Google Handed To FBI 3 Wikileaks Staffers' Emails, Digital Data 197
Ariastis writes Google took almost three years to disclose to the open information group WikiLeaks that it had handed over emails and other digital data belonging to three of its staffers to the FBI under a secret search warrant issued by a federal judge. WikiLeaks were told last month of warrants which were served in March 2012. The subjects of the warrants were the investigations editor of WikiLeaks, the British citizen Sarah Harrison; the spokesperson for the organisation, Kristinn Hrafnsson; and Joseph Farrell, one of its senior editors. When it notified the WikiLeaks employees last month, Google said it had been unable to say anything about the warrants earlier as a gag order had been imposed.
Encryption? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.
Re: (Score:3)
If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.
Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.
Re:Encryption? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.
Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.
Uh... that only means they don't bother with a warrant. They just go and get whatever they like.
Perversely, you're actually better off dealing with these ridiculous, draconian, panopticonian laws, because at least in theory you have some kind of recourse - even if it consists of fighting retroactively to reduce the J. Edgar Hoovering up of your personal data. If you use an offshore email provider, the NSA will just grab whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without even the tiniest fig leaf of law to cover up strategic bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck "going and getting" something from a server location in Russia or China. That involves risks of data falling into the hands of those governments, but it's a question of who you fear more and who can hurt you more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good luck "going and getting" something from a server location in Russia or China.
What on earth makes you think data becomes inaccessible to the NSA/FBI just because it's physically located in another country? Remember, this is the same NSA that intercepts Cisco shipments to install back-doored firmware and develops its own zero-day hacks for Windows. This is the same CIA that wrote Stuxnet. These are organizations that can drop six or seven figures on a drunk IT staffer in exchange for plugging a USB drive into a server and walking away.
The US people couldn't care less whether the NS
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, this is the same NSA that intercepts Cisco shipments to install back-doored firmware and develops its own zero-day hacks for Windows.
The fact that they have to do this says a lot about their capabilities.
(Even that is somewhat questionable, as many Citizens prefer that legal rights not apply to undocumented residents or suspected criminals.)
Those people are freedom-hating fools. So as soon as you're accused of something, those unspecified people think that you should lose all your rights?
It may not be much more of a hurdle, but actually having to ask a rubber-stamp court for authorization is a higher bar than just pointing their hacking tool at a server.
It's practically nothing, as we've seen with the NSA. They get a few rubber stamps and they're allowed to collect nearly everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, this is the same NSA that intercepts Cisco shipments to install back-doored firmware and develops its own zero-day hacks for Windows.
The fact that they have to do this says a lot about their capabilities.
How would you propose hacking into a computer WITHOUT developing a zero-day for it? Well, unless you want to count using vulnerabilities from three years ago that some sysadmin is too lazy to patch. It isn't like anybody thinks the NSA has some psychic that just controls the minds of sysadmins from halfway around the globe. Engineering software and getting it to run on targeted hardware is just the physical reality of intruding on systems.
We're talking about wikileaks here. Obviously that is going to be
Re: (Score:2)
How would you propose hacking into a computer WITHOUT developing a zero-day for it?
I'm saying if they have to backdoor specific firmware, there is still hope. Of course, since they have the capability to sap up nearly everyone's data, there isn't much hope to begin with. Just saying that just because something is hosted outside the US, that doesn't mean it's somehow more vulnerable.
It isn't like anybody thinks the NSA has some psychic that just controls the minds of sysadmins from halfway around the globe.
You'd be surprised.
We're talking about wikileaks here. Obviously that is going to be a high-profile target for intelligence agencies anywhere. You simply can't run such an operation on some unencrypted webmail service ANYWHERE.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying if they have to backdoor specific firmware, there is still hope. Of course, since they have the capability to sap up nearly everyone's data, there isn't much hope to begin with.
Snowden revealed quite a bit in this space. The NSA has numerous departments and they cooperate.
You have the zero-day guys. They get lists of things that would be useful to hack, and they hack them. I'm sure that includes OSes, firmwares, peripherals, you name it. Some zero-days are held in reserve to avoid revealing them in case a high-priority target comes along.
You have the target intelligence guys. They identify systems to hack. They profile the targets - is this just a casual PC user, a company,
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't like anybody thinks the NSA has some psychic that just controls the minds of sysadmins from halfway around the globe.
What do you think the tinfoil hats are for?
Come to think of it, the whole "tinfoil hat to block the mind control rays" thing is a complete psy-op. Wouldn't wrapping your head in tinfoil make you more susceptible to mind control rays, like wadding up tinfoil on your TV antenna?!
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that The Man got wise to the tinfoil loophole, had it pulled from shelves, and replaced it with aluminum foil, and for those who didn't notice the difference their source of protection now makes them more susceptible to attack! The Man is truly diabolical.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck "going and getting" something from a server location in Russia or China
1) Google is blocked in china.
2) Thats partly because of the massive police state and strong net censorship they have going on over there-- but I'm sure YOUR data would be safe over there
3) Google is probably the only company formerly doing business in China that wont give your data up to the CPC. As a consequence of that, see #1.
Re: (Score:2)
Storing your stuff in China or Russian jurisdictions only raises you to the top of the governments shit list. On the other hand you can always join the US expat group in Russia. At least until Russia and the US agree to exchange certain individuals that may be resident in their countries. The US and Russia have a long history of making these kind of deals.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... that only means they don't bother with a warrant. They just go and get whatever they like.
Sounds like what the NSA is already doing. You think the government cares about the constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
If you use an offshore email provider, the NSA will just grab whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without even the tiniest fig leaf of law to cover up strategic bits.
And likely none of it would ever be admissible in an American court of law........
Re: (Score:2)
Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.
There are maybe a small handful of places better than the US for hosting as regards privacy, and in any of them a court order will compel you to give up customer data.
Re: (Score:2)
If the provider doesn't have any US presence, then two things are true. First, it has a presence elsewhere, and is likely to be subject to warrants from its home country. (This is not to say they're all the same; a provider in a continental European country may be safer). Second, the NSA has absolutely no qualms whatsoever about hacking into it.
Re: (Score:2)
E-mail is fully plain text otherwise, all it needs is someone on any part of the wire (so any NATO member could or has participated with US or EU surveillance) to read your mail. The only thing that works is end-to-end encryption, which e-mail clients have fully supported for the last few decades.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Agreed, using a third party service when you know you are going to be subject to scrutiny from those in power is just dumb... but then I've come to expect that from WikiLeaks.
When I was in school long ago I found that from time to time a teacher might try to punish me for my attitude or behavior but not by lowering a value in such a way (if there was such a column on the report card), but by arbitrarily claiming I got 20% less on a given test than I really did scored. Once I discovered this occasional patte
Re: (Score:2)
If *I* worked for wikilieaks, I sure would have an additional freemail account somewhere that I'd use for facebook, slashdot, mailing cat pictures to friends....
Re: (Score:2)
If *I* worked for wikilieaks, I sure would have an additional freemail account somewhere that I'd use for facebook, slashdot, mailing cat pictures to friends....
I'd have a cunning code involving the colour of kittens and whether they meow or not
Re: (Score:2)
...which adds to the point that an email account, that doesn't contain emails about the subject at hand should also be part of a criminal investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
...which adds to the point that an email account, that doesn't contain emails about the subject at hand should also be part of a criminal investigation.
I can see pareidolia becoming an issue, with claims that pictures interpreted in a certain way could mean something when they really are just cat pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
Humbug. What could possibly go wrong [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Assange wrote a piece about Google
http://www.newsweek.com/assang... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.
Why especially? AFAIK Google is the only one of the big 3 webmail providers not currently bending over backwards for the Chinese Government. There was a warrant in this case; even the famed lavabit had to fold when given a warrant.
Its absurd to go after Google for following the terms of a court order; you'd do better to ask whether the order was justified, and if not ask why the courts issued it and who can be held accountable.
Lets blame google! (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have a 'secret' warrant. Give us what we want or YOU goto jail."
Damm google for not protecting users... It's all their fault!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google has the resources to fight against this if they cared.
They got rich by using the open infrastructure of the United States.
If they don't fight to continue having open infrastructure, then they don't deserve being rich, are not good stewards of their riches, and do not seem to care about the citizens of the country that helped make them rich.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Twitter has fought these secret warrants and won.... Goggle could too if they gave a damn about their users.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter was given a subpoena [theguardian.com], not a secret warrant, so there was nothing preventing them from notifying the account owners. And they lost that appeal [aclu.org].
Re:Lets blame google! (Score:4, Interesting)
If Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, etc. stood together against government encroachment, the Feds would have to back down. The collateral damage to the US economy (read: taxes) would be huge if they were all shut down and their executives given orange jumpsuits.
For the sake of their long-term business interests, and our liberty, it is time for some civil disobedience from corporate America.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that. Ratings agencies can't even give an honest appraisal of the country's debt without getting dragged into lawsuits and being forced to fork over billions of dollars in penalties. Any company that actually defied the police state would be out of business within a week.
OK Google (Score:4, Insightful)
See that Android phone in front of you, the one you say 'OK Google' to? the one with the camera and the face-unlock feature? Google owns your life, and if secret warrants can get Google to turn over data it has on you, then that device in front of you is nothing but a surveillance device.
How many cameras and microphones do you have in the room right now?
Re: (Score:3)
This applies to Apple phones, too. And Microsoft phones. And hardwired landline phones.
Re: (Score:2)
This pretty much applies to ANYTHING that is network connected. It can be audio, video or just meta-data that shows what your daily schedule pattern looks like. ( Eg, A burglar alarm or Electric Meter can show when you're typically at home, other systems like car tech will have GPS, traffic cams, CCTV and license plate readers will tag you, point of sale transactions via Debit or Credit cards )
Stop and think about the
Time to get totally degoogled (Score:2, Informative)
yandex.com [yandex.com]
torproject.org [torproject.org]
They took more than email (Score:2)
The subjects of the warrants were the investigations editor of WikiLeaks, the British citizen Sarah Harrison; the spokesperson for the organisation, Kristinn Hrafnsson; and Joseph Farrell, one of its senior editors
It's obvious they also stole some vowels from the poor spokesperson.
FBI 3 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FBI 1 was under Hoover. FBI 2 was post-Hoover. And FBI 3 is neo-Hoover.
Cloud is toxic.... (Score:3)
This is a perfect example of why cloud computing is a baaaaad idea...
At least when you have it in-house, the gov usually needs a warrant to come through your door and seize stuff....At the very least you are aware you are being targeted and can start mounting a legal defense.
When it's housed on a 3rd party provider, you need not even be aware they have seized your stuff.....
Not to mention corporate espionage going on and you have exactly 0 ways of detecting it.
Yes yes you can encrypt. But encryption does not work for EVERYTHING in every situation. You can encrypt documents easy enough, but what if those documents are only available via a web interface (something like good docs). Or how do you encrypt say virtual servers so the host (who has root access to the hardware) cannot see them or what is inside them but their hypervisor can execute it....
Funny enough phone service suffers from the same problems. Your service provider knows who you are calling, when, from where and can listen in to your convo at will without you knowing any better. But this is why, pre-911, you needed a warrant to do that and there where legal protections in place to prevent that from occurring.
Re: What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google had no choice under US law. If you want to bash something, bash the US govt. Out of all the big names in tech, Google is still the least evil.
Re: What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
At last check it is Microsoft who is fighting these sorts of things... even when significant penalties could be involved if they fail: http://www.zdnet.com/article/m... [zdnet.com]
Where is Google's backbone?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: What did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure you can. It's called PGP, or GPG if you want the name of the best implementation rather than the protocol, and Wikileaks was incompetent if it wasn't using it in 2012.
"Well they can outlaw PGP"...maybe, but they haven't, and US courts may very well look unkindly on such laws and find them unconstitutional.
Better tech is often an integral part of fixing bad government policy in an imperfect world.
Re: (Score:2)
And this got me thinking, how can they outlaw strong encryption anyway?
If I send you a file which contains random garbage, how is that different from a file/text encrypted? I don't think there is a way for them to prove that you were using encryption beyond reasonable doubt.
All of this trying to outlaw strong encryption completely pointless.
Re: (Score:3)
Likewise Tor isn't a solution it's integral to the HTTP 3.0 protocol.
We need to c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Friends and family are surely tired of my tinfoil hat, they just do not seem to care about their privacy. Many say the "I have nothing to hide" line.
Re: What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The twitter-friendly response is, "Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean I'm happy with a webcam on my toilet."
The longer response is that the NSA is asking Google to record all of my searches, Comcast to record every website I visit at home, Verizon to record every place my cell phone goes and every cell phone call I make, and Voipo (my home phone service, similar to Vonage) to record the phone number on every home call I make. Even if I was comfortable with the government possessing that information without probable cause, it means a crooked law enforcement official, a disgruntled employee, or a criminal hacker can get a scary amount of private data about me from any one of those five sources and use it to stalk me or commit identity theft. If I am the only person with all of that data then the stalkers, the identity thieves, and the government have to hack my personal machines to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
The thought that always comes to me is "I have nothing to fear, so I have nothing to hide. If I have nothing to hide, why do you need to look?"
Re: (Score:2)
Hackers/government/whoever will target the big databases with everyone's information in them. That is worth their time. If your information is in there, you suffer also.
Hackers/government/whoever are far far far less likely to be hacking your personal computer, unless you've managed to get flagged already, and become a target through some other means, which sure can happen, but the point is, you don't need to be targeted to have your identity
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially none of my friends and family have GPG enabled, and most don't know what it is. I can't communicate securely unless the person at the other end cooperates.
Re: What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
They were using PGP for internal emails, but couldn't when interacting with people outside the organization who didn't use it. There is also the metadata, which is at least as valuable as the content.
No - Microsoft really are fighting this (Score:2)
You can't fix bad government policy with better tech...
But Microsoft is using the opposite tactic and fighting this with bad tech. If the government are spending all their money on licenses and all their efforts trying to integrate proprietary systems then they have less time and resources to snoop on citizens
Re: (Score:2)
Does cherry picking old war stories usually work out well for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Triggered...triggered? Dont use that bullshit social justice lingo. You weren't triggered you dont have PTSD. At best you were annoyed
Re: (Score:2)
Triggered...triggered? Dont use that bullshit social justice lingo. You weren't triggered you dont have PTSD. At best you were annoyed
Ran out of mod points, or I'd give you some :) Posting instead:
Always call people on this kind of shit. So many people trying to avoid responsibility for what they say or do these days.... and he was already posting as AC to begin with.....
Re: (Score:3)
Can you tell the difference between foreign data and data stored in the US?
The software giant has been battling U.S. prosecutors for data held in its Dublin, Ireland datacenter, which it says cannot be accessed or retrieved by a U.S. search warrant.
If the data is held in the US the Us warrant has jurisdiction and the Microsoft battle does not apply.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where is Google's backbone?
I dunno, like 2013... http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/
I mean, when Yahoo started demanding warrants everyone noted that it was "what Google was already doing" http://www.wired.com/2013/01/yahoo-demands-warrants/
So, Google has already been demanding search warrants for a very long time, and that's exactly what the FBI had!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like half the people posting here today believe that Google is giggling and sending private data to the government willy nilly, when the case is they were legally required to, have constantly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you start a company that is at the foref
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just using the USA and Google for this example, the amount of money Google should be allowed to invest should be directly proportional to it's number of US Citizen employees.
I figure it'd be a good way to have the amount of sway a company can pull tied directly to their involvement (via employment) to the US economy in the political scene.
Yeah, no doubt it's flawed, however I wouldn't like
Re: (Score:2)
Re:i LOL at the lousy excuse ! (Score:5, Informative)
Legality of tax evasion schemes is flaky, moreso - it's quite hard to nail corporations for it, because they follow the letter of the law and game the system in order to minimize their taxes. Now telling FBI off and refusing to comply with a court order is entirely different game - penalties can range up to total halt of all services google provides on US soil and confiscation of every tangible item feds can get their hands on. You want change - go whine at government for insilling the rules not at corporations playing by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck man, stop giving us this shitty excuse!
Under US laws Google has to pay *A SHITLOAD OF TAXES* and what Google did?
