The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal).
It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.
In short, Manning told Assange she could access a military filing cabinet, and was going to go remove all the documents in them to leak to Assange. Before leaving, she asked Assange if he had some gloves to hide her fingerprints. He said he'd check, and Manning left to grab the documents.
Would you consider Assange's actions there to cross the line of journalism?
The journalist in your example should not be accessory to a crime.
If Manning asked for gloves to hide her fingerprints, Assange should have answered "send me the documents when you have them, but I can't help you hiding your fingerprints"
If you imagine the hack being another crime, maybe it's clearer.
Imagine Manning told Assange she could get the files but in order to get them she had to kill the guards at the door and asked Assange if he had a gun.
Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help
And, no doubt the celebrity's supporters would argue that he'd crossed the line from journalism to hacking as well.
If Assange were a Russian holed up in Belarus being extradited to Russia for uncovering Russian war crimes by cracking password hashes I really wonder how many people here would still be arguing that he "crossed the line".
My guess is precisely zero, and any Russians who did so would be mocked and accused of being shills.
Additionally in the eyes of the law, hacking a celebrity does not bring a higher punishment than hacking a nation state, despite its good intentions and the public interest of the released information.
And he isn't accused of "helping to protect an intelligence source", because that's not a crime. One claim raised by the prosecution is that Assange was sent hashes and ran them against a rainbow table in an attempt to provide assistance to manning in order to grant further access to confidential government systems.
If this claim is true or not, we don't know because it hasn't gone to court yet, but the accusation is more than "just protecting a source".
And personally I think there should be an exception to releasing documents that show government wrongdoing which means it isn't illegal - however this is not codified in law.
Hacking and computer sabotage.... really? You call that justice? It is not and the UK jurisdiction remains a joke. A posh joke, but a joke nonetheless.
Please... as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
> as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
The comment you're responding to did not make either of these claims.
I fully support Assange FYI, but at the same time I think he possibly broke laws while doing his (incredibly important) work, or at least there would be enough ambiguity around law to bring a case to the crown court (remember this is the magistrates).
Was it ever proved that he did? There was some non-committal talk quoted, but nothing beyond that?
You also say "for example" - are there any other credible allegations that Assange "crossed the line"?
There is no proven accusation because Assange hasn't gone to trial, which is the part of the process where that standard applies.
The credible allegation part is the indictment handed down from a federal grand jury; this is the 'probable cause' standard.
What I meant was rather: has there been made any credible/sensible accusation for him being involved in hacking? Because while the drivel made it through the grand jury, it's still a vague answer without any allegations of follow-up. Could I help you crack a password hash? Sure, maybe I could. Am I now conspiring to hack into a military network? I rather think not. And that's even though you have my offer in writing.
No, which is why in the judgment every reference to a supposed attempt of "cracking a hash" is preceded by "alleged".
edit: added 'allegedly' as his guilt or innocence is not evaluated
