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.
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.
"The VA" is the Veterans Administration, the insurance program for veterans. It's run similar to the UK's NHS, in that it owns the infrastructure, directly hires the doctors, etc, but is only available to veterans.
but a majority of the hospitals are owned and ran by public universities
"Owned by a public university" does not necessarily mean "Owned by the government" in a way most people would consider it.
For example, in the US there's a hell of a lot of hospitals that are named [public university name] Hospital. They're technically owned by the university, but they're a separate corporation. The government doesn't actually run it. The government may own the stock of the corporation. They're run the same as any private, non-profit hospital.
There's also a matter of the difference of owning the literal building and actually running the hospital in that building are two different things. And a significant portion of those [public university name] Hospitals are in situations where the university only owns the building and the land.
Basically, a hint is "are the doctors receiving their paycheck directly from the government treasury?". And AFAIK, that's pretty rare (Admittedly, I am going from memory on that, so it's quite possible it's not as rare as I think).
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.
"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.
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.
No, It's a conspiracy even if he does not try. They only need to prove he agreed to help.
Let's say you can't drive, and want to rob a bank. You talk with me, and I agree to drive the get-away car....and then I do nothing. I don't get a car, I'm not in the same city as you and the bank, and so on.
I can still be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank. Even if you don't end up robbing the bank because I wasn't there.
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.
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.
Examples include secret recordings, trespassing, and taking prohibited photographs
And if a journalist does those, they can be charged with making an unauthorized recording, trespassing and taking prohibited photographs.
They can't be charged (in the US) with publishing the result of those acts.
Assange is currently charged with conspiracy for unauthorized access to a computer system. He can't be charged with espionage (based on what information is currently public).
That was the story until this indictment was unsealed.
Now, the US government is claiming Assange helped in the leak, which means he's crossed the line into a criminal act. We'll have to see what evidence gets shown in order to evaluate that claim.
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
First, access is not authorized access.
Second, the UCMJ is not the same as civilian law. Soldiers sign away many constitutional rights as part of joining the military. Part of that is the UCMJ handles leaking classified information differently than civilian law, and can do so because soldiers don't have as strong first amendment rights as civilians.
For example, if Snowden had just stayed in the US, he probably could not have been charged with espionage. He'd be legally similar to Ellsberg. Once he accepted Russia's asylum offer, he could be charged because he accepted "something of value" from another country - leaking isn't illegal, leaking for money is.
Manning did not have to accept "something of value" to be charged, because she was subject to the UCMJ and it make the leak itself illegal.
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).
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".
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.
Yet the American system is very inefficient when compared to public systems that *also* cover the elderly.
Medicare and Medicaid are not actually that inefficient. There are some political landmines that make them less efficient (most notably, the ban on Medicare negotiating drug prices).
Also, when you compare the per-patient cost on these systems, single-payer is cheaper because of all the young, healthy people covered by those programs. They're really, really cheap from an actuarial standpoint.
Yet another possibility is that the US has no part of its health infrastructure run by the state
Uh...the VA has hospitals. Also, the most common model for single-payer systems is the government pays for services, not that the government owns the infrastructure. Off the top of my head, I can only think of the UK where the government actually owns the infrastructure.
Seems to me it's an example of what happens when you take the worst bits of socialism - unrestrained government funding - and combine them with the worst bits of capitalism - unrestrained free markets applied where consumers are not free.
Only when you don't know that private insurers pay more for the same procedures.
Private insurers always negotiate with providers a price that is "Medicare + X%", where X is always a positive number.
The reason government dollars spent is relatively high is the expensive people are insured by the government. 65+ people are expensive, and on Medicare. Disabled people have little-to-no income, so they qualify for Medicaid. Your average 20-something doesn't need treatment for getting a limb blown off, but if they do it's likely they're a veteran and thus covered by VA or TRICARE.
Only if you don't compare the difference in spending, and ignore who they're insuring. 'Cause those government programs are paying less for the same procedures as private insurers.
When a private insurer negotiates with a hospital, the price is always "Medicare + X%". The value of X is what they negotiate, and X is always positive.
Also, old people are expensive, medically. And they're on Medicare.
What?! We are talking about a galaxy which is so far away that can't be seen.
Uh....no. It's easily visible. Here's some pictures of galaxy, and the jet shooting out of it thanks to it's extra-massive black hole.
Also, we've used telescopes to look at objects 13.4 billion light years away. That's so far that we're going to have trouble seeing a much farther because the universe isn't old enough to have objects much further away.
Once again, it's almost like you do not know anything the subject.
No, you are making up new theories that are also utterly unsupported by evidence. For example:
various stars in the middle
Would be visible in telescopes. They're not there. Also, orbit around multiple objects is not the same as orbit around a single object, so we'd be able to detect that there are multiple objects by observing the orbits of stuff near the center of the galaxy.
too complex for our models configuration of planets
Orbital mechanics is not something that has any difficult-to-solve problems left. "Too complex" is not possible unless you're trying to simultaneously model trillions of objects, and there it's just a limit on compute time.
massive obstacles in the huge stretch between us and that galaxy
First, there's more than one galaxy. Your theory here would require that massive objects be perfectly placed between us and billions of galaxies.
Second, that massive object would be detectable by its affects on light.
Third, we're moving. So are all of the galaxies under observation. So would that giant mass. The movement of all of the relevant objects can not be synchronized with sufficient precision to block the light from all black holes that we have detected.
You keep coming up with "random thoughts" where you forget there's more than two points in the universe, and there's more than one way to observe anything.
but I have spent a lot of time here today and am not feeling like continue the discussion.
More like, "The terrible ideas I keep throwing out to avoid understanding quantum mechanics keep getting shot down, and it's time to save my ego".
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Well, if VA is Virginia
"The VA" is the Veterans Administration, the insurance program for veterans. It's run similar to the UK's NHS, in that it owns the infrastructure, directly hires the doctors, etc, but is only available to veterans.
but a majority of the hospitals are owned and ran by public universities
"Owned by a public university" does not necessarily mean "Owned by the government" in a way most people would consider it.
For example, in the US there's a hell of a lot of hospitals that are named [public university name] Hospital. They're technically owned by the university, but they're a separate corporation. The government doesn't actually run it. The government may own the stock of the corporation. They're run the same as any private, non-profit hospital.
There's also a matter of the difference of owning the literal building and actually running the hospital in that building are two different things. And a significant portion of those [public university name] Hospitals are in situations where the university only owns the building and the land.
Basically, a hint is "are the doctors receiving their paycheck directly from the government treasury?". And AFAIK, that's pretty rare (Admittedly, I am going from memory on that, so it's quite possible it's not as rare as I think).
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
The physical location of the computer system he was offering to help breach.
No, It's a conspiracy even if he does not try. They only need to prove he agreed to help.
Let's say you can't drive, and want to rob a bank. You talk with me, and I agree to drive the get-away car....and then I do nothing. I don't get a car, I'm not in the same city as you and the bank, and so on.
I can still be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank. Even if you don't end up robbing the bank because I wasn't there.
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.
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.
Examples include secret recordings, trespassing, and taking prohibited photographs
And if a journalist does those, they can be charged with making an unauthorized recording, trespassing and taking prohibited photographs.
They can't be charged (in the US) with publishing the result of those acts.
Assange is currently charged with conspiracy for unauthorized access to a computer system. He can't be charged with espionage (based on what information is currently public).
That was the story until this indictment was unsealed.
Now, the US government is claiming Assange helped in the leak, which means he's crossed the line into a criminal act. We'll have to see what evidence gets shown in order to evaluate that claim.
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
First, access is not authorized access.
Second, the UCMJ is not the same as civilian law. Soldiers sign away many constitutional rights as part of joining the military. Part of that is the UCMJ handles leaking classified information differently than civilian law, and can do so because soldiers don't have as strong first amendment rights as civilians.
