Re: I was fine with the first indictment
If it really was true he induced / helped others to break into systems then he's guilty of a crime.
You give me a photo of the insides of the President's football, I'll give you a packet of popcorn. OK, a silly example, but it's something I've always wanted to know*. I've also been very curious about the 'journalist' aspects of Assange's case. If a journalist pays a source for a story, is that normal, or inducement? If a journalist obtains classified information, does that exempt them from official secrets, or espionage charges?
Personally I think espionage may be stretching things, ie that's normally state sponsored, or sometimes corporate, and legislation seems to be worded that way. Then there's official secrets as a backstop. They're usually simpler bits of legislation along the lines of being in possession of classified information without lawful authority. Then it seems to be a case of hoping the authorities won't prosecute.
So for me, it's where the lines should be drawn between potentially justifying publishing something on public interest grounds vs the need to protect sensitive information. If the balance sways too far, it'll be a lot harder for journalists to hold government accountable.
*OK, I bet a packet of popcorn + some butter that it's not anywhere nearly as fancy as it's shown in most technothrillers.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
