Read on Twitter
WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment
New Allegations Assert Assange Conspired With “Anonymous” Affiliated Hackers, Among Others https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment
New Allegations Assert Assange Conspired With “Anonymous” Affiliated Hackers, Among Others https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment
See also
Aaron Swartz as alleged WikiLeaks source and US persons in the WikiLeaks 'organization' circa 2009. https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4202
Aaron Swartz as alleged WikiLeaks source and US persons in the WikiLeaks 'organization' circa 2009. https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4202
Lots of dates in this robust indictment. I am reading thru it now. https://twitter.com/alexadobrien/status/1224149100490317826?s=20
WikiLeaks associate-2 is Daniel Domscheit-Berg. See Har2009 https://media.ccc.de/v/334_l2743_wikileaks_followup#t=2562
CRS reports which WikiLeaks published, and cited statements in the superseding indictment, important to keep in mind in 2009, Aaron Swartz (deceased) interned in the Congressional offices of Democrat Representative Alan Grayson. As I detail in this post https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4202
WikiLeaks released CRS reports in February 2009. At the 2009 Hackers at Random conference (which Appelbaum was also reportedly at) Assange details how WikiLeaks came upon information that resulted in the publication of 6,800 Congressional Research Service reports.
At har2009 Assange also states that WikiLeaks "received information about a small vulnerability inside the Congress document distribution system. This is a very trivial vulnerability...This is what any one of you would find if you are actually looking."
As Appelbaum notes in 2015, in the wake of Swartz suicide in January 2013, WikiLeaks disclosed that Swartz assisted WikiLeaks, communicated with Assange and others during 2010 and 2011, and may have even been a source.
It's also worth noting that WikiLeaks did not have a publicly facing and purportedly anonymous submission system in and around June 2010 and May 2015.
On July 19, 2011, Swartz was indicted for downloading millions of academic articles from a subscription based
On July 19, 2011, Swartz was indicted for downloading millions of academic articles from a subscription based
service he had access to by means of a guest account through MIT.
Assange himself mentions Swartz at the har2009 presentation (without using his name). Assange describes Swartz' work releasing 10 percent (New York Times reported it was 20 percent) of the PACER database.
Assange himself mentions Swartz at the har2009 presentation (without using his name). Assange describes Swartz' work releasing 10 percent (New York Times reported it was 20 percent) of the PACER database.
Assange also goes on to refer to Swartz as the "guy who invented RSS." Assange then remarks that Swartz "likes to call that part of the movement we have in common Guerilla Open Source."
Assange also states at har2009, "Yes, we had...actually I won't mention that. But, we were given details how to access that material [CRS reports]. But, of course that is not a crime. And in fact just giving us all the material is not a crime. If a Congress Member
gives us all the CRS leaks this violates a very small Senate's rules thing, which is really not of much consequence."
Assange adds that WikiLeaks had U.S. people in 2009. According to recent reporting, David House was a Wikileaks volunteer from 2009 to 2013.
Assange adds that WikiLeaks had U.S. people in 2009. According to recent reporting, David House was a Wikileaks volunteer from 2009 to 2013.
Here is a breakdown of the US Sup 1 Indictment which related to the Manning hacking conspiracy. https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4339
IMPORTANT. Indictment: "*No later than Jan. 2010*, Manning...used an online chat service, Jabber...to chat with ASSANGE." As I detail here: https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4053
Manning said WL IRC channel switched to Jabber late Feb/early Mar 2010. BUT her Adium OTR contacts list file
Manning said WL IRC channel switched to Jabber late Feb/early Mar 2010. BUT her Adium OTR contacts list file
was created on Jan. 25, 2010, 5 days before her computer was wiped, and 2 days into her stateside leave, which ended Feb. 11, 2010. See this post I wrote in August 2019 about the forensic evidence and case against Assange that survives court martial. https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4053
What this means in lay terms is that the US forensic case for conspiracy begins before the alleged date of the existent excerpts of chat log between she and Assange. (NB Could be based on more if, for e.g., there is evidence from confidential informants, etc. from early days.)
IMPORTANT: This indictment clarifies and strengthens my forensic analysis of the DOJ's case against Assange. https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4339
States that the Iraq rules of engagement files (aka the charged docs ) for THIS prosecution were searched for and leaked post chat
States that the Iraq rules of engagement files (aka the charged docs ) for THIS prosecution were searched for and leaked post chat
on Mar 22, 2010 and ROE are NOT docs Manning stated at her court-martial that she leaked Feb 21, 2010 (a day before the Jabber chats started). (There are 2 sets.) SO ALL CHARGED DOCS in Assange prosecution POST DATE CHATS; basis of criminal conspiracy. https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4339
Documents charged against Assange under ESPIONAGE ACT are DIFFERENT than docs charged against Manning and ALL POST DATE CHATS (Excepting SIGACTS).
All counts -- excepting Counts 15 and 16 where Assange is the so-called proximate publisher of names of cooperative Afghans
All counts -- excepting Counts 15 and 16 where Assange is the so-called proximate publisher of names of cooperative Afghans
and Iraqi -- rely on a theory of direct conspiracy between Manning and Assange.
The US criminal theory in the superseding indictment against Julian Assange has three main parts:
Prior to the March 2010 agreement (and since at least November 2009), Assange and Chelsea
The US criminal theory in the superseding indictment against Julian Assange has three main parts:
Prior to the March 2010 agreement (and since at least November 2009), Assange and Chelsea
Manning were in communication, i.e. while Manning was illegally exfiltrating and disclosing Secret information stored on a classified Department of Defense network to WikiLeaks;
(B.) When Assange agreed to help Manning on March 8, 2010 attempt to bypass the administrator
(B.) When Assange agreed to help Manning on March 8, 2010 attempt to bypass the administrator
password on her classified computer (so she could surf SIPRNet anonymously to exfiltrate more classified information for Assange and WikiLeaks), Assange knew that Manning had been and was attempting to illegally exfiltrate Secret information from a classified Department of
Defense network;
(C.) After the March 8, 2010 agreement, Assange continued to encourage Manning to illegally ex-filtrate Secret information from a classified Department of Defense network.
(C.) After the March 8, 2010 agreement, Assange continued to encourage Manning to illegally ex-filtrate Secret information from a classified Department of Defense network.
To follow based on Superseding Indictment No. 2. At her court-martial, Chelsea Manning testified that on about February 21, 2010 (day before chats with Assange), she used the WikiLeaks submission form and uploaded the rules of engagement, its annexes, and a flow chart
from the 2007 time period-- as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from 2006, and the video of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike later published by WikiLeaks as Collateral Murder. The video is not part of the Assange case.
But, in Superseding 1 AND 2, the Department of Justice makes clear that following ASSANGE's "curious eyes never run dry" comment, on or about *March 22, 2010*: "Manning downloaded multiple Iraq rules of engagement files from her Secret Internet Protocol Network computer and
burned these files to a CD, and provided them to ASSANGE and WikiLeaks." So the documents charged here against Assange are ROE leaked March 22, which is after the Jabber chats with Assange allegedly commence on February 22, 2010 (based on known excerpts).
This is a big deal,
This is a big deal,
1.) because it means all the charged documents post date chats (excluding SIGACTS, which are only employed in this prosecution specifically related to publication of the names of cooperative Afghans and Iraqi, alongside foreign intelligence sources from the State Dept. Cables...
(the latter which also post dates the chats).
Also, I need to go into the Manning court record, but its also essentially new information; meaning a March 22 transmission of ROE diverges from what we know about the evidence which is based on the Manning court-martial.
Also, I need to go into the Manning court record, but its also essentially new information; meaning a March 22 transmission of ROE diverges from what we know about the evidence which is based on the Manning court-martial.
That Assange consulted with Manning (based on evidence and the oral case presented at Manning's court-martial by military prosecutors) about the processing and imminent publication on April 5, 2010 of the 2007 Apache video (which was published with the Iraq ROE files)
weeks prior to that publication (in the March 2010 time period, so the chats), sheds light on what the DOJ may present in court to prove conspiracy should Assange be extradited.
Side note: Many folks commentate about the Apache video (and there was an interesting story recently in Guardian about it); but IT IS NOT CHARGED against Assange (it was ALSO found to be UNCLASSIFIED , and Manning was not convicted
of espionage for leaking it). The USG accepted her plea to a lesser included offense. Here the documents charged against Assange are the Rules of Engagement published concurrently.
So this case is about specific things, namely, the charges, the charged documents, the circumstantial and direct evidence of a criminal conspiracy to technically hack a Department of Defense information system and other systems (at least as far as the US case is).
In re Publication. How the US seems to be building its case for Espionage is very specific (and it would be helpful if advocates for press and civic society understood the case-- regardless of whether they regard statute as written or applied as dangerous).
US is essentially alleging (specifically for publication) that Assange *knew* that publishing names of foreign intel sources, as well as cooperative Iraqis & Afghanis could could endanger them, & injure the US...[rest of Espy clause] . How they prove mens rea *knowledge*?
They are saying his specific threats (see Sup. 1) to disclose more damaging information (i.e. unredacted information) evidences his willfulness and knowledge of the harm it could cause to the US; otherwise, why threaten the US with disclosure?
WikiLeaks associate-3 is Jacob Appelbaum.
Ellen's reporting is tremendous. Also noting that we knew SDNY was investigating WikiLeaks from Manning prosecution. An Aug 2011 doc from Manning court-martial that I posted about on my blog in 2014 coincided w/ the FBI in SDNY of members of AntiSec, https://twitter.com/nakashimae/status/1275957816658997248?s=20
and the subsequent indictment and conviction of Jeremy Hammond for hacking various websites in the summer of 2011 and the website of Strategic Forecasting, a private security firm located in Austin Texas, in December 2011. See this 2014 post https://alexaobrien.com/archives/909
NATO Country-I ("Teenager") is Sigurdur Thordarson and the country is Iceland. Superseding Indictment 2 is connecting Manning searches in re Iceland and Icesave to statements by Assange in the chats to espionage against Iceland. Nice dovetail of the two.
US (w/ court and a jury) wants to distinguish Assange from 1A (which applies to all US persons, with some special acknowledgement of press) and legal precedent. Assange is acting like a intelligence officer conducting espionage is critical (also to pol. aspect of case w/public).
I think we should expect indictments of Americans in this case.
The US person who allegedly was asked by Siggi and Assange to decrypt a file stolen from Iceland is not listed as US1 (met JA in 2009), US2 (Lamo), etc. (which is notable to me).
I don't know who this is. Jan. 10, 2010, Manning attends open software event in Boston, MA where David House was in attendance. House testified to grand jury and was granted immunity. Accd. to the NYT, David House was a WL volunteer from 2009 to 2013. (But, Assange stated
at har2009 that WikiLeaks had ppl in US.) So, you know there are other possibilities. As Appelbaum notes in 2015, in the wake of Swartz suicide in January 2013, WikiLeaks disclosed that Swartz assisted WikiLeaks, communicated with Assange and others during
2010 and 2011, and may have even been a source.
Dell and I don't have to write new stories, because they are already written and timelined. #kidding (We are on hanging out reading the indictment together.) https://twitter.com/dellcam/status/1275988725374291968?s=20
I'm just kidding, there is new info in here (and we know that), and I will timeline it and blog about it-- but a lot of what has been written is in this indictment.
IMPORTANT: I just figured something out. You know how I was expecting SIGACTS, because the chats excerpts between Assange & Manning start on Feb. 22, 2010 (even though metadata shows her Adium contact list created on Jan. 25, 2010 see above). WELL, Manning leaked the SIGACTS
on Feb 3, 2010 AND, she testified at her court-martial that at her his aunt's house (on leave) on Jan. 27 she joined on an IRC conversation and states that she has information that needed to be shared with the world.
She writes that the information would help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (SIGACTS). One of the individuals in the IRC asked her, accd to her testimony, to describe the information. However, before she could describe the information another
individual pointed her to the link for the website's online submission system. After ending her IRC connection, she states she considered her options one more time. It's circumstantial, but SIGACTS forensically could be said to be post chats too.
(Important side note: The same day she does this (according to Manning own testimony) is the day she attends an open software event in Boston where David House is also in attendance. According to 2019 reporting in the NYT, House was a volunteer with WikiLeaks from 2009 to 2013.
So the day she approaches WikiLeaks about leaking the SIGACTS on IRC is the same day that she attends a open software event where a volunteer of WikiLeaks is in attendance, and just days before she does the actual leak). SO THAT IS IMPORTANT. ALSO...
Those 2 events occur on Jan. 27, 2010 (2 days after metadata creation date of Adium contact list). Her Adium OTR contacts list file was created on January 25, 2010, five days before her computer was wiped, and 2 days into her stateside leave, days before she leaks the SIGACTS.
Now once she leaks the SIGACTS on Feb 3, 2010. She also leaked first Apache video that day. Almost immediately after submitting the aerial weapons team video from July 12, 2007 and the rules of engagement stuff (different than the ones charged against Assange)...
she notified the individuals in the WikiLeaks IRC to expect an important submission. This is all according to her own testimony at court-martial. She received a response from an individual going by the handle of 'office'--
at first she said the conversations was general in nature, but over time as it conversations progressed. Manning testified that she assessed this individual to be an important part of WikiLeaks. That is the person the US alleges is Assange in the chat logs featured in indictments
So SIGACTS with all that for context are part of the WikiLeaks conspiracy. I'll post a blog, but want to tweet this out while I have this thread going.
Speaking to Sup. 2 indictment itself, so in addition to statute of limitation issues, shows a pattern of alleged criminal conduct as depicted akin to traditional espionage and hacking; mentions NATO, which speak to the political aspect of extraditing Assange & overcoming 1A.
The Sup. 2 indictment also echos #Schulte case in detailing the uncharged "zero days" and their potentiality for cyber-operations. I have been writing about flatter cheaper espionage and the media here. https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4546 See also this thread. https://twitter.com/alexadobrien/status/1210387137163644931?s=20
Telecommunications transformed traditional organizations-- e.g. they are more horizontal, outsource functions etc.-- same happened to organized crime groups/more decentralized, less hierarchical-- and the tenable inference presumably espionage too.
While in these cases the coverage is often on the actors and the prosecutions, there is a larger context: geopolitics and the world of intelligence. Theft of trade secrets and IP (political economy, a component of national power) is only a part of that;
information war or influence operations also; but there is also simply intelligence collection (to what end? for whom?), including the capabilities to do so: Manning (Global Address List); Kayla (zero days) Schulte (cyber-tools), etc.; even accusations against
Ola Bini working in concert w/ Ricardo Patino to destabilize the current Ecuadorian regime. There are more, that's just to make a point on Twitter.
It is also noteworthy that the indictment alleged that Assange told Savu that releases of New York Times reporters would be of value; AND that LulzSec targeted media in retaliation of negative coverage of WikiLeaks.
Btw/ I have tweet out recently that journalists are a target of hackers. Look at China hack of NYT for its reporting-- also AP reporting on Fancy Bear and journos https://apnews.com/c3b26c647e794073b7626befa146caad/Russian-hackers-hunted-journalists-in-years-long-campaign (There are other examples).
Of course, this helps the US in court with judge/jury (also extradition) while the defense narrative is that Assange is a journalist (in addition to being a librarian and aspirant spymaster-- because that is in the public record too).
Swarms like Anonymous and the sources could be described as unilaterally acting ideological defectors. They may be motivated by ideology e.g. patriotism or hacktivism, and/or they may be potential witting or unwitting pawns of foreign intelligence services. They can also be
considered state or state-supported actors themselves, even if acting unilaterally and alone at first. That is sort of the backdrop context for what is happening. See this for more info https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4546
The key challenge here is without attribution, motives are harder to ascertain, and attribution is a component of ascertaining motivation. (But it isn't completely obscured or impenetrable; especially at this stage.)