For example, if Snowden had just stayed in the US, he probably could not have been charged with espionage. He'd be legally similar to Ellsberg. Once he accepted Russia's asylum offer, he could be charged because he accepted "something of value" from another country - leaking isn't illegal, leaking for money is.
Manning did not have to accept "something of value" to be charged, because she was subject to the UCMJ and it make the leak itself illegal.
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).
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".
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.
Yet the American system is very inefficient when compared to public systems that *also* cover the elderly.
Medicare and Medicaid are not actually that inefficient. There are some political landmines that make them less efficient (most notably, the ban on Medicare negotiating drug prices).
Also, when you compare the per-patient cost on these systems, single-payer is cheaper because of all the young, healthy people covered by those programs. They're really, really cheap from an actuarial standpoint.
Yet another possibility is that the US has no part of its health infrastructure run by the state
Uh...the VA has hospitals. Also, the most common model for single-payer systems is the government pays for services, not that the government owns the infrastructure. Off the top of my head, I can only think of the UK where the government actually owns the infrastructure.
Seems to me it's an example of what happens when you take the worst bits of socialism - unrestrained government funding - and combine them with the worst bits of capitalism - unrestrained free markets applied where consumers are not free.
Only when you don't know that private insurers pay more for the same procedures.
Private insurers always negotiate with providers a price that is "Medicare + X%", where X is always a positive number.
The reason government dollars spent is relatively high is the expensive people are insured by the government. 65+ people are expensive, and on Medicare. Disabled people have little-to-no income, so they qualify for Medicaid. Your average 20-something doesn't need treatment for getting a limb blown off, but if they do it's likely they're a veteran and thus covered by VA or TRICARE.
Only if you don't compare the difference in spending, and ignore who they're insuring. 'Cause those government programs are paying less for the same procedures as private insurers.
When a private insurer negotiates with a hospital, the price is always "Medicare + X%". The value of X is what they negotiate, and X is always positive.
Also, old people are expensive, medically. And they're on Medicare.
There is no potential for collusion if people actively want to hire you.
There's this thing called history. You might want to spend a little time learning it. Because what you claim is impossible actually happened.
What?! We are talking about a galaxy which is so far away that can't be seen.
Uh....no. It's easily visible. Here's some pictures of galaxy, and the jet shooting out of it thanks to it's extra-massive black hole.
Also, we've used telescopes to look at objects 13.4 billion light years away. That's so far that we're going to have trouble seeing a much farther because the universe isn't old enough to have objects much further away.
Once again, it's almost like you do not know anything the subject.
And I continue seeing other alternatives
No, you are making up new theories that are also utterly unsupported by evidence. For example:
various stars in the middle
Would be visible in telescopes. They're not there. Also, orbit around multiple objects is not the same as orbit around a single object, so we'd be able to detect that there are multiple objects by observing the orbits of stuff near the center of the galaxy.
too complex for our models configuration of planets
Orbital mechanics is not something that has any difficult-to-solve problems left. "Too complex" is not possible unless you're trying to simultaneously model trillions of objects, and there it's just a limit on compute time.
massive obstacles in the huge stretch between us and that galaxy
First, there's more than one galaxy. Your theory here would require that massive objects be perfectly placed between us and billions of galaxies.
Second, that massive object would be detectable by its affects on light.
Third, we're moving. So are all of the galaxies under observation. So would that giant mass. The movement of all of the relevant objects can not be synchronized with sufficient precision to block the light from all black holes that we have detected.
You keep coming up with "random thoughts" where you forget there's more than two points in the universe, and there's more than one way to observe anything.
but I have spent a lot of time here today and am not feeling like continue the discussion.
More like, "The terrible ideas I keep throwing out to avoid understanding quantum mechanics keep getting shot down, and it's time to save my ego".
Radio waves are photons.