Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So how exactly would you have the people informing themselves? We just sit and wait for the benevolent government to tell us what it deems is good for us to know?

We don't need to make a whole new set of legal principles where people automatically get off for claiming journalism. In this case the people (here and around the world) were able to learn a lot of valuable information. Assanges actions are justified.




You have every right to your opinion about if you feel his actions were justified.

But that doesn't excuse him from the framework of our laws, if you break the law, even for a good reason, its a jury that decides.


This "holy" law is cleverly circumvented in the quest for war crimes. So any appeal only gets you so far. We are back to square one. Government will hide crimes, people will try to call them out. Law is as useful and error prone, as we want it to be.


The law isn't perfect, in any country, and that's never going to change. We need to vote for leaders who will reform it in the direction that we want.

But the fact that some people get away with crimes doesn't mean we should ignore all crimes and adopt a system of anarchy.


Why not?

Who said it would be worse?

Where you asked before adopting the current system? Or you were just expected to sit and accept it?

Any why would a system that takes into account actual benefit to the public or not, to absolve someone of something that is otherwise a crime, would be tantamount to "anarchy"?


> Any why would a system that takes into account actual benefit to the public or not, to absolve someone of something that is otherwise a crime, would be tantamount to "anarchy"?

Without a clear set of laws things get messy really quickly.

We do allow for subjective peer input in a trial, that's exactly why the jury exists.

But to say that someone shouldn't even be put in front of a jury just because you think they broke the law with good intentions is undermining the purpose of law. Who are you to decide what was a "benefit to the public"?

There were people who thought that Guantanamo was a "benefit to the public" so should they be allowed to torture people?

There were people in the NSA who thought that mass collection of metadata from phone companies was a "benefit to the public" so maybe we shouldn't investigate those things.

That's not how I want the law to work. We should investigate all of those things, regardless of what you think is beneficial, under a strict set of rules of law. And we use democracy and international order to shape that set of rules.

If you think this is crazy and oppressive you should look around at how non-western countries handle these things.


Sadly yes, this doesn't excuse him from the framework of our laws, just like it did not excuse Turing, leading to his death.

Maybe it's time to adopt a more aggressive stance against immoral laws, don't you think?


everyone breaks laws every day, if the government has a problem with you they will find one you broke. we see it all the time at scales big and small.


Are you proposing a double-standard?

Can cops be justified breaking into your house without a warrant, so long as they find evidence of a crime?


Since USA invaded a country because they blamed that country had weapons of mass destruction, does that mean I can "invade" anyone on false accusations?

There is a huge difference between the state and the poeple. And they should be trated respectively.

What Julian Assange did was for the best of all poeple, not for the state.

It also follows that the state are made of the poeple, for the poeple. So anything that is "good" for the poeple, the state should do.


I can't tell if you are trolling me, or just willfully being contrary. Nothing you are saying here holds up under even the most basic logical scrutiny.

If your justification is that regardless of his actions the net result was "good" for the people. You run into an undefended slippery slope.

If we murder everyone in the US, that has deadly communicable diseases, or hereditary genetic disorder and we wipe the diseases out, that's "good" for the people, and the harm when compared to the whole is trivial as long as you kill less than say 30 million people. We can never hold ourselves to this sort of standard and claim we have any form of justice.

On the other hand, the law is far to ridge without the human factor, and hence the jury, a jury can nullify a case if they so choose, and simply agree that this person violated the law, but did it for a reason that his peers felt they deserved no punishment.

I'm not saying that Assange, so go to jail, I'm simply suggesting that he has to have his day in court, if what the state is saying is to be show through evidence to be true, or false. And that if his group of peers feels that after hearing all the specific details of the case from both sides, determine if what he did is right or wrong.


Of course there must be a double standard. You need to hold your government accountable.


I mean, this is how case law is established.

We currently have the notion of exigent circumstances, that if the police have a lawful reason to enter your house without a warrant (such as believing that someone is in imminent danger) and they find in plain sight in the course of that entry evidence of a crime, it's fair game.

A case like this is how we determine if journalists are allowed to hack into government databases. This precedent will be instructive to future activists regardless of how it turns out.


> A case like this is how we determine if journalists are allowed to hack into government databases.

Which, considering the broad definition of "journalist" here, might mean that we're free to hack anything as long as we publish it.

Would I have the right to hack your web service and leak that data because "journalism"?

And if I get caught hacking something could I simply say that my intent was to publish it?


Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

Nor do I see how you are suggesting what I'm talking about is some sort of proposal for a double standard.

I'm not saying out legal framework is perfect, and certainly not saying that injustices don't happen because there are bad people, doing horrible shit to innocent people.

I'm saying that you can't abandon the rule of law, just because someone did something that you see as a net positive.

I'm also against this train of thought when the government attempts to use this logic with eminent domain cases for example.


"Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from."

"Exigent circumstances" are, from the perspective of the law, the equivalent of a warrant, thus making any proofs legal.


I think you should read up more on exigent circumstances, what a police officer does and what is legal for use in a case are miles apart.

If the defense challenges, and the state can not convince the judge that there was a probably threat that material evidence will be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained, then it will very likely be thrown out, and can not be used in the case at all.

And even if the judge allows it, and defense loses its an open door for an appeal.

There are literally volumes of text on this subject, there is not blanket a statement that makes incorrectly gather evidence moot, as any defense attorney, it's their first line of attack.

And one of the most common ways the defense can win a case.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: