
The crime is agreeing to help. So it doesn't matter if the help actually happened or not.
If I agree to help you rob a bank, I've committed a crime. Even if I don't show up on robbery day.
Well, no, because theft is unauthorized taking of property and whistleblowing is unathorized disclosure of information, and there is no overlap between the two
Really? How'd you get the information?
Oh, theft.
Remember, your original argument compared Assange's actions to stealing money.
It was an attempt to get you to understand that your proposed change to the law would not be a particularly good idea. Apparently you are unable to understand that.
In particular, a quick look shows that US law has a criminal offence of conspiracy against [insert country name here], but UK law contains no such offence
That's nice. It's also not what the US has charged Assange with. It's conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to a computer system. Not conspiracy against [insert country name here].
t falls to the extradition lawyers to present an argument that Assange's alleged offence is illegal under British law
Nope. It doesn't have to be illegal under British law, it has to be a crime for which the UK will extradite.
For example, the rape charges from Sweden are not illegal under British law. Specifically, he was charged with lying about using a condom, which is not a crime in the UK. Yet Assange lost at extradition, leading to the flight to Ecuador's embassy.
In Sweden, on the other hand, Assange is accused of rape, which _is_ very clearly and obviously a crime under UK law
See above. Sweden has an expansive definition of "rape" that includes things which are not crimes in the UK. Just because it's called "rape" in Sweden doesn't make it "rape" in the UK.
Can you really not see the difference?
There is no difference, you just don't understand the subject at hand. You got the crimes wrong, you got the process wrong, and you got the history wrong.