
US Government Admits It Doesn’t Know If Assange Cracked Password for Manning - OrgNet
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evy4ka/us-government-doesnt-know-if-assange-cracked-password-manning
======
torstenvl
"Admits?" This was clearly communicated by the very fact that he was indicted
for conspiracy. By definition, conspiracy is an inchoate crime. It's a bit
disingenuous for Vice to paint this as some kind of revelation or admission.

For further reading: [https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-
crimes/](https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/)

~~~
duxup
"admits" seems to be a frequent weasel word these days.

You identify the issues with someone's story that you don't like and then you
make a story about how they 'admit' those things.

God help anyone who actually 'admits' anything these days as to some people
that must be instantly discrediting.

~~~
cabaalis
"Claim" is my favorite of these words.

Main example: "Elected official claims nothing bad was done"

It has a gentle enough negative connotation to allow you to massage the
emotions of your reader, while still being a technically accurate statement.

Only people with something to hide will "claim" or "deny" something. It's the
same idea where you're talking about something and your audience can feel a
"big old but" coming. Even if you never produce the but, they still have the
feeling what was just stated is about to be refuted.

~~~
duxup
A while ago "allegedly" was very popular with some TV news networks.

They'd take some pure BS story from the internet that aligned with their
politics and report it as "allegedly" to sound fair... and then list out the
lies word for word as they came from some conspiracy site and then just move
on. They'd sprinkle their whole broadcast withe these tidbits. You couldn't
help but get the impression that controversy and scandal was surrounding
whomever the target of the day was, despite no evidence of any kind being
offered.

~~~
celticninja
Allegedly stop you getting sued.

~~~
duxup
Allegedly...

------
duxup
I think it is pretty well understood that they weren't successful.

At least to me as far as if he deserves protection as a journalist, I don't
think it matters if he was successful. You can help someone try to commit a
crime and even if they're not successful, that can be a crime.

If a journalist is given information that is one thing, offering or even
helping someone commit a crime and their role has changed dramatically IMO.

I also wonder what might have happened to that other user whose account they
tried to access had hey been successful. What would have come of that person's
life / career had they used that as cover for Manning?

~~~
cjensen
Yep. There are ethical rules for Journalism, which are enshrined in law in
many places. One of the rules is that a Journalist may receive stolen
information and publish it. But a Journalist may not themselves steal the
information, or participate or aid in obtaining private information.

Right now, it looks to me like Assange lied that he was going to help hack
anything. I don't see how this is a crime under US law. It's a very weak case,
and they cannot lawfully charge him with anything not mentioned in the
extradition request. This all changes if they have actual proof he did try to
hack a password though.

~~~
Fjolsvith
People get sent to jail all the time for conspiring to commit a crime yet
never following through with it. I spent 10 years in federal prison and met
lots of those people.

Do not verbally agree to any illegal act. Doing so is a crime, 1st amendment
rights notwithstanding, and regardless of your intent of whether or not you
will carry through with the act.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
Would you be willing to share a bit of what happened, so that others know what
_not_ to do / why not to do it?

~~~
Fjolsvith
Just don't agree to any crime, whether verbally or in textual communication.
If you are talking you can be overheard or recorded. You just need one or two
witnesses to testify they heard or saw you discussing the crime.

Its still okay to nod and wink, though.

------
anfilt
I am scratching my head to why cracking a password is a crime?

Generally that means you already have a hash. Then your trying see if
passwords match that hash... It's also not really cracking anything, but just
guessing.

That's just math.

The crime was hacking the system to get the hash.

Moreover, what about all those researchers who compiled lists of the most
common passwords was the act of guessing those hashes a criminal act these
seems to be a very dangerous idea of a crime. As in it could ensnare innocent
people.

~~~
eesmith
Where does anyone say that cracking a password is a crime?

The allegation is that there was an agreement between Manning and Assange to
crack the password for a US military network. Manning gave a hash to Assange,
Assange tried (but failed) to crack it, and told Manning that the crack
attempt failed. He also asked for more information that might help with the
cracking.

The alleged illegal activity is the conspiracy to break into a protected
computer system, not the (attempt at) cracking a password.

Those researchers are not doing their work as part of a conspiracy to break
into other computer system. The feedback loop corresponding to 'asking for
more information' by those carrying out illegal activities doesn't - at least
for the most part - exist.

By analogy, locksport fans are not part of a conspiracy to break into people's
houses, nor - at least for the most part - working with potential robbers to
figure out how best to open a given house's lock.

~~~
anfilt
I see what your saying, and looked a little closer to the indictment.

