Slashdot Mirror

New Statesman did that and wasn't able to show any change in advertising as a result of talking near the phone. That said, this doesn't mean that they won't use recorded audio in the future and it doesn't mean that they didn't temporarily disable this feature when it started to get a lot of press.

Also, was Fuckbook able to ID that user and know not to do their normal creepy shit?

New Statesman did that and wasn't able to show any change in advertising as a result of talking near the phone. That said, this doesn't mean that they won't use recorded audio in the future and it doesn't mean that they didn't temporarily disable this feature when it started to get a lot of press.

Zuck's outfit is certainly not alone in this, but the fact The Facebook has the ability to listen when they deem it appropriate is troublesome enough. At this point, we basically have to trust an information-gathering juggernaut not to use this ability to ever gather information about us.

As others have wisely pointed out, listening all the time to everyone is not technologically feasible, yet the threat of a targeted listening campaign looms very possible and extremely likely to occur.

New Statesman did that and wasn't able to show any change in advertising as a result of talking near the phone. That said, this doesn't mean that they won't use recorded audio in the future and it doesn't mean that they didn't temporarily disable this feature when it started to get a lot of press.

The person who wrote it said it could: https://www.newstatesman.com/p...

Because he's not merely wanted for interview. He's wanted for a final interrogation prior to arrest.

https://www.newstatesman.com/d...

Four: "The Swedes should interview Assange in London"

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange's many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or "indictment"). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.

Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor's position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:

140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:

"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.

"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not "disproportionate" as submitted by Assange's lawyers:

160.

Of course there is that part where the so called "rape charges" where absolute bullshit.

Not true

https://www.newstatesman.com/d...

One: "The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law"
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/...

The Magistrates' Court ruled (emphasis added):

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange "deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state". In this country that would amount to rape.

Just for the record, be very careful with women if you visit Sweden. Pressing false rape-charges is apparently a thing these days, even if you're not famous.

Bullshit. I've been to Sweden and dated women there. So long as you don't rape anyone you'll won't be charged with rape. What got Assange on trouble was that he was dating someone who consented to sex with a condom. They slept in the same bed. He woke her up having sex without a condom. She wanted him to get an aids test. He refused. She went to the police. He got charged with rape. And the UK courts ruled that since what he did in Sweden would count as rape if he had done it in the UK, he could be extradited. Then he skipped bail.

Hey, don't you know? Fusion power is only 20 years away, and *always* will be...

https://www.newstatesman.com/s...

He's not wanted for questioning. There's a warrant out for his arrest - the interrogation is the last stage before he is charged.

https://www.newstatesman.com/b...

What has become clear is that the Swedish approach to criminal proceedings is different from that of England or other common law jurisdictions. The interrogation requested takes place at a late stage, just before prosecution. Assange is thereby not required for mere questioning - indeed, he was questioned on 31 August 2010.

And he's accused of rape - UK courts have ruled that what he is accused of doing in Sweden would be rape if he did it in the UK. Which is a key part of extradition being granted.

4. Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] 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."

The High Court held that the test of "dual criminality" was met in respect of each of these offences: they were offences in both England and Sweden.

Though not hardliners siding with US on matters of espionage.

The US alliance is absolutely vital to the UK - without it we'd need to build our own Trident missiles. And we'd need to build our own listening centres to replace the NSA ones which cooperate with GCHQ.

It's doable for sure - the UK did have programs like this when the US suspended nuclear cooperation after WWII. And the UK could work with Canada, Australia, Singapore and so on - and in fact UK cooperation with these countries was folded into the Five Eyes. However it would cost significantly more than the UK currently spends on intelligence and defence.

And in a sense people like Assange are just as much enemies of GCHQ as they are of the NSA. Even if the NSA/GCHQ cooperation ceased the UK would still be out to get him.

Or maybe I should say "the UK would clearly still want to cooperate with our European friends and allies on law enforcement. Particularly on odious sexual crimes like rape".

And before anyone quibbles about what he was accused of and whether he has been charged, read this. From the New Statesman, a far left magazine that was initially very sympathetic to Assange.

https://www.newstatesman.com/b...

The Guardian, another far left paper which published the Wikileaks stuff also thinks he should not be able to evade justice

https://www.theguardian.com/co...

Mr Assange, who invited the UN panel to examine his case in 2014, knew the outcome in advance. That may account for his offer to give himself up to the British authorities if its opinion went against him. He will hope that its findings allow him to claim some kind of moral victory, and strengthen his call that the Swedish authorities drop their investigations. But he would still face arrest in the UK: he was granted bail while he fought extradition to Sweden and he broke his bail conditions, at great expense to those friends and supporters who had backed him financially, by fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy. No doubt the conditions of his self-imprisonment are unpleasant; they are certainly severely limiting. But it is possible to sympathise with his circumstances, and to applaud his role in the WikiLeaks revelations that exposed embarassing and sometimes illegal US activity that were published in the Guardian (while deploring his later decision to dump many more, unmediated, on the web) without accepting his right to evade prosecutorsâ(TM) questions about the allegation that he committed a serious criminal offence.

Between the full wrath and fury of the US and Brexit, the UK as we know it may very well cease to exist within the next 5-10 years.

Don't worry, the Queen has connections everywhere:
http://www.newstatesman.com/gl...

This is not the best way to win a battle of ideas. Neil Gaiman says quite nicely here: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/05/neil-gaiman-credo Now I'm going to start searching youtube trying to get censored. Oh, yeah, and now I won't be able to trust any of google searches either.

The well of left-wing grievances is endless, and they don't pass Poe's Law. There's no way to tell if they're fake or not becacuse the real ones are so outrageous.

The Army has deleted a tweet posted Thursday afternoon referring to âoechinksâ in the armor of its Special Operations capabilities after receiving numerous accusations of racism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/01/30/army-deletes-tweet-referring-to-chinks-in-armor-after-racism-accusations/

'"I have to pay for the rest of my life because of a very small group of trans women," she says. "I havenâ(TM)t said anything hateful to any of these people, ever. All I have ever said was question the essentialist meaning of transgenderism, because, by positing gender as fixed it flies in the face of feminism." Subsequently, Bindel has been prevented from speaking not just about transgender issues, but also about violence against women and girls. The no platforming has taken the form of direct intimidation â" "I had death threats [...] I was shouted at, physically attacked on stage," Bindel tells me â" as well as coming in more official guises.'
http://www.newstatesman.com/sa...

Uh no. This is the bullshit that social justice has created. People are screaming "SJW" because social justice warriors are the ones pushing the bullshit claiming that kimono's are cultural appropriation. Or wearing Halloween costumes are racist/sexist/misogyny or some other bullshit. They're the ones lining up to try and ban people from making speeches, and saying that people who don't follow the group think need to be banned. You know, like Peter Tatchell or Germaine Greer. You are authoritarians, you are engaging in authoritarian behavior. You think you're the good guys and you're not. You're everything you claim to fight.

Actually that's not quite as true as you think.

For example - adjusted for inflation and cost-of-living changes, what the average 14th century English peasant earned in a year, would be equivalent to earning 20 thousand pounds a year today - that's a VERY comfortable salary.

The great poverty ever experienced in England happened during industrial revolution. Child mortality before 10 went up from about 50% in the 18th century to over 90% with starvation and worked-to-death being prime factors in the increase. More people were homeless or starving in 19th century English society than at any time before. It lasted until the end of World War 2 - when the welfare state (and critically the NHS) became a thing.

This was Britain in the 1920s: http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

There are still people who remember what life before the welfare state was REALLY like - and none of THEM want to go back, and the libertarians who do - either don't know, or are so convinced of their own superiority that they are absolutely certain they would be in the top 5% and never experience the results of the policies they promote. A few of them, of course, have bought the bullshit that Murray Rothbard and co have been telling them about how getting rid of welfare and regulations will actually improve their lives - they are just in for a shock when they discover how austerity makes them even more poor. They'll end up looking back at the last few years as a heaven on earth compared to what their lives will be like if the Koch brothers and their pet-republicans get their way.

Well, picking just one source.. http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

44% of 25-44 year olds voted to leave. That isn't even middle aged, that's younger voters. So classing leavers as 'elderly' discounts sizeable numbers of non-elderly people.

The breakdown by higher education is heavily tilted - but doesn't factor out the massive discrepancy in educational attainment changes over the years. Somewhere around 50% of people under 30 have a degree, somewhere around 20% of people over 40 do. So you're double-counting the age bias twice, quite apart from again ignoring a lot of educated leave voters.

The poor? That source doesn't really answer this - it looks at median income by area, which is both hard to interpret but also doesn't tell us how voting happened within that area. Lets try another source: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2...

This one shows that 43% of voters in the AB demographic (i.e. the wealthier ones) voted to leave. Without those 1.6 million very much not poor voters the referendum result would have switched.

More relevantly, 43% shows that although the poor were more likely to vote to leave, the well off were far from certain to vote to remain.

Sorry mate, if you actually look at the demographic breakdown of the vote, you'll find the statement "masses of elderly or uneducated or poor English people" to be mostly correct.

I had looked at the demographics, and shared some of them here with you now, and hopefully you can now understand why I stated

I think you're also ignoring the sizeable educated, young and/or well off people that voted to leave as well.

There are sizeable numbers of people that aren't old, aren't poor, aren't uneducated, that wanted to leave. My anecdote doesn't have to be significant, the raw numbers are.

Given the behaviour of feminists and the constant attacks on men in education, the justice system, the civil courts and particularly online can you really blame men for not wanting to vote for Clinton, an acknowledged feminist?

the poor oppressed white guys

Oh, how witty. Your attempted sarcasm is however merely ironic:
http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

Sure, that's the UK not the US. But your casual sexist racism shines through anywhere.

Same with jump starting the economy by giving tech entrepreneurs cash too. They don't need much to survive, and it is better incentive than making them a slave to some VC fund or fat rich bastard. Communism died because workers hated giving the bulk of their labor to the party. Same with today's workers having to give the bulk of their labor to fat rich bastards who have amassed undeserved wealth (old money, payback for giving a politician a blowjob, and personal connections). Great book: https://www.amazon.com/Meritoc... https://www.psychologytoday.co... http://www.truth-out.org/opini... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

What rating would the prime minister candidate give this website? How about if the company that provides ads to be displayed on that page accidentally or "accidentally" slipped an ad for a pornographic website into the list of ads to be displayed? Would that change the candidate's rating? How about if a random commenter had posted a section of an ultraviolent story filled with graphic depiction of torture, murder, and cannibalism?

Tell you what, Ms. Leadsom. I'll name a website, and if you can rate all the pages on it for the next seven days and have the general population agree with 50% of your ratings at the end of the week, let's go ahead with your plan. I name the website Reddit, including all its subreddits. Your time starts now. Good luck, and may whatever deities you believe in (if any) have mercy on your soul (if you have one.)

Just to give you some rebuttal so you don't have to assume you are more or less right:

(..) which the UK doesn't recognise as a crime. (..)
Wrong. It does. See the first myth.

(..) more than likely agree to extradite him to the US (..)
Wrong. See the second myth.

(..) the law is being abused. (..)
Wrong.

Due process is important. It is the formal means by which competing demands and seperate interests can be accommodated and reconciled in any overall litigation process. This is why due process is an important liberal principle.

Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld.

He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail.

And in doing this, Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court.

Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".

(source)

Assange is avoiding due process. He is not the victim here.

Just to give you some rebuttal so you don't have to assume you are more or less right:

(..) which the UK doesn't recognise as a crime. (..)
Wrong. It does. See the first myth.

(..) more than likely agree to extradite him to the US (..)
Wrong. See the second myth.

(..) the law is being abused. (..)
Wrong.

Due process is important. It is the formal means by which competing demands and seperate interests can be accommodated and reconciled in any overall litigation process. This is why due process is an important liberal principle.

Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld.

He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail.

And in doing this, Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court.

Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".

(source)

Assange is avoiding due process. He is not the victim here.

Just to give you some rebuttal so you don't have to assume you are more or less right:

(..) which the UK doesn't recognise as a crime. (..)
Wrong. It does. See the first myth.

(..) more than likely agree to extradite him to the US (..)
Wrong. See the second myth.

(..) the law is being abused. (..)
Wrong.

Due process is important. It is the formal means by which competing demands and seperate interests can be accommodated and reconciled in any overall litigation process. This is why due process is an important liberal principle.

Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld.

He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail.

And in doing this, Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court.

Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".

(source)

Assange is avoiding due process. He is not the victim here.

This is absolutely false, but what can you expect someone that went to school in North Carolina?

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/sex-isn-t-chromosomes-story-century-misconceptions-about-x-y

I hope those intelligent judges will be appointed to the national constitutional courts of their own countries.

Sadly not in the UK. Nothing to do with the fact that there is no national constitution but that the government (which is going to be Conservative for several decades after their planned boundary changes during this session) will give the content mafia free rein to persecute citizens. Although, to be fair, a Labour government would probably be as supine to the content mafia.

It was poor against poor whilst the rich raked in the rewards.

I think you have probably gotten hold of some defective history there. WW1 was a disaster for the old order in Europe. The privileged were tallied on the butcher's bill just as the poor.

The real Eton Rifles: the heroism of public school boys in the First World War

Public school alumni suffered disproportionately heavy losses during the Great War. Whereas some 11 per cent of all those who served in the war died as a direct result of the fighting, the figure for public school boys was over 18 per cent. Those who left school between 1908 and 1915 died at even higher rates, serving on the front line as junior officers or as pilots in the Royal Flying Corps. The losses sustained by the upper and middle classes were heavy. Lord Salisbury, who was prime minister until 1902, was not untypical in losing five of his ten grandsons. Whatever else, the products of public schools were not shirkers. The vast majority could not have been more different to Captain Blackadder.

Heavy war debt, significant losses to manpower, ruined economies, .... WW1 was no great bounty to the nations that fought it.

The Communists opposed war against Germany while the Soviet Union was friends with them after having singed a non-aggression pact, invaded and split Poland's territory, and committed the Katyn massacre.

In WW2 it wasn't just the poor that got killed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... -- Cardiff rejected the student petition to uninvite Greer from giving a guest lecture. Dawkins supports letting her speak, and he's no conservative.

a) it didn't actually happen; Greer has pulled out because, at 76, she's "too old" to face protesters according to http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

b) she wouldn't have been "banned from campus", but her one guest lecture would have been canceled

c) it's not like all liberals, or leftists, agree -- sweeping generalizations are unfounded

d) this is not about squashing free speech, the way Freedom of Speech (at the federal level) is meant: nobody's preventing these people from having their opinions, but they are asking not to have tax dollars (publicly-funded schools) or tuition money spent on giving them a platform to spew what some people *see* not just as "wrong" but outright "hateful" speech (rightly or wrongly). the logic is that a school only invites so many guests, it has to be selective, there's value and judgment applied, so the school's reputation is attached to what the speaker actually says (and may be seen as reflecting something about the student body), it's not the same as letting them rant on any old street-corner.

How fitting that you use the word "zombie" .... I think this deals with that nonsense. Pay special attention to the section "Sweden and extradition".

The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange - Why the “zombie facts” of Assange supporters are wrong

It is about sexual assault, pure and simple.

Personally I am pretty happy with Gamer Gate. Do you really think game developers need Zampolits ?

As far as I can see Beale just targets things that are already problematic and exploits the problems for his own gain.

I have been reading SF and considered myself a fan since the 60s, it really hasn't been hard to notice the problems developing in publishing houses and the awards. The Hugos used to be a pretty solid recommendations for about the last 10 years they have been anti recommendations. The only publishing imprint that puts out consistent quality is Baen. This isn't surprising when you have people like this infiltrating the field

http://www.newstatesman.com/cu...

I also remember a post on John Ringo's blog about the organizers of Trinoccon destroying the convention with their zeal to alienate authors on the basis of their politics.

The rot is there. Beale just delivered the news in a really painful way.
I am a

Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.

Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.

Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?

That's not really going to work.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested. ...... read the rest

Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.

Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.

Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?

That's not really going to work.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested. ...... read the rest

Unfortunately you've got some things wrong there. I suggest you read this, and follow the link to read the rest of that item.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange. .... More

Unfortunately you've got some things wrong there. I suggest you read this, and follow the link to read the rest of that item.

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange. .... More

They can't, and the idea that Sweden should have to make a guarantee to a fugitive from justice is silly. Assange isn't a head of state, he is a fugitive from allegations of rape that should be answered in the criminal justice system like any other.

Can Assange be extradited from Sweden to the USA?

The Swedish government exclusively makes decisions in extradition cases to countries outside the EU. In short, the country that wants a person extradited needs to hand in a formal request to the Ministry of Justice.

Every extradition case is to be judged on its own individual merits. For that reason the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee in advance that Julian Assange would not be subject to further extradition to the USA.

Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK. This means that Julian Assange would be in the same position in Sweden as he would be in the UK with regard to further extradition to a third country.

Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.

(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey for further detail on this.)

Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

(See Mark Klamberg’s blog for further information on this.)

You've fallen for a line of nonsense.

Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.

I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden

Your story is dated 2011, and I regret to inform you that the facts seem to have changed under your feet. There have been three court cases in the UK, going all the way to the UK Supreme Court, that have upheld the charges against him as rape even in the UK.

I also think it is a bit of a mistake to rely solely upon the views of Assange's barristers/lawyers even if the story was up to date.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

Those two English court decisions have been backed by the UK Supreme Court. It's rape he is accused of, even if it was in the UK.

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.

Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?

By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.

Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?

By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

Think of the London metropolitan area as the new Royal Court. A royal toilet cleaner isn't privileged relative to the nobility, but he is privileged relative to toilet cleaners elsewhere.

You're a fucking idiot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...

http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...

No, just hope a believe. HOPE you know this guy, documented here; Belief is just the nicest of fellows. Just like I hope and believe the NSA isn't doing something they shouldn't, until someone outed them we had never heard of before.

I do not think bringing Snowden into the example really works on this one, as he did actually steal classified info and post it to the internet/news, no belief needed. I do hope he gets a fair and public trial though, but I believe he will never make it to court.

And what does the Swedish legal system say about extraditing criminals to the U.S.?

Well, if you're ACTUALLY interested in seeing what the Swedish law says about extradition to the US, you could start by familiarizing yourself with the actual Swedish-US extradition treaty that's been in force since 1963.

After you've read through that, if you're STILL interested, you can go read the Swedish government's publications on what the European Arrest Warrant program entails. There's some good links there where you can actually read the EU's legislation about EAWs, as well as some factual information from Sweden about surrender to and from Sweden under EAW.

After that, you can go read the UK Magistrate Court's decision about the validity of the EAW, in which they upheld the validity of the EAW and ordered Mr. Assange surrendered to Swedish authorities. A little further digging will help you find both the UK High Court's decision as well as the UK Supreme Court's decision on his appeals related to the validity of the EAW.

After you've read all that, if you're REALLY interested in understanding how things work, you can go read even more of the full review of the details of the case, as well as a cogent, well-written piece by a real lawyer in the UK who talks about why Sweden doesn't just "come interview Assange in London."

do they just throw his ass on a plane to the U.S. the second he's stupid enough to set foot on Swedish soil?

Oh, you weren't ACTUALLY interested in learning anything about the ACTUAL facts of the case. You were just trying to repeat a pro-Assange soundbite. Silly me.

Its important to know what your buying. // I know a guy, he didn't know what softcore porn was. He actually thought it was average, i.e. the same kind of content that Lion king had. The example here is Freezing - the anime(ecchi). He didn't realise it was adult content material, he thought it rated the same as 'teen'. When I explained to him, he then noticed the differences. // This is because games, movies, books, anything another human creates has an effect on other peoples mindset - especially children - especially young adults. // If parents buy things for their kids that they don't know what it has in it, it can have disastrous consequences. Same as if teens buy things they don't know what it has in. // This problem - feminism-humanisn-sexism - whatever you want to call it - goes so deep, I don't think it is entirely irreversible. I believe the best way forward is to be informed about humanism/feminism/sexism in regard to both male and females, gender equality. Properly research it - don't just read what you want to hear. // One good one to research the views on would be Bayonetta. // I don't like imposing my views on other people - even though I know how much sense I make ;) but read up these links on this topic: // http://gomakemeasandwich.wordp... http://www.newstatesman.com/cu...

Oh yes, they do claim that. Jimmy Wales asserts that Wikipedia is "about as accurate as traditional encyclopedias and improving all the time." Really? Really? Really? Really? Really?

Back in 2005, Wikipedia was studied for accuracy against the Encyclopaedia Britannica. And they were found to be about the same. Since then Wikipedia has improved a lot, and they've stopped printing the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The 2005 "study" comparing Britannica and Wikipedia was not a rigorous peer-reviewed study, and they only looked at articles on relatively obscure science topics – a fact that no one seems to remember these days. The average Wikipedia vandal would not even know how to find an entry on a topic like the “kinetic isotope effect” or “Meliaceae” (two of the articles they looked at).

The assertion that Wikipedia is as reliable as Britannica is ludicrous. Granted, it's a lot bigger than Britannica, and has articles on breaking news stories, but as reliable? Of the English Wikipedia's nearly 5 million articles, at least 10% are on no Wikipedia editor's watchlist – a result of the continuous increase in the number of articles combined with the continuous decrease in the number of active editors – and those articles are sitting ducks for subtle vandalism.

Britannica may have had errors, but it did not contain false information inserted by anonymous people for fun or for financial gain; it contained no anonymous hatchet jobs written by people's rivals, and was not full of puff-pieces written by the biography subjects themselves.

Repeating this false "Wikipedia is as reliable as Britannica" meme only contributes to future cases like this one here, or this one.

The City of London is indeed the heart of tax evasion. It directs tax evasion around the world.
You are absolutely a liar. I direct you to this Guardian story that explicitly states that as a fact.
You ridiculous comments about the Freemasons, etc is subterfuge trying to hide with disinformation the precise fact that the City of London is a world center of lawless scumbaggery and its apologists like you are the worst sort on the planet.

To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century In David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy
Quote: But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control.

Further evidence: The tax haven in the heart of Britain

"What they sell is escape: from the laws, rules and taxes of jurisdictions elsewhere, usually with secrecy as their prime offering. The notion of elsewhere (hence the term "offshore") is central. The Cayman Islands' tax and secrecy laws are not designed for the benefit of the 50,000-odd Caymanians, but help wealthy people and corporations, mostly in the US and Europe, get around the rules of their own democratic societies. The outcome is one set of rules for a rich elite and another for the rest of us."

• The tax haven in the heart of Britain
• City banks ‘cheat’ Europe in €600m tax avoidance trading scheme
• How Tax Havens Stole Your Money
• The Missing $20 Trillion

For some real-world examples of made-up Wikipedia information entering other sources, sometimes to the major embarrassment of the people who reused it without checking, see two recent articles: How pranks, hoaxes and manipulation undermine the reliability of Wikipedia and I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax. It happens quite a lot, at least in the English Wikipedia, that hoaxes stay around for years before they are discovered, by which time they have entered all sorts of other sources (remember the Bicholim conflict?). Even people who work for Wikipedia tell you not to trust it, but to check the underlying citations.

It would help if the English Wikipedia had edits by new and unregistered users looked at and approved by more experienced Wikipedians before showing them to the public (that's how it's done in the German and Polish Wikipedias for example), but the English Wikipedia community has steadfastly refused to introduce that system ("Pending Changes", also known as "Flagged Revisions") in all of its articles, saying it would be too much work and be a downer for new contributors who might have to wait a while before they see their changes go live.

For examples of Wikipedia being abused for personal vendettas against people, see Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia and The tale of Mr Hari and Dr Rose: A false and malicious identity is admitted. Anonymity encourages this sort of thing, of course. Again, Pending Changes would have helped a little ...

The Wikimedia Foundation has so far not really cared very much about content quality. They do not measure it, and don't know how to, by their own admission. Their metrics of success are the number of articles, the number of editors, the number of edits (more is better!), the number of page views (Alexa!), and how many millions in donations they take. Little if any of this money goes towards measuring and improving quality. Most of it is spent on their software engineering and product development department, which represents two-thirds of the 200 or so Wikimedia staff. They are approaching Wikipedia more like Facebook than an educational project. Quality assessment and real-time quality control, the job of sifting through all the millions of contributions, is left to all the volunteers, who are stretched ... and unlike the Wikimedia Foundation staff (many of whom are not really skilled professionals, but simply Wikipedians who have managed to join the gravy train), they are not getting paid. Short version: The Wikimedia Foundation now takes $50 million a year in donations (compared to just $2.5 million six or seven years ago), and they don't really know what to do with it. It's not making Wikipedia a more reliable reference source.

Really! What about Hamas hiding within hospitals, mosques, etc? Hate to break it to you but those are war crimes. Open your eyes, ratchet back your hate and get a clue!

BBC Mid-East Expert Jeremy Bowen's Gaza notebook: I saw no evidence of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields.

Similarly there's a lot of FUD about RIPA's password clause by people who haven't read the law which explicitly states that police have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has a key before they can be prosecuted for not handing it over

Except it doesn't.
The actual quote from the law is:

For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if— (a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and (b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

IOW the defence has to show "sufficient evidence ... to raise an issue", and then and only then does the prosecution have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So this is a completely new standard of proof introduced into the British criminal system after 1000 years of using only the 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' test. How do you show 'sufficient evidence' that you have forgotten a password? Nobody knows.
AFAIK (and IANAL) no judge has yet accepted the defence has shown 'sufficient evidence'. How do you show a negative - that you don't know something? Maybe judges think (correctly) that it's impossible to 'raise an issue', so the prosecution never has to prove anything apart from that you didn't hand over a password.
This is what's known as the 'reverse burden of proof' introduced in RIPA. You don't have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' you forgot the password, but you do have to show 'sufficient evidence', or - if you don't hand over a password - you're automatically guilty.
What's more the Home Office code of practice says that even if you have 'sufficient evidence' - it might not even be allowed in court 'if the person fails to raise some doubt as to whether he still had the key when the notice was given'.

it's never happened, everyone prosecuted to date has been like the plonker in yesterday's news story who incriminated themselves for the simple reason they were actually dickheads.

Perhaps you're assuming no judge would be that corrupt,so here's a case of someone who quite plausibly forgot his password being imprisoned:

A TEEN who refused to give police officers an encryption password for his computer has been jailed for four months. Evidence showed that the defendant admitted in police interviews that he had set an encrypted password of between 40 and 50 characters containing both letters and numbers using an encryption software programme and that he had had originally relied on his memory to recall it but could not recall it when he was served with the notice.
The jury heard both the prosecution and defence case and accepted the prosecution case that the defendant must have kept a record of this very complex password, rather than relying on memory, and that he had deliberately failed to disclose it to the police. They returned a guilty verdict after 15 minutes deliberation.

Incidentally, if you do get ordered to hand over a password - even to sometimes else's data you happen to have - you're not allowed to tell anyone, presumably not even to ask for the password.

One problem is that people will typically read the Wikipedia article first, and allow it to colour their perception. Big mistake if the article is biased to begin with, and a sort of kafkaesque situation for the victim. Wikipedia has known problems in this area, see e.g. Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia by Andrew Leonard; The tale of Mr Hari and Dr Rose – A false and malicious identity is admitted by David Allen Green; the story of Taner Akcam, Any political filth or personal libel can be hurled at the innocent, by Robert Fisk (originally published in The Independent); or that of Philip Mould, Mayfair art dealer Mark Weiss in disgrace after admitting poison pen campaign against rival Philip Mould, by Gordon Rayner.

What's wrong with "cunt"? I wouldn't use it in a professional setting; but let's face it, Slashdot is not that.

The question is whether this was always the plan. First put in place the infrastructure for censorship -- eek, porn! -- and then slide on down the slippery slope.

They always said it was. The thing is most people just got stuck on the "think of the children and didn't look at the rest. The list includes:

"violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites", "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking", "web forums", "esoteric material", "Web blocking circumvention tools", and "sites where the main purpose is to provide information on subjects such as respect for a partner, abortion, gay and lesbian lifestyle, contraceptive, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy."

In a prelude to the more recent gross attacks on democracy, the US and UK have both been consistently shitting on whistleblowers for many decades.

Snowden's method will probably only work if your leak will make you famous. For everyone else, anonymity would be advised.

The author of Spyblog has been documenting the progress of the UK's seemingly-inexorable descent into a Stasi police state for about 10 years.

In 2006, he started posting tips on whistleblowing. This has since evolved into a more comprehensive website.

http://ht4w.co.uk/