Analytics

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Post #4081 Social Media Edition

The main reason behind this post is a Facebook thread I had responded to on an Assange thread on Cato Institute.  I used to be far more active on Facebook; as I suspect my posts from a couple of years back will show. To some extent I've filtered out certain provocative libertarian and conservative groups, and in part the vast majority of posts hitting my feed are more like preaching to the choir.

Probably the ones I do comment on are the mainstream libertarian portals for Cato Institute and Reason. And it often involves nitpicking with a post. For instance, I got annoyed at a Reason piece because the author, although generally supportive of Assange, paid lip service to Swedish "rape" charges. These charges involved women who had consensual sex with Assange; I think there was a concern about his use of (defective) condoms.

Cato Institute irritates me by every 6 weeks or so by retreading a piece critical of libertarians who, like contemporary Lysander Spooner (a prototype libertarian), have rejected the legitimacy of Lincoln's unprovoked invasion, because we believe the union was based on voluntary association and in the non-aggression principle. This is hardly supportive of the Confederacy; let's point out only a minority of Southerners owned slaves, and a Northern neighbor not recognizing slavery would have greatly increased the costs/risks of holding slaves. Free labor had to compete against slave labor, and slaveholders would face increased difficulty in finding buyers for their products. The momentum against slavery was already in place; it was a matter of when, not whether slavery would end in the South. The problem with Lincoln's war against secession? It cost us over 600K lives, the sacrifice of a generation.

I have responded to other Cato Institute threads, notably its pro-immigration ones, which seem to attract restrictionists like honey to bees. In this case, non-libertarians hostile to Wikileaks pounced on the Cato sympathetic thread on Assange.

Some context here:

  • there is no new evidence on Manning's leak to Wikileaks since the Obama Administration, but the Trump Administration is primarily focused on it
  • the Obama Administration rejected prosecuting Assange because it constituted a material threat to freedom of the press, that it could not selectively  prosecute the publication of secret material 
  • there is no evidence that Assange helped Manning crack passwords; all of the material Manning distributed was available through his own granted account
  • The pro-government commentators here assume that Assange had access to and/or was involved in hacking into government systems. As I stress in response, the government doesn't even claim Assange did so. It merely points out the damage that could result from a successful cracking. If the government had evidence of hacking, why aren't they charging him with it, vs. warning of what could happen if the system was hacked?
  • There is some suggestion that Manning got access to password hashes. For non-technical users, hashes are computed values based on algorithms and/or salt values. Submitted passwords are computed and matched against stored password hashes. One would need a password cracking program and likely some period of time to generate a password resulting in an observed hash. It may be Manning sent Assange a list of hash values, but there is no evidence that I am aware that Assange provided any cracking assistance or even had access to hacking programs. In fact, the government is trying to accuse Assange of encouraging Manning to turn over more information, and the best they can come up with is some cryptic phrase like, "Curious eyes never have regrets." Given the way Assange seems to avoid directly encouraging Manning (e.g., "Go for it!"), trying to portray him as a hacking collaborator seems disingenuous. 

For a good salient discussion, including the government's attempt to deny Assange's bona fides as a journalist,  see here. 

Facebook

[OP] Um no. He obtained that information illegally, via hacking the hash of passwords. Information system that belongs to the Pentagon--the SIPRNet. Cato, you're smart but don't fool yourself about this one. Assange was not acting in the capacity of a journalist and no ethical journalist would willing work with someone in the military and actively ask him to help hack the network. Please do not overlook that rather obvious detail. He belongs in a stockade, key thrown away. And please, do not come after me about he did not hack. Why do you think Manning went to prison for? Assange ask him, and told Manning that he would help with, the hacking. This is not the first time you've run this post. Every journalist who has thought about illegally obtaining data from our government or military ought to pay attention. No ethical journalist need worry.

Ronald A Guillemette No, the OP is wrong on the facts. People like Snowden and Manning already had access to the material Wikileaks and other publishers got access to. The OP did not notice that the actual US count accuses Assange not an actual hack but what COULD have happened if he did hack.(Count 10). From my read of the context, Manning, who had already delivered most if not all of his material to Wikileaks, said, "Look, there's other stuff, but I lack the passwords." Not enough context given, but maybe Manning had gotten access of password hashes of target administrative account passwords.

