[boomboomsubban]

>There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to. She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access

This is where this breaks down. The account in question was a generic local Windows admin account, and she already had the same level of access as the desired account. It was only attempted to hide her identity.

This is clearly laid out as what happened in Assange's indictment.

[foldr]

>It was only attempted to hide her identity.

This makes no difference, legally speaking. Assange was still helping her to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.

This is like giving bank robbers ski masks in full knowledge that they're going to use the ski masks to hide their identities during a robbery. You're still an accessory. It's no defense to say "Oh, I wasn't helping them to gain access to the vault, I was just helping them to hide their identities".

[droithomme]

> Assange was still helping her to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.

No, the evidence doesn't show that and it's not been proven. Stop stating it is a fact, that is disingenuous.

Hey foldr, I got a password hash here $1$O3JMY.Tw$AdLnLjQ/5jXF9.MTp3gHv/

Try to crack that for me, it's a password to a system. Did you do it? Did you crack it?

If you say yes: you committed a crime.

According to your legal theory, if you now here say "no", you also committed also a crime since you admitted to helping me gain unauthorized access to a computer system. That is the argument you are making. It's a ridiculous argument and wouldn't stand before a jury, only before a secret national security court with no jury and the judges are all military.

Oh wait it gets worse, we don't even know who foldr is. Turns out that several different people have used this account over time and there's no evidence who was using the account when they said "No."

[foldr]

>According to your legal theory, if you now here say "no", you also committed also a crime since you admitted to helping me gain unauthorized access to a computer system.

Do you mean "no" as in "I won't try to crack it", or "no" as in "I tried to crack it and failed"? In the first case, I'm not helping you at all and there's no analogy with the Assange case. In the second case, it depends on the details of the law. I don't know if unsuccessful attempts to gain unauthorised access to a computer system constitute a crime per se in the USA. (I wouldn't be surprised if they do, given that e.g. attempted burglary is typically a crime.) In any case, if I tried and failed to crack the password as part of a broader effort to help with your (successful) efforts to break into a computer system, then I'd pretty clearly be an accessory to that crime. Intent is really, really important.

Ineptness is not usually an excuse. If I do a poor job of hiding the murder weapon for you, I'm still an accessory. If I stall the getaway car, I'm still going to jail along with all the guys who robbed the bank.

Note that in the Assange case, I don't think anything much hinges on the password hash. He's primarily accused of helping Manning to cover her tracks, independently of the failed attempt to crack the password.

[boomboomsubban]

>This makes no difference, legally speaking. Assange was still helping her to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.

Yes, it does. It is the duty of the press to try to protect their sources, and the rights of a free press can not be infringed upon. While the act may be considered illegal by some other law, that law is unconstitutional.

[foldr]

The first amendment cannot be used as an excuse for aiding criminals hacking into computer systems. There is zero historical precedent for this, and it makes zero legal sense.

You are thinking of reporter's privilege, but massively overextending its scope (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1146/reporter-s...).

Jorunalists are entitled to "protect" their sources in the extremely limited sense that they cannot, necessarily, be compelled to reveal information about them. They're not in any way entitled to shield their sources from law enforcement.