Google shifted its money, via accounting, around the world, to Ireland, to Luxembourg, to many other tax havens, so that it doesn't need to pay those taxes
No. Obviously Google hasn't to pay a "shitload of taxes" as US (and other countries) laws allowed them to legally shift their money around the world.
You're mixing that up with "should have to pay"
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
When smaller entities try the same practices in Australia, the Australian Tax Office comes down hard and says the offshore entity is not genuine, but a method of evading tax.
However they do nothing when large conglomerates setup "offices" in tax havens.
Yeah, and that is exactly how they get around disingenuous offshore entities... by putting an office out there with at least 1 employee in it. Then it's legitimate. All the larger companies save far more than it costs to set this up when they do so. Smaller companies cannot offset the cost. But that's purely based on the amount of money your company makes. There's a point where you have to get some tax loopholes, as that's what most of your best competitors are doing, and you aren't going to want to compete
Re: What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean they were just following orders?
They responded to a search warrant. The only thing that makes this search warrant different from other search warrants is that for some reason you think that emails of the accused person shouldn't be searched in this case. Your justification seems to be purely political. I don't think Google should fight specific search warrants on purely political reasons, Google itself might not have your political views and might not want to fight these search warrants at all, and last Google doesn't actually have any standing to fight these warrants. If there is something wrong with the search warrants, someone's lawyers will bring it up in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Your justification seems to be purely political
The trouble is, the justification of the warrant seems to be purely political as well...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes a classic internet toughguy. When was the last time you were served a US federal warrant by a US judge to hand over data stored by a US company in the US about a customer who doesn't pay you anything at all, and then decide to "fight it".
I'm guessing never since we don't get many brave slashdot ACs posting from prison.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you must know so much more about the federal warrant that Google was legally obliged to respond to. Where is all that pesky evidence that the judge did something wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
The residence of the person is irrelevant. The issue is the location of the data. If the data is stored on US servers then the warrant applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk to Microsoft about that.
No need. Microsoft and the GP agree that it does matter where the data is STORED.
Re: (Score:2)
Foreign dependencies because multinational companies wnat to make business in those countries, too. Most countries demand that a part of your company is in that country if you want to sell something there. (Or at least a local distributor who is responsible for what is imported and sold)
It's tax reasons why those companies exist in Ireland, and not in France or Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In which case the non-US citizens should be glad that the US authorities even went that extra mile and got a judge to sign a warrant and not NSL to get the data of foreign agents without judical oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the lesson is if you care about privacy you should avoid storing your data with multinational companies because every nation in which the company operates is a nation that could potentially coerce the company into handing over your data..
Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'? (Score:5, Insightful)
They pretend it's about the Swedish "rape" case, by which I mean consenting sex without a condom.
Sigh. First off, it's just as easy to extradite someone to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden. If the US wants him, there's no need for them to somehow persuade the Swedish authorities to extradite him first on their behalf.
Second, sex without consent is rape. If someone agrees to have sex with you on condition that you use a condom, then they haven't consented to condom-less sex. And condom-less sex with a promiscuous stranger risks such nasties as HIV. Whether this happened, we don't know. But the Swedish authorities have the right to carry out an investigation.
Overall, my feeling is that WikiLeaks is an important public service, but that Julian Assange is a bit of an arsehole.
Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'? (Score:5, Informative)
First off, it's just as easy to extradite someone to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden.
Sweden has helpfully allowed the US to extradite two people [wikipedia.org] without going through the usual legal procedures. That is to say, they didn't debate the matter in court: they just grabbed them off the street, bundled them into an airplane and flew them out of the country within a few hours. The only reason their lawyer even knew this was happening is because he was in the middle of a phone conversation with one of them when he was grabbed. The two of them were flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. (Or, just possibly, were treated with perfect humaneness by the Egyptian government, and concocted an elaborate lie about being tortured. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.)
To my knowledge, there is no similar case of anyone being abducted from the UK with the consent of the UK government. If I had earned the enmity of the US, I'd feel much safer in the UK than in Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
And the UK has likely done the same (though less publicized) AND extradited people to the US for things that aren't even crimes in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really about ethics in security journalism.
Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fear wasn't extradition, it was rendition. People had been kidnapped from Sweden before. Sweden even had to run its own military ops to stop it happening. The problem is that parts of the government still seem to be cooperating with the US. The crackdown in TPB appears to have been at the request of the US.
It also seems highly suspicious that the case was dropped and he was told he was free to go, but then the prosecutor changed her mind and refused to interview him in the UK. If you were wanted by the US, if US senators were literally calling for your head on a platter, would you take the risk of going there? If you had seen leaked evidence that they do in fact render people to other countries, torture them for months, take them Guantanamo and torture them some more?
By all means lets have an investigation. The Swedish authorities want to question him. They can do that in the UK, or by video link. He offered, repeatedly, and it's been done before. Then they can decide what they want to do next, and we can hear some charges and legal arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
By all means lets have an investigation. The Swedish authorities want to question him. They can do that in the UK, or by video link. He offered, repeatedly, and it's been done before. Then they can decide what they want to do next, and we can hear some charges and legal arguments.
Since when does a prosecutor go to a foreign country to interview someone? Either they have enough to ask for an extradition, then they ask for an extradition, or they don't have enough, in which case an interview would be pointless.
Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Second, sex without consent is rape." Which is not what happened.
Well, non-consensual sex is what is claimed. Whether it happened is for a jury to decide.
And dumbasses like you think it's still about sex without a condom
Ah, what en elegant way you have with words!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the GP, but sometimes there is no elegant way to tell someone that they are, indeed, a dumbass if they still believe any of this trumped-up shit at this late stage in the game. Every word that comes out of the mouths of the "authorities" is a lie. They have no interest in telling the truth or ever letting the truth be known to the unwashed masses. They hate you, they hate me, they hate all of us, with every fiber of their being. If you believe anything less, then you are naive and you deserve whatever you get. Wake up and realize that the powers that be won't be happy until you are completely enslaved in a technological matrix or dead. Count on it.
TThis is extremist ignorance from the other side aisle. Despite all of the Orwell you may have read, states aren't interested in causing pain, misery, and death for it's own sake or just to get their jollies out. States are simply apparati through which a lot of interests political and (most especially) corporate manifest their will. In the process they do a lot of deals and maneuvers for various reasons they really don't want to be aired in the open. And a fair amount of it perhaps, shouldn't be. S
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The cat does not hate the mouse, the cat LOVES the mouse. It's delicious.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer. I am, specifically, not a Swedish lawyer, and I don't know how they handle these things. I've seen descriptions (which I can't verify easily) of reasons why the Swedes do need him physically for the case. I'm not accepting the word of random people who, I'm fairly sure, are also not Swedish lawyers.
I don't know the facts of the case. The allegations I've seen do include what I'd consider rape. Whether they are true or not is something for the Swedish legal system to decide.
I do
Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'? (Score:5, Informative)
You realise that on all of the counts listed in the European Arrest Warrant, dual criminality was asserted and thus no UK judge found grounds to dismiss on the basis of lack of criminality in the offences listed?
See page 15 of the following PDF:
http://webarchive.nationalarch... [nationalarchives.gov.uk]
And you should also check out what the offences listed actually are, because your description is quite a way off.
The offence described as rape is as follows:
[quote]
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party (SQ) in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity.
[/quote]
Offence 4, Page 3 of the above document.
The lack of a condom used also shows up in Offence 2, Page 2, for a different injured party (AA).
How about you Assange supporters actually get your facts right about what the arrest warrant actually lays out? You can harp on about "such silly charges" but its patently obvious you have never actually read the rulings against Assange, which makes it trivial to dismiss you out of hand.
Re: (Score:3)
So basically you want there to be a conspiracy theory behind it all, so you are going to twist everything and anything you can so you see a conspiracy theory...
In 2013 there were 5 EAW's issued for sexual offences. In 2012 there were 4.
The "sheer effort" in Assanges case is purely because of his own actions - once the extradition judge approves the extradition and all appeals are dealt with, the country is obliged to extradite. If the subject of the EAW absconds, its the extraditing countries obligation t
Re: (Score:3)
>court-issued warrant
>gag order
Do tell, what would you have done in their situation? Told the courts to go stuff themselves? Cause that almost never goes well.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody shits.
Except for Kim Jong Un