
EFF Statement on Assange Indictment and Arrest - jrepinc
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/eff-statement-assange-indictment-and-arrest-f
======
seleniumBubbles
It's good to see EFF taking a principled stance on Assange. Too many
organizations have chosen to throw WikiLeaks under the bus after their 2016
election leak harmed the "wrong" American political team.

It's a shame that the American political machine is so good at character
assassination (of both Assange and WikiLeaks), despite the sorely-needed
transparency they've offered to many modern democracies. The world needs more
organizations like WikiLeaks, not fewer.

~~~
BonesJustice
I very much approve of the 'idea' of WikiLeaks. I am not particularly fond of
WikiLeaks as an organization. I don't like the way they hold on to material
until they think it will make the biggest impact. It makes me wonder how much
they've held on to for _other_ reasons, e.g., because it might harm someone
_they_ support. To me, WikiLeaks withholding information for political reasons
is no better than the originator of the information keeping it secret for
political reasons.

I politely called them out on this once, in a comment on one of their early
Facebook posts. The comment was deleted quickly. Apparently they are not fans
of criticism either.

In spite of my misgivings, and my general disdain for Assange as an
individual, I too am glad to see the EFF taking a principled stance.

~~~
ryanlol
>It makes me wonder how much they've held on to for other reasons, e.g.,
because it might harm someone they support.

Has anyone ever tried to call them out on this by releasing a leak that
wikileaks refused to publish?

I don’t remember ever hearing such a claim.

~~~
chris11
This has definitely happened. Wikileaks refused to release info on Russia
during the 2016 election. Wikileaks may have started out with good intentions,
but it seems to be making some explicitly political actions.

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-
down-l...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-
on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/russian-
docu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/russian-documents-
leaked-ddosecrets.html)

~~~
whamlastxmas
There's plenty of legitimate reasons to not release information. Verifying the
informations accuracy, that it hasn't been tampered with, and the source is
credible is a really high bar to meet. Just because someone dumps data doesn't
mean WikiLeaks is going to publish it

~~~
senectus1
So selectively Open Democracy but not Open Truth?

------
rayiner
> While the indictment of Julian Assange centers on an alleged attempt to
> break a password—an attempt that was not apparently successful—it is still,
> at root, an attack on the publication of leaked material[.]

So if a reporter goes to a Congressman's house, tries to pick the lock, and
fails, and later manages to get the same documents based on a leak from the
Congressman's office, should the reporter be free from liability for the
attempted break-in?

The law correctly gives reporters a lot of leeway, so long as they stay on the
right side of the line. _To give reporters so much freedom, society must be
able to clearly distinguish protected reporting activity from unprotected
criminal activity._ For that reason it is incumbent on people claiming the
shield of press freedom to avoid conduct that crosses the line, and for
organizations like EFF to avoid trying to blur that line.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The trouble in this case is that the behavior being prosecuted is not the sort
of thing that would result in prosecution under many other circumstances.
There is a law against it, but enforcing it in this context gives the
impression of selective prosecution.

They haven't discovered a crime, investigated it to determine who was behind
it and arrested them; they've discovered a man they wish to charge and went
around looking for something to charge him with.

~~~
ensignavenger
Or maybe they discovered that some one had leaked classified information (a
crime) and during the investigation of that crime, discovered that Assange had
conspired with that individual (also a crime)? That explanation makes sense to
me. Maybe it isn't what happened, we will have to let the courts decide on the
facts of the case.

------
empath75
The indictment is embarrassingly weak and I am no fan of Assange to say the
least. I’m surprised there’s nothing on the dnc hacks.

~~~
patrickaljord
Why would there be anything on the dnc leaks? They just published the leaks,
they did not participate in hacking. Publishing leaks is done all the times by
journalists, if we're going to start banning this, then free press is
literally dead in the US.

~~~
jsgo
The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked
documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it.

Not saying them releasing Podesta's emails was bad, just I don't think that's
what journalists typically do.

~~~
xienze
>The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked
documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it.

Would anyone have taken them seriously if they just made claims about what
were on the emails? You see the same thing going on with the Democrats
regarding the summary of the Mueller report: “we don’t believe you, show us
the raw data!”

~~~
jsgo
I've personally never went to wikileaks looking at information gathered, but
consumed it second hand from journalists reporting on it. As such, I didn't
have a problem taking Snowden's leaks seriously yet wasn't eyeballing raw data
(nor did the vast majority of people who read about it), so I'll have to
disagree.

What you have with the Democrats and the Mueller report is that the
"journalist" in this case is the Attorney General who was put into the
position by the guy the Mueller report is about. As such, it is a case of not
trusting the messenger due to bias so they want to see the actual report.

------
rb2611
I support press freedom, but there is a clear line that was allegedly crossed
here. The indictment alleges that Assange encouraged Manning to commit a crime
and helped or tried to help gain access to a government computer system that
he had no right to access. This is not a grey area at all. If they were
charging him for publishing documents it would be a different story. If the
case is as weak as many folks seem to be saying it is, then he will have a
chance to make that case in court.

~~~
gator-io
The key word is 'allegedly'. We'll see.

------
Miner49er
The timing of Manning's subpoena and the questioning of her on Assange seems
to show that the U.S. government knew Assange was to be going expelled from
the embassy, and maybe played a role in making it happen. Or maybe it's just a
coincidence.

~~~
duxup
Very possible, but Ecuador was also becoming increasingly annoyed by Assange /
I suspect regretted their initial decision all on their own it seemed.

Like a lot of things around Wikileaks I think some were hopeful that it was a
thing that (myself included) ... it just didn't turn out to be as an
organization.

Like most folks would be fine protecting a journalist on principal even if he
bothers other nations. Maybe less so if you realize that they're not behaving
like one and then you start to wonder who you're protecting and what you're
enabling.

~~~
senectus1
there was warning signs in the last couple of weeks.

I suspect that he was really pushing the boundaries of hospitality.

------
insickness
There's talk that these charges may simply be a tool to get Assange extradited
to the US to get him to testify about the source of the DNC leaks, which some
think was an inside job.

------
mrbonner
I have to ask myself a question: has Wikileaks been “fair” when it comes to
obtaining sensitive documents from other state governments vs. the United
States? For example, is there any leaks from China or Russia?

~~~
chris11
Wikileaks refused to release a giant dump of stolen Russian documents.

~~~
T800M101
Can you provide information on this? I see it all over, but what information
did they supposedly have and who is making this claim?