 Technically it is possible but time-consuming and difficult to crack a complex password given context (algorithm, salt) and enough time, i.e., generate a password that will result in the observed hash. Moreover, in practice complex passwords are regularly rotated.

 I don't think Manning would have had access to cracking algorithms. Maybe he attempted to send Assange password hashes. But I didn't hear of any evidence that Assange responded to Manning's query for assistance; I don't even know if Wikileaks has cracking capabilities.

 But responding to other OP nonsense, Assange had no access to the SIPR. The issue is actually GOVERNMENT SECURITY FAILURE. Manning and Snowden had access to information without need to know. They couldn't have touched a sensitive server without government enabling access.
Not to mention anyone knows, as the author here points out, the classification system cannot be used to hide evidence of wrongdoing.

 The OP's whole opinion is based on wrong assumptions and is materially incompetent.

OP responds indignantly that she IS familiar with classification processes, doesn't really address my points, just says something to the effect she disagrees with my response.

(I'm assuming I'm Robert) I'm very familiar with classification over multiple government gigs over the past 15 years. I recently took a derivative classification retraining, where the abuse of classification to mask government wrongdoing was specifically addressed. You are deliberately misleading other people on the subject.

 Second, you have clearly not addressed the salient point. Have you read the government charges? I have (available via Vox and other sites). Count 10 is directly relevant. It simply points out the risks IF Assange had cracked passwords. Not that he did.

The following responses are to other commentators.

 "Corporate" propaganda? Don't you mean "Statist"?

Another (this may be what the OP defensively responded to above):

No, you are not hearing what the commentator is saying. Revelations of government crimes, like the military in Iraq killing unarmed journalists and civilians are NOT violations of classification, because the classification cannot be used to mask crimes. Anyone with classified credentials knows this

Another who echoes the OP:

OP is WRONG on the facts. Bozo, if you look at count 10, the US is accusing, without proof, that Assange tried to help Manning hack into administrative accounts, not that he did. First, Manning already had access to material by virtue of his account privileges, and he had already delivered that material. Manning said he had potential access to ADDITIONAL material, but he didn't have passwords to access it. The US does not charge Assange with providing passwords to Manning (a reading comprehension issue for OP), only he could have. I haven't seen any evidence that Assange had password cracking resources or even requested password hashes (it's non-trivial to generate a password that resolve to a given hash value). If the US had such evidence, it's not charging him with it.

 In fact, the US is even having trouble trying to show Assange was trying to encourage additional material acquisition, simply saying something like "curious eyes have no regrets".

 Moreover, Assange did not have access to the SIPR.

 Unfortunately, Cato Institute does not screen for incompetence 

Another:

Dude, you're kidding, right? Hacking? What hacking? Manning used his own privileged account to access material. Assange had no access to the SIPR. The only thing I've seen is that Manning said he could get more material but he didn't have account passwords. He probably didn't have cracking tools on the SIPR. Maybe he could see password hashes (e.g., /etc/shadow). I don't see any evidence that Assange solicited password hashes. Really, try reading background before writing an opinion.

To a commentator who also objects to the OP:

You are partially correct. Most, if not all, material delivered to Wikileaks was using their (i.e., Manning) account privileges. What the OP is discussing, out of context, is that Manning communicated to Assange, "Look, there's other material I have access to if I knew the passwords." I'm not sure how the government tracked this--so not really hearsay. I don't know if Manning sent (unsolicited) password hashes, say from /etc/shadow. Apparently the government is accusing Assange of trying to encourage Manning by saying something cryptic like "Curious eyes have no regrets."
There's little doubt the government is going after Assange for unvetted access to classified material. Ax I've mentioned, some of the material Manning delivered was evidence of government wrongdoing, and using classification to mask wrongdoing is an abuse of the process.

In an unrelated comment with no reaction:

The author here gives undue deference to Swedish "rape" accusations. Let's point out that the two women in question VOLUNTARILY consented to sex with Assange. The women seemed to be worried that the sex could have been unprotected (defective condom or no condom), and one of the women demanded that Assange have himself tested for STDs.

 Now one might think Assange might have saved himself some grief by getting tested, but I have not heard that the women in question developed an STD from relations with Assange. (At least that's my take from reading a few articles on the kerfuffle.)

In rereading related articles, both women wanted Assange to have himself tested. Apparently he finally agreed to go to a clinic, but it was reportedly closed.

Twitter































































































Posted by at
Labels: