![Google Google](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/google_64.png)
![Books Books](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/books_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Julian Assange Says Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen Are "Witch Doctors" 253
An anonymous reader writes "The Times publishes Assange's takedown of Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. From the article: 'New Digital Age is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas.'"
great review (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:great review (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're suggesting that there are only two schools of thought: That of the tinfoil hat community, and that of the sheeple.
Well, if I must choose between the two, I'll go with the tin foil hat bunch. I don't want every government agency spying on me through their corporate proxies. And, that is precisely what we would see if congress passes their various cyber security bills - all major corporations would be sharing everything they can learn about every citizen with the government. AND, the government will return the favor, granting corporations access to that same database.
Re:great review (Score:5, Insightful)
You want an extreme example? How is an oppressed society supposed to organize an effective rebellion when privacy is non-existent? Not an issue where you are? Just keep telling yourself it never will be, after all you have many actively defended safeguards against tyranny with wide popular, political, and economic support, right?. [/end sarcasm] In the meantime the majority of the world's population live under governments that almost anyone would consider at last somewhat tyrannical, and as the distinctions between nations become ever more blurry you've got to be incredibly optimistic to think the values of the "good guys" will always win out.
Re: (Score:2)
"For some nebulous, highly in flux definition of "privacy" that we need to keep being reminded is both real and scaryscary, because fuck all if anyone outside the tinfoil hat community has the slightest clue how this is so horribly evil."
I have a feeling that the group you call "the tinfoil hat community" is a hell of a lot larger than you think.
Your failure to understand does not equate to a similar failure on the part of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.”
Wait, that's in the future? Wasn't that the 2008 election?
Re: (Score:2)
Book review (Score:5, Informative)
In case it's not clear from the article, it's Assange doing a book review.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1480542288
"“The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings"
Difficult to believe Schmidt put his name to that crap, there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers.
"The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself. "
Yeh CALEA and CALEA II coming soon. American.
He pans the books.
What's even funnier about the ATC thing (Score:2)
Is that air traffic control doesn't actually control planes, pilots (and autopilots) do. ATC just gives them directions. However it turns out the pilots have eyes and can notice things like, say, a building. They don't just blindly steer their aircraft by the directions over the radio. So, even if hackers manages to hack the ATC system (which seems rather unlikely to anyone who's seen it), and even if they got the ground controllers to give out bad directions (remember it is humans giving out info on the ra
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you watch 24???? Pilots are mindless idiots who slavishly follow directions from ground control, even to the point of colliding with other planes!
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who blindly follow their GPS into a lake.
Re: (Score:2)
"Difficult to believe Schmidt put his name to that crap, there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers."
It's already almost unbelievably open to hackers. No "opening" is necessary.
Even the fairly recent new plane tracking protocol has no encryption or security whatever. Anybody with a big directional antenna could send false data either to a plane or to "control". I mean, this is something a backyard hardware hacker, the electronics hobbyist equivalent of a "script kiddie", could do pretty easily these days.
Re: (Score:2)
...there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers.
1. That's not how hacking works.
2. It's already open.
3. The reason it is open is because people thinking like you just did.
Without a scheme like one-time pads or public-key cryptography and mandatory, regular infosec training you can impersonate someone or something that the pilot wants to listen to and influence their actions even to the extent that you are effectively controlling the plane. Then if you redirect a passenger jet over e.g. NK all sorts of hell would ensue. Maybe even another war, and when y
Cyber tickling (Score:3, Insightful)
Except he's talking up cyber terrorism as the future of terrorism, when its not. Boston showed that.
Is the future of tickling, cyber-tickling? Is the future of stomach punching, cyber stomach punching? Cyber kissing?
The ability to cause REAL WORLD damage is two steps harder if you add a first step of 'hack control system', 'make physical device override safeguards'. It's always easier to make real world damage if you do it in the real world.
So you've broken into the physical network, you've taken over the a
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Air Traffic control is not connected directly to the internet does not mean its safe from Hackers. There is a movement towards open source software in this industry which opens up a lot of potential issues.
Oh?
So you claim open source has bigger security issues than closed source, truly a new development.
Just remember security through obscurity has never and will never survive.
Which Doctors? (Score:5, Funny)
As opposed to David Tennent , Matt Smith, and now John Hurt who are Who Doctors...
Not The Doctor! Not the Doctor! (Score:5, Funny)
let's face it, (Score:3)
That's an insult to witch doctors! (Score:5, Funny)
My friend the Google search, it taught me what to say
My friend the Google search, it taught me what to do
It knew what I would buy when said what I liked, by typing:
Ooh, ee, ooh ah ah
Ting tang walla-walla bing bang
Ooh, ee, ooh ah ah
Ting tang walla-walla bing bang
Advice to Assange (Score:2)
Don't upset a witch doctor.
...."Ribbit"
Awwww... (Score:2)
The article subtitle beat me to the Dave Seville joke...
Google = NSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Those that study history have no doubt how the ruling elite operate, or the methods they use to control the populace. It is today no different from how it was three thousand years ago. The psychology of those that find themselves 'in charge' is an assumption that they are "god's chosen". Even today, in the USA, more than 50% of senior US politicians state that 'god' has given them their power to rule over others.
Of course, the reality of the so-called ruling elites is one of being prepared to do whatever it takes to keep power, and wherever possible, to grow that power and pass it on to later generations of their same family/group. America, for instance, is on the verge of getting a second Clinton or a third Bush as supreme ruler.
How do you control the masses? How do you keep the mob on a leash? How do you persuade the populace, year after year, to dedicate their lives to enriching and empowering the same tiny minority?
-learn what the mob is thinking, in as close to real-time as possible
-find the best ways to manipulate the opinions of the mob, especially their long term beliefs and aspirations
-ensure the mob only ever hears control messages from the elites that rule them. Ensure the mob is trained to disregard messages from other sources
-give the mob 'bread and circuses'. Let the mob feel self-empowered by participation in useless trivial events like organised religion, organised team sports, and harmless forms of self expression
-exterminate or co-opt any emerging grass roots movements that could grown and threaten the power bases of the elites.
Only a complete fool would fail to understand where Google fits with the above goals. The dream of computerised intelligence gathering on the general population began before the age of the electronic computer. When 'electronic brains' first appeared, the elites were massively disappointed with the end results of unthinkably expensive attempts to use computers to spy on the populace. Perversely, the fiction of powerful computers doing incredible things spread like wild-fire through the consciousness of ordinary people in the 50s and 60s, but as we know the reality was far different.
The original Google project was predicated on the availability of vast amounts of cheap commodity hard-drive storage and processing power. It looked at the NSA desire to spy on the entire Human population from a very different POV. It also took account of the fact that official government IT projects (even when secret) would always fall prey to mega-corruption and complete-incompetence as a consequence. The psychology of successful IT ambitions was being made apparent by the incredible growth of the Internet.
Google gives people useful/entertaining/addicting toys like search, Youtube, Gmail and Android. Each of these toys monitors, and encourages users to provide ever greater amounts of information about themselves to monitor.
Google also provides the infrastructure (hardware and software models) that are used by the intelligence agencies of the 'West' to store and mine the information they gather. These are shadow-Google installations, built and run by people directly employed by intelligence agencies like the NSA, but based on current designs used by Google itself.
Google, as you should know, makes a lot of money from mining its data and using the results for advertising. What few of you realise is that this business is a deliberate side-effect of Google researching and developing mining algorithms for the NSA.
Today, when you vote Republican or Democrat in the USA, you get exactly the same mid/long term policies, and exactly the same program of rolling wars. In the UK, you can vote Labour, Liberal or Conservative, but still experience the exact agenda Tony Blair laid down for the UK when that monster first rose to visible power. The elites don't even have to bother maintaining even the illusion of a choice, largely thanks to Google.
The people that run Google think that they are superior to you, and therefore their will matters, and you will does not. I hate to tell you this, but the crud that desires to rule over others always has this attitude. And when you do nothing but lay down and accept the abuse, this abusive attitude grows exponentially.
meglomaniac (Score:2)
He's right about the banal (Score:2)
The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow's world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now -- only cooler.
He's right about that. Schmidt's vision of the future is indeed banal. People still wear suits, go to offices, and make presentations. But they get there in self-driving cars and the presentation technology is better. That's the "vision" in his book. It's rather 1950s.
Kool-Aid (Score:2)
Well, I guess it's good for business. That tends to happen in such situations.
Nope, wrong. (Score:3)
The notion that it is centered around a specific culture confined to a specific nation-state is not. He seems to be blinded by his disdain for America, when in fact his alleged adversaries are politically ambivalent outside of their concern for policy that impacts their own state-independent agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.
The "witch doctors" quote is taken completely out of context. All he is saying is that some companies are rushing ahead with new tech like Google Glass and Streetview and telling us everything is fine and its good for us.
Re:who cares (Score:5, Interesting)
NO, sorry, you should RTFA. He's quite a lot more, and a lot different from that. Just for starters;
"The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. "
It's an interesting read. Wish I had read the book myself first. Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives. In this way he's like Chomsky, and the problem with this is, he's liable to be right at least every so often (e.g. broken clocks being right twice a day). That is annoying. But it makes every individual argument less convincing as there's no evidence it's actually a nuanced or considered position.
Also, I don't believe the word 'banal' means what he thinks it does.
Re:who cares (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he is using the word "banal" he is paraphrasing "The banality of evil"?
I understood that he is comparing the book authors and that their view is "banal", as such "“Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth." which is in fact a "banal" view of "progress".
Re: (Score:2)
His article is entitled "The Banality of 'Don't be Evil'". You have to be wearing ideological blinders if you think that isn't a reference to "The Banality of Evil".
People read more, write more, research more, travel more, invent more, learn more, communica
Re: (Score:2)
Ok I forget the title. Not everyone had red "The banality of evil". I thought it was just the Google slogan "Don't be evil".
The current trend in consumer electronics goes more to the "consume" part and not "create". Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. all go to App-Shop and iTunes model. Plus the Cloud and Software as a Service, goes all to constrain the user and degrade him to consumer only.
My opinion is that the tech companies want to kill the general purpose computer because you can not only sell more
Re: (Score:2)
First, a lengthy anti-American diatribe, now just a list of generic platitudes. You're a perfect representative of the kind of vapidity and consumer culture you yourself complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
Your generic, flowery dismissal is nothing more than a failure to face the issue squarely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me cap my argument by reminding that Assange's whole enterprise (Wikileaks) depends absolutely on the kinds of technology produced by Google and similar companies. Before the internet, Julian Assange would be some guy somewhere Xeroxing small runs of a paranoid zine. It's very likely that without Google and its peers, no one would know about Julian Assange or Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, this shouldn't be marked as Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if Assange is really trying to say "Google: just like the Nazis" with his leaning on the word 'banal' here, you know, I really hope most rational people can discern a difference. Is that really an argument he wants to make?
Nazis: initiating a world war that killed millions. Pursued a horrific genocide of their own minorities.
Google: dorky glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you can say a lot about the Nazis but at least they had style.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's trying to say "Google: just like IBM". IBM, of course, provided the Nazis with the data technologies of the day for tracking Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and political undesirables. Then the Nazis rounded up those people into concentration camps and systematically murdered them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact the book was endorsed by Kissenger is enough for me. The man is an authoritarian nightmare; he helped craft the concept of the unitary executive, bombed neutral nations into the dirt, and overthrew legally elected governments to name just a few things. If Kissenger likes it it smells like imperialism to me.
Re:who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
> Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives.
Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you. For all the talk of "If I someone tried to attack me, I'd shoot them because I'm a hard scary person" in your country you don't have cry like a bunch of pussies each time someone talks bad of you and you don't half seem unable to consider how you might use your own physical form to defend yourselves if your guns were taken away as if the idea of punching someone attempting to attack you is too much for your feeble existences.
There's no doubt his organisation's biggest leak was embarrassing to the US but he leaked things about plenty of other countries prior to that. The only way he's started to focus on the US is in the way that it's been turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy where paranoid Americans like yourself and your government have cried "He's out to get us!" and attacked him in the media and so forth, to which he responds and points out the hypocrisy of your country and your countrymen which you then cry "He's out to get us!" again and so the cycle repeats.
He's not out to get you beyond the fact that your country and it's people have made it an us vs. him thing such that the media always asks about that US complaining against him such that another feedback loop commences about "how he's always on about the US because he just mentioned us! (even though he was asked about us and was just answering the question)" type scenario.
If he has started to pursue the US specifically then that's entirely you're nation's own doing. He only gives a toss about transparency and corruption and if you want him to focus on exposing that in other countries then you know what? Just shut up, and give it up with your attempt at extraordinary rendition via Sweden on trumped up rape charges against him so he can get on with exactly that.
Re:who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, don't forget that Julian became something of a minor hero, when his leaks concerned mostly Arab nations that we disapproved of, or approved of very little. It wasn't until Manning's stuff was published that Julian became "Public Enemy #xx". Congress critters and the White House gave him praise, even if it was faint, as long as he seemed to be focusing on Arab nations. How quickly the tables turned when we became the focus of attention!
Re:who cares (Score:5, Funny)
Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you. For all the talk of "If I someone tried to attack me, I'd shoot them because I'm a hard scary person" in your country
I am a hard scary person, but it looks like someone needs a hug
Re: (Score:2)
> Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives.
Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you.
You turn things around. They have guns because they are scared. The scared-thing doesn't go away if they have the most of the most powerful guns. It's the same with rich people. Once they have all this money they are scared shit that they will lose it once in the future.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Disagree. I, an American by birth, own firearms for several reasons (not necessarily in order).
1) Recreation - shooting a firearm is a great stress reliever and fun to boot.
2) Sport - I actively hunt game for food.
3) Protection - I am responsible for the safety of my family.
4) Rights - in this country, it seems if you don't exercise your rights, the gov't will have more fodder to take them away.
By the way - I may not represent all Americans with my ideals or standards, but I'm not the exception to the rule
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
... to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives. In this way he's like Chomsky...
Have you read any Chomsky? Chomsky explictly refrains from discussing the motives of American foreign policy. This is because, he says, it is impossible to determine what the actual motives behind any particular decision are, to try and do so would just be speculation. Instead, he confines himself to pointing discrepancies between what the govt. and the media say US foreign policy is doing, or trying to do, and what they are actually doing, or trying to do.
He makes this disclaimer prominently in many, if not all of his books (on foreign policy and media hegemony).
Very good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange has an awful lot of very astute writing and work leading up to Wikileaks, technically he's no Jacob Appelbaum, but his philosophical writing nails it.
Wikileaks was based upon that philosophy and changed our world by starting this "leaking culture", certainly leaking existed long before, but social factors preventing it were more powerful. Assange created a framework proving that leaking often works where internal reforms fail.
Assange has obviously been driven a little batty by the U.S. government's pursuit via Sweden, U.K., etc., but historians will continue talking about Assange long after they've forgotten about Bush, Clinton, etc. Anyone who can actually push all the way from new philosophy to real political change is a certified genius.
Re: (Score:2)
changed our world by starting this "leaking culture"
Internal Memos predated WL by some years. They just never achieved notoriety before they were shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for mentioning them. I hadn't heard about them.
Wikileaks worked because both Assange found the right technical people and anyone who delved into it found his philosophical writings.
And it's still working because those philisophical writing have been borne out to some extent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, but that's actually my point. Assange gave the anonymous leaking enabled by the internet a stronger philosophical basis and direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange has obviously been driven a little batty by the U.S. government's pursuit via Sweden, U.K., etc.,
Has anyone proven that the U.S. has anything to do with this, rather than him just being a coward and not risking the consequences for his actions?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is ample historical precedent for authorities using sex crimes to silence successful dissidents who are obviously in the right.
John Wilkes was the first person to successfully publish the proceedings of parlement, arguably creating our notion of freedom of the press. He was also imprisoned for sex crimes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/11/henry-porter-wikileaks-cables
I'm imagine the U.S. would keep him for a while if they had him, but doing so would prove messy. In reality, the U.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not an Assange supporter but the accusation's Sweden is using in this case seems ridiculous in the extreme. I don't understand the UK position on this case either. Just let Assange go to Ecuador and get rid of a major headache.
Re: (Score:2)
He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.
If you think they are that bad just wait till the people who posted his bail wade in :D
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE WITCH DOCTOR CONTINGENT (Score:2, Funny)
We are deeply offended by any comparison with Schmidt and Cohen.
Our harmless and ineffective curses, incantations and potions are a comfort, and not without entertainment value.
Please refrain, Mr. Assange, from making further degrading likenesses of our calling, to that of the subjects for your article.
Re: (Score:2)
That's tendentious bullshit. Google is offering two legal products that people apparently want. That's what companies are supposed to do. If you think they are "bad" for "us", then go through the political and legal process to ban such products.
Of course, so far, such challenges have been completely unsuccessful, and for good reason: it's an infringe
Re:who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
He's given up that right (Score:2)
He's a fugitive now, on account of him failing to appear for his extradition warrant and jumping bail. Prior to that, he'd done nothing illegal, or at least nothing that had been proven. He'd been accused of rape, but at this point it is just an accusation/indictment. However they had a legit extradition request. So he was required to present himself for extradition. However he didn't. Well, that's against the law. So now, regardless of the validity of the rape allegation he's a criminal in the UK. He jumpe
Re: (Score:2)
and is now trying to fight for his right to remain free even after that. That is indeed a commendable effort.
So if I break the law, and hide, I'm doing something "commendable" too? I am, after all, remaining free (both physically, and from the potential consequences of my own actions).
It keep him "alive", from what? Last I checked Sweden doesn't kill people, not even for suspected sexual assault.
Oh, sorry, left my tinfoil hat in my other pants...
Re:who cares (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While being in UK someone asked Swedish authorities directly: is there a guarantee that he will not be extradited to US upon return to Sweden -- and there was no guarantee. This rape charges theater staged by Swedish authorities means they are completely on the leash with US, so I would not call it "safest place".
Why would anyone be willing to sign "we guarantee there will be no extradition"? It would probably be illegal to do so. The only situation where a guarantee could be made is if the USA asks Sweden for an extradition, and a Swedish court says "no". Unless and until a Swedish court has looked at it, nobody can say there will be no extradition.
Re:who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
That hardly answers the question. Why does he think he'd be in so much more danger in Sweden? Why is being in the UK, where extradition is easy, better than being in Sweden, where extradition is hard? Why is being in Ecuador, where the CIA doesn't mind sending in assassins, better than being in Sweden? And it's not me that says assassination might happen in Ecuador - it's the president of the country that's just granted him asylum.
Calling the rape charges theatre directed by the US makes no sense. It would have been terribly easy for the USA to extradite him directly from Britain. Going to Sweden makes it much harder. The only way it makes sense is if it is Julian directing the theatre - all this rubbish about US conspiracies is diverting attention from the sex charges against him.
Re:who cares (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That hardly answers the question. Why does he think he'd be in so much more danger in Sweden? Why is being in the UK, where extradition is easy, better than being in Sweden, where extradition is hard?
Because he's not technically in the UK, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Why is being in Ecuador, where the CIA doesn't mind sending in assassins, better than being in Sweden?
Because assassinating him would be such an enormous political fuck-up, the kind of thing that gets a president impeached, that it won't happen. Convicting him in a kangaroo court is a means of giving political cover to his persecution, but assassinating him would be to completely discard it.
Re: (Score:3)
That hardly answers the question. Why does he think he'd be in so much more danger in Sweden? Why is being in the UK, where extradition is easy, better than being in Sweden, where extradition is hard?
Is Julian Assange really afraid of extradition? Personally, I think he's more afraid of indefinite detention in a Swedish government facility while being stuck in indefinite legal limbo.
In any case, does extradition even matter anymore? Sweden just went against common sense, against its own body of laws, and against existing precedents to redefine what a "rape" is supposed to be viewed like. Do you think that's just a coincidence? In my opinion, that's what Julian Assange should really be afraid of, the red
Re: (Score:3)
That's not because of the US, that's because of feminists, who got Sweden to pass rape laws with ridiculous definitions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You dont get to respond to an arrest warrant with "Ill come along, but only if you accept these terms."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Your 1. has a flaw. What you mean is, you BELIEVE that there is zero chance that Assange would be extradited from Sweden. In fact, the "charges" aren't even charges - he has NOT been charged with any crime involving those women. Sweden has an ulterior motive for dragging Assange back into their jurisdiction. What could that motive be? Well - an arrangement with the US to permit Assange to be extradited or "rendered" seems most likely to me.
Do we need to revisit the two women involved?
1. Both women came on to Julian, and seduced him - not the other way around.
2. Both women, in interviews, have flatly stated that he did NOT rape or assault them.
3. Both women make exactly the same claim - on the "morning after" Julian had a second helping, WITHOUT a condom.
4. Neither woman made any complaint until AFTER they coincidentally met, and discussed their encounters with Julian.
It is important to note, that after one judge dismissed warrants for Assange's arrest, a DIFFERENT judge took over, and issued warrants on greater crimes than anyone had previously considered.
It's political, and if Sweden gets their hands on Assange, he will be sacrificed to the US Justice department.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_political_refugee [wikipedia.org]
If making yourself a political target is a crime, then Assange is most assuredly guilty of a crime. But he's hardly guilty of any gross sexual offense.
Sweden's govt also assisted CIA torture renditions (Score:3, Informative)
...which were illegal. They have a history of bending over when the US establishment wants something.
Re: (Score:2)
"But he'd have to face up to charges about those girls"
What charges? In fact there are no charges.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes an excessively paranoid person to dedicate themselves to something like Wikileaks. I didn't think the fact he was crazy was ever in question. That doesn't mean we don't benefit from it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is likely some truth there. I remember reading about David Chaum and the original attempt at an internet currency "DigiCash".... which was based on a wonderfully anonymity protecting digital cash protocol that had some real possibilities and might have worked.
Why did it fail? Apparently there were multiple moments where they were close to having major deals worked out with early online retailers, but, each time it fell apart partially due to paranoia. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone that be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
now he's just an entertainment "news" story figure
This is not because of a change in Assange, but due to corrupted media. Most people only know OWS as a group of pot-heads that want Government handouts, and not a group of people demanding justice for a few making billions while putting millions in to poverty. Most people don't know that people have been in Gitmo for 13 years with no trial, no charges, and no future (most people probably have no idea that there are over 150 of those on a hunger strike for over 3 months trying to simply learn their fate).
O
Re: (Score:3)
No shit.
Assange has become a parody of tin-foil-hat anti-US tripe.
What do you mean "become"? He's always struck me as far more motivated by anti-US hate than any desire for openness and such. His 'releases' and such seemed to target the US far more than anyone else as if no other country has secrets far more terrible to expose. They however get ignored because... well... I don't know just because?
I would be very hard to convince me that he's never been handed leaks from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or any of a number of places and yet (so far as I know) he/wikileaks has
Re: (Score:2)
Keiser is just a disgrace. He needs to yell his point more often. He obviously subscribes to the approach of "repeat your position loudly and people will believe it to be true".
There is something completely wrong with that guy.
Not google, redneck shilling. (Score:2)
Julian has been involved in showing EVERYONE that the USA isn't the best and brightest and loveliest people in the world, the Leaders of the Free World as they claim.
That Wikileaks produce copious amounts of information from all across the globe is continually and habitually ignored, so that the claim can be asserted, sans proof or thought, that WL and JA specifically is a USA hater.
This is so that those who have evidence of their countries' culpability in bad actions can ignore those and instead complain a
Re: (Score:2)
Just yesterday a guy was complaining about his homeland, Canada, in the comments. I remarked on it as it was unusual to see. Some moron replied that that's what they always see, which is ignoring the vast amount of self-examination done by Americans on this board.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
You're dismissal of this article out of hand, with no explanation other than the fact that you don't seem to like him, is weak and suggestive of google shilling
People on Slashdot (and Internet forums in general, I guess) really need to stop seeing dismissing a person's retarded behavior as shilling from the other side. "You disagree with me! You must be paid by the opposition company to do so, no reasonable person would disagree with my behavior!" Until recently, I've only seen the Church of Scientology make those claims on a regular basis. Now every troll on Slashdot seems to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
This!
In the past month I have been accused on Slashdot of being paid by 5 different companies.
I only wish there was some way I could collect all those paychecks.
Re: (Score:2)
I routinely find sensible arguments from people I disagree with (aside from yourself, obviously) here on /.
Re: (Score:2)
I love my country, I love the truth. I, however, do not conflate the shenanigans of Rome-On-Potomac with my country. :-) Also, my love is a tough one, the same one I'd have with my son if he got strung out on meth.
Re: (Score:3)
He's a freak, and a paranoid treacherous loony
Treacherous? Nothing Assange has done constitutes treason. You're conflating Assange and Manning, shock amazement.
Re:Why give this man air time? (Score:5, Insightful)
How has Assange committed treachery, exactly?
He may not be on your side -- but he's not exactly betrayed the side he's on. That's treachery, and he's not committed it.
Re: (Score:2)
"the man who made his treason possible is totally innocent"
Participating in the creation of, and serving as the spokesman for Wikileaks does not make treason "possible". By that reasoning, the existence of ANY mass media is an enabler of treason.
It's clear that Manning released information that the U.S. government considered secret and thus violated the law. Whether or not the release of documents that are "secret" constitutes "treason" is a subjective conclusion.
The government/military has few legitimate
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you giving this hand-flapping, self-aggrandizing tosser airtime?
Because Batboy retired and John McAfee is on vacation this week.
Re:Not using google anymore. (Score:5, Interesting)
For what it's worth, Schmidt has virtually disappeared inside Google (I work there). Once Larry took over Eric's influence - never actually high at the best of times - appears to have dropped to somewhere near absolute zero. He rarely appears in internal events anymore and doesn't seem to have any impact on priorities or staffing decisions. He was always something of a caretaker leader even in the years he was CEO ... the real drive and product direction was always coming from back seat driving by L&S.
Assange's article makes him sound like he's been locked up in that embassy for too long, to be honest. Schmidt and Cohen may well have an unhealthily close relationship with the US Government, but as neither of them are in charge any more it makes little difference. The idea that "Google is trying to position itself as America's geopolitical visionary" is silly. I can't imagine anything that must interest Page less than geopolitics.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
For what it's worth, Schmidt has virtually disappeared inside Google
Sounds like something a witchdoctor could do! Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped using slashdot.
D'oh!
Re: (Score:2)
"Idiot." Both derived from the common Greek idios (I'd put it in here in Greek, but /. hasn't discovered Unicode yet) meaning "of or pertaining to one's self." Hence the English terms "Idiom" meaning a figure of speech peculiar to a person or group of people and "Idiot" meaning (originally) someone whose behaviour is very peculiar to themselves, since developed to mean, well, idiot. You see? The have very similar etymology, making them etymologically similar. What did you think it meant?
Any more questi
Assange = Goldstein (Score:2)
Whatever you think about Assange, you pretty much have to admit he does a splendid Emmanuel Goldstein impression! All that's missing is the two-minute government-sponsored Youtube video of hate. You can't even meet him in person anymore, he can only be reached through teles^Hphone and email!
Re: (Score:2)
Internet access is lagging in the US? What US do you live in?
Granted, access may be missing in rural areas, and it may be slower than other countries, but as far as I can tell, it's perfectly sufficient for anything that a three letter agency would care about. No need for tin foil hats, that's just normal greed, incompetence, and lack of vision.