However, I don't think it still quite the same thing as a key/lock. A password
can contain information and as a Assange could have just been trying to see
the password contained any useful information. What if the password was
something like "I.like. _blank_ " and it's known who the administrator of the
computer system was. A hash is just a piece of information.

Like the details are not entirely clear in the indictment. The only thing
clear is that he was given a hash. The indictment does not say if trying to
guess the password hash was going to be used to login into the system.
Although, it seems like that what the indictment assumes, and without a full
transcript of the conversation I feel the indictment is pretty weak.

However, after reading there are multiple things that make really doubt who
ever wrote that has any idea what they are talking about.

For instance: _Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used
special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file
and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange._

I was unaware linux was special software....

~~~
eesmith
Analogies are imperfect. I don't think it's important to explore the flaws in
the analogy to understand the point I explained earlier, which is that the
indictment is not specifically about trying to crack a password.

"Assange could have ...". That is something for the defense to argue. This is
an indictment. They need only convince a grand jury that there's a reasonable
likelihood of conspiracy.

"Special" in this case almost certainly means "does not come as a standard
part of computer she was using."

EDIT: I just remembered that a physical key can also contain information about
the person. I had a landlord who keyed all the room doors on the building. He
asked me for 4 digits, for the pin depths I wanted on my door. I used "2718",
which hints at a math background. Feyman has a similar story about guessing
safe combinations while at Los Alamos - I chose 2718 as an homage to that
story. A key pattern or a combination is "just a piece of information".

------
astazangasta
Meanwhile, what about those CIA people who broke into Senate computers to
interfere with the torture report? I'm sure we are hot on the trail of that
prosecution.

------
sigzero
The title means to me, that they know he "tried" but don't know if he was
"successful".

~~~
eesmith
The allegation is at [https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-
release/file/1153481...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-
release/file/1153481/download) . All it says is:

> On or about March 10, 2010 ... Assange indicated that he has been trying to
> crack the password by stating he has "no luck so far".

I think that your inference is a reasonable to that description.

------
equalunique
Hacking computers shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Fraud, theft, etc.
are the types of crimes many "hackers" could be charged with, but computer
intrusion itself shouldn't be counted among them.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
I translated this for you:

    
    
       Breaking into houses shouldn't be a crime in the first place.
       Stealing things, breaking stuff, or photographing ID's are 
       crimes that people can be charged with, but I don't think 
       that breaking into houses should be counted.
    

See where this falls apart? I can easily get into your home without _damaging_
anything by picking the lock, and if someone was in my house, I'd want them
_out_ as fast as possible, and the police saying I have no right to do
anything to them until they do something first is a _bad_ idea- if they shoot
me, how to I fire back? If they break my valuables, how do I react?

Similarly, while hacking things doesn't directly endanger people, doing
_anything_ with the information does, and this includes reconnaissance _for a
later hit_.

~~~
equalunique
>See where this falls apart? I can easily get into your home without damaging
anything by picking the lock, and if someone was in my house, I'd want them
out as fast as possible, and the police saying I have no right to do anything
to them until they do something first is a bad idea- if they shoot me, how to
I fire back? If they break my valuables, how do I react?

Stealing is a crime. Shooting you is a crime. Simply "being there" should
qualify as a crime, or perhaps maybe a misdemeanor, only after some scrutiny.
Intent as a factor should have more weight.

Using your house analogy, if a bystander notices the door to your home is wide
open, they shouldn't be afraid to check if anyone inside is potentially
incapacitated or is having some other emergency, just because entering an open
door is a crime under your logic. In one society, a concerned neighbor finds
you lying on the floor unconscious, dials 9/11, and emergency services arrives
on time for you to be saved. In the other society, nobody checks on you,
because why take the risk?

Similarly, the whole concept of "white hat" hacking is something you seem
either unfamiliar with and/or at odds with.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
The thing that was missing for me earlier was the intent part- thank you for
mentioning that.

Furthermore, I'm sorry I attacked you- I took a bit too cynical of a position
here- I do understand the concept of White Hatting, and recognize its
importance. I have also dealt with one too many "White Hats" that expect a
monetary reward for finding bugs _when I 'm not in a position to do so_, and
have then gone and attacked me hard. It's not fun.

Now, I have been, and still am, one of those people that do occasionally poke
at other people's stuff, and when I find something, I will tip them off. This
is also not my day job, and as such, outside of official bug reporting
platforms, I _always_ specify that I will not accept compensation for what I
have found. Many people are not that principled, and _that_ bothers me to no
end.

