Assange Denied Swedish Residence On Confidential Reasons

MotorMachineMercenar writes "The Local reports that Julian Assange has been denied a residence permit in Sweden. The WikiLeaks spokesman and Australian citizen applied for residency in August, apparently to gain the freedom of speech protection offered by Swedish laws. When asked about the reasons for the denial, a Swedish official responsible replied, '...secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision,' essentially meaning the reasons are confidential. Assange has been recently under investigation for sexual molestation charges, which were withdrawn and then re-instated. WikiLeaks is expected to release up to 400,000 confidential US military documents in the near future, which would be the largest such leak in US history."

Comments

Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[elucido]

It's only a matter of time before the high and mighty types put him on the blacklist.
I even heard that he lost control of his own server wikileaks.org, and that the technical difficulties are a result of an act of sabotage. I said it before and I'll say it again, it might be best for the future of wikileaks of Julian Assange steps down, he allowed himself to go public and accept all that media attention, he's the one who killed wikileaks.

There was a time when wikileaks would just dump any and all information onto the site and let us review it all. Lately it's all about the US government, and the wars. It's not the kind of information that most of us find interesting, and while they did a good job with many stories early on back before Julian Assange let it swell his head, now hes become public and he's pulled a Suge Knight, ruining what he created and destroying all the hard work and effort by becoming a celebrity.

You can either be powerful, or a celebrity, but it's not wise to try and be both. Julian Assange should have let someone else be the spokesperson. It should have been designed so that there was not one point of failure. Because Julian Assange is THAT GUY, the agencies will all target him and that will be the end of Wikileaks. Game over for wikileaks, it was a naive idea that could never have worked in practice and was doomed to be exploited by governments.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Kvasio]

judging by how well spam moguls and botnet kings are doing, he would be better of in Russia.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Wikileaks people are smart, Assange is exactly the scapegoat public figure your describe. It would be a failure if Slashdot knew...

Lets drop the speculation and baseless slander.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[cosm]

Lately it's all about the US government, and the wars. It's not the kind of information that most of us find interesting

You are speaking for yourself on that one.

There was a time when wikileaks would just dump any and all information onto the site and let us review it all.

That hasn't changed.

Julian Assange should have let someone else be the spokesperson.

Who and why?

It should have been designed so that there was not one point of failure.

You have fallen into the propaganda. One man doesn't a leaking organization make. Sure, in the eyes of people who buy into the character assassination, yes he may lost credibility, but honestly those folks don't matter in my opinion.

Game over for wikileaks, it was a naive idea that could never have worked in practice

It did work in practice. You say 'could have never' like the didn't successfully leak thousands of documents already.

What did he actually do wrong? Are you suggesting there would have been a better person to put their face on the leaks? He is the fucking messenger. The fucking messenger. Going celebrity was his exit plan. Your pessimism makes you THAT GUY.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Control of his own servers?

You clearly don't know how wikileaks works, yet you were modded up ... So glad to see correct information is getting to the front of the pack here on /.!

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[PCM2]

I do have mod points, but I honestly don't know how to mod a post that parallels Wikileaks with Death Row Records.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Miseph]

"he's pulled a Suge Knight"

Wouldn't that require him to literally murder somebody? Suge was never anonymous or unknown, he was "behind the scenes" only in the sense that he wasn't on stage... you never see Don King in a boxing match, either.

Anyway, I suspect that, had Julian Assange chosen to remain anonymous, he would have either been dead or "outed" months ago. The "decline" of WikiLeaks may be related, but only insofar as both are a result of it becoming well-known and popular in recent months.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[shitzu]

in no time these confidential reasons will be published on wikileaks

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[julioody]

... Lately it's all about the US government, and the wars. It's not the kind of information that most of us find interesting

What shocks me to no end is that you're right. I suppose people don't care if it ain't happening on their own backyard. But the apathy of the populace with regards to a war waged for reasons that have so many holes that, to be honest, I think at this point the powers that be don't care if they get busted or not, it just never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[elucido]

It's not practical because everybody knows the government was going to target everyone running the wikileaks server all the way up the chain to Assange. They will treat Wikileaks like a terrorist or mafia type organization.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot becomes more and more like a bad sci-fi film daily... short on scientific and technological facts but heavy on sensationalist spin.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

What did he actually do wrong?

His planning and execution around pissing the largest organization on the planet off?

Going celebrity was his exit plan

Apparently he did not plan that one out very well or he would have applied for Swedish residence before he did got into this mess.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[elucido]

"he's pulled a Suge Knight"

Wouldn't that require him to literally murder somebody? Suge was never anonymous or unknown, he was "behind the scenes" only in the sense that he wasn't on stage... you never see Don King in a boxing match, either.

Anyway, I suspect that, had Julian Assange chosen to remain anonymous, he would have either been dead or "outed" months ago. The "decline" of WikiLeaks may be related, but only insofar as both are a result of it becoming well-known and popular in recent months.

Suge Knight never directly murdered anybody. Also Assange if they wanted him dead, would be dead. He went public because he wanted to go public, he may have been outed sure, but that doesn't excuse all the interviews.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[GrumblyStuff]

He's the face of an open challenge to the rulers of the land. They won't take kindly to that in Russia. Also, they won't beat around the bush and do character assassination. They'll just assassinate.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the biggest problem with Wikileaks was not the idea itself (a site dedicated to government transparancy), but that Assange instead chose to use the information as a weapon to advance his personal views about the wars. In so doing, the wikileaks concept has lost much of its credibility with a large part of the public, and that is the problem. I think a better platform would strictly be about being a repository for the data it finds rather than an interpreter for what it means. Leave that to the journalists.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[pyrrho]

it's not practical to expect change and give into that kind of thing. He's already done more than the world's press has managed with decades to work at it.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[grcumb]

It's only a matter of time before the high and mighty types put him on the blacklist.

I even heard that he lost control of his own server wikileaks.org, and that the technical difficulties are a result of an act of sabotage. I said it before and I'll say it again, it might be best for the future of wikileaks of Julian Assange steps down, he allowed himself to go public and accept all that media attention, he's the one who killed wikileaks.

Just thought I'd paste your own words back to you, so you'd have time to spot the inherent contradiction in your argument. Wikileaks' difficulties, which you attribute to outside parties, parties who you assert have blacklisted and actively sabotaged him, are somehow Assange's fault?

So he's being punished for receiving media attention, not for the leaks? How, pray tell, do you think one could release tens of thousands of documents which are embarrassing to the military establishment of the most powerful nation on the planet and not get a lot of media attention?

Has it occurred to you that he might have seen the attention coming and realised that it was better to run cover for the dozens or hundreds of others who contribute to the project? Did you think that maybe putting a single face on the organisation was a deliberate choice by Assange, so that he could take the bullet (and I hope I don't mean that literally) for his colleagues?

Mod me flamebait if you must. I could be wrong, but with the illogic that you've presented, you can't be right.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case you have a typically closed mind I'll show you where the door is.

Why are you shocked?

Let's look at a hypothesis.

Would it shock you if, hypothetically, most "apathetic" people think you are not only wrong but evil? That you destroy your own for shallow brownie points with your a flawed hyper-idealistic yet oh so hypocrite outlook where one play-pretends to be some kind of hero defending evil from the consequences of being evil?

Maybe that's what "apathetic" people think, ever considered that? Maybe there is no "silent majority" of sheeple but instead people actively but silently and indirectly fighting you because they see you as no less a terrorist than the terrorists you defend and support in all sorts of ways?

If you haven't ever thought about that well then I guess you might well be shocked.

People care, but that does not automatically mean that they care for your views. Confronting your views is also caring, ignoring your views can also easily be caring.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[icebike]

judging by how well spam moguls and botnet kings are doing, he would be better of in Russia.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he would be welcomed with Open Arms in the United States.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[cheater512]

AFAIK their servers are still going quite nicely. Every government has had plenty of time to try and take them down, yet they are still there.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Julian Assange is NOT blacklisted.

The VISA application was made for job and that job offer has been withdrawn.

Thus the VISA is denied.

This is how it works everywhere.

Try getting a work VISA for the USA without a job offer. Will not happen. Not anywhere.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Scrameustache]

Assange instead chose to use the information as a weapon to advance his personal views about the wars.

War is bad. THIS SHOULDN'T BE CONTROVERSIAL, fuck.

In so doing, the wikileaks concept has lost much of its credibility with a large part of the public

Yes, the warmongers, and those receptive to the propaganda of the warmongers.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[siphonophore]

I came for sanity, I left pleased.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[MrSteveSD]

I think a better platform would strictly be about being a repository for the data it finds rather than an interpreter for what it means. Leave that to the journalists.

You can't just dump thousands of documents on the internet and expect journalists to write articles about them. These things need to be thoroughly analysed, and most journalists don't seem to be very good at analysing anything or even checking basic facts (e.g. the 400,000 documents figure which comes from one dubious source).

Over the years there have been many damaging documents released under the US Freedom of Information Act and these have been routinely ignored by journalists. You simply cannot rely on the mainstream media to report on these things unless you whip up a lot of fuss and that is exactly the role that wikileaks is filling. They don't just analyse classified documents and publish them (and then sit back and watch the media cheerfully ignore them), they also promote them.

The fact that wikileaks exists at all tells you all you need to know about the credibility of journalists and the media as a whole.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[guyminuslife]

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[DeadDecoy]

Especially when the industry as a whole holds up comedy shows as their model for journalism. But hey, at least they have exciting twitter posts and excessively large touch-screen devices that barely work on air.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[xtracto]

Bah... the confidentiality of those decisions is nothing new and nothing specially applied to Assange.

My wife was denied a work permit in Germany (I have a full time work there, and she was offered anther job, but the auslanderbehörde denied the permit). When she asked the reasons they also said that they won't share the decisions made by the immigration office.

   

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

just checked now. 2:25am EST 10/19/2010. they're offline for 'scheduled maintenance'.

I tend to see that "we're sorry" page a lot.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Pseudonym]

On the other hand: If journalists were doing their job, Wikileaks wouldn't be in business.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Securityemo]

Are you certain it was someone who ordered the assassination, rather than just the old guard nationalist assassin(s) deciding to assassinate on their own?

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[maxwell demon]

Well, if he can't get Visa, maybe he should try to get MasterCard instead.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Eskarel]

The problem with this view is that what they're doing over there isn't making us safer, if anything it's doing the opposite. The US government seems to have this idea that the Geneva convention cannot apply to 21st century warfare, because we've got all these insurgents now. I've actually seen US government officials spouting the line that because the insurgents surround themselves with children when they know it's against the Geneva conventions to do so that it's ok for us to violate them.

When we violate our own values, the terrorists win. If you kill a terrorist with a drone and in doing so take out a dozen innocents, you turn the friends and relatives of those innocents into terrorists. You give them just cause to hate us and to want to give their lives to fight against us. When you lock people up and torture them with no just cause for suspicion and with no appeal or trial of any kind, you create terrorists. Hell the reason for all of those rules about the treatment of prisoners in the first place was to protect your own troops from that sort of treatment when they get captured.

People need to see what our governments are doing, we need to understand it and we need to stop it before it is too late. We cannot fight extremists by descending to their level. We cannot prevent the murder of innocents by murdering innocents. We cannot become that which we are fighting against or we have already lost. The US government along with the governments of many western nations have committed crimes not only against the Geneva convention, but against human decency. Their guilt carries over to those who they represent and we need to know.

Assange is an ass, and there have obviously been and will continue to be consequences from the release of these documents. You could even argue that they should have been filtered in some way, but the reality is that the military has been doing a lot of really awful things in relative secret, and considering that we're the ones who are paying and will continue to pay for their actions we ought to know what we're buying.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do have mod points, but I honestly don't know how to mod a post that parallels Wikileaks with Death Row Records.

+1 Gangsta?

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it occurred to you that he might have seen the attention coming and realised that it was better to run cover for the dozens or hundreds of others who contribute to the project? Did you think that maybe putting a single face on the organisation was a deliberate choice by Assange, so that he could take the bullet (and I hope I don't mean that literally) for his colleagues?

Well, I've read the email exchanges, and he most certainly wasn't doing it for anybody he works with. The one thing which nobody who knows him seems to disagree about is that he's an arrogant prick. The reason why people are saying he sank wikileaks is because when the public speaker for a company is being publicly charged with controversial crimes, the best course of action is to let one of the other people handle PR until the media storm blows over. Had he done that, this would never have been more than a minor footnote in the news. But since he insisted on making a scene, it's just added fuel onto the fire. I'm not blaming him for ruining the company (I'm not convinced it's ruined for starters) but he sure hasn't been handling things wisely.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Kagura]

it's not practical to expect change and give into that kind of thing. He's already done more than the world's press has managed with decades to work at it.

Not really. Not even close, actually.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[yyxx]

Apathy? What do you want people to do? People know Bush lied, his party was voted out of Congress, and that's it. As for the wars, we started them, we can't just leave. And while they are a colossal waste of money, there are two evil and dangerous regimes less in the world, and two nations have a chance at a better beginning; it's kind of hard to get worked up about that.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[yyxx]

People need to see what our governments are doing, we need to understand it and we need to stop it before it is too late.

And we did what we could at the ballot box, and many people chose to go into politics after the experience of the Iraq war. That's how democracy works.

I'm also disappointed that Obama hasn't moved more forcefully in support of open government, disclosure, and withdrawal, but that's the president and Congress we got and voted for.

When we violate our own values, the terrorists win. If you kill a terrorist with a drone and in doing so take out a dozen innocents, you turn the friends and relatives of those innocents into terrorists.

True. But do you think the military doesn't know that? What do you want the US to do? Immediate, unconditional withdrawal? Policy makers aren't as stupid as you think they are; they know these consequences. They try to balance long term goals, short term pressuers, and getting reelected. And the outcome is what you see.

Now, if you have a bright idea about what to do about Iraq and Afghanistan, please share it.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Goering had no idea what he was talking about.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Xest]

Yes, and the flip side of it is that Wikileaks has had it's profile raised by several orders of magnitude amongst the general public, even older folks like my Dad known who they are now.

Didn't work? hardly, mission accomplished I'd say. Assange has been succesful in massively raising the profile of Wikileaks across the globe. The original leak of the Afghan war documents was a far bigger news story than the "Assange has been accused of rape, no he hasn't, yes he has" stories which didn't really make it past local media in Sweden as larger stories, and were footnotes if even mentioned at all in the news in the rest of the world. Whilst my Dad has heard of Wikileaks and what they have done, I can guarantee if I went upto him and said "Do you know who Julian Assange is and what he's been accused of?" he'd look at me blankly.

Julian's story is one that keeps the tech media busy, but that no one outside of that really gives a flying fuck about- the general public simply don't care.

Now if Britney Spears had been accused of rape, well, they'd be all over it.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[sempir]

So you're saying I care.....right?

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[TheCRAIGGERS]

War is bad. THIS SHOULDN'T BE CONTROVERSIAL, fuck.

Saying "war is bad" is like saying "guns are bad."

Not to Godwin this, but it was indeed bad when Hitler started being an ass and going to war with others (not to mention that whole holocaust thing). I'm not so sure I can agree it was bad for the nations that opposed him to band together and go to war to stop him. Thought about it this way, both guns and war are tools. How they are used is what matters.

War exists. Guns exist. You can't un-invent either of them.

By the way, I'm not saying I really agree with the current war(s); I'm just saying your black and white world you think we live in doesn't exist.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Silvrmane]

Cool story, bro.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[commodore64_love]

I'm surprised the EU has not spoken-up, to tell the US to stop interfering with its domestic policies.
Also surprised the US hasn't tried to assassinate Assange yet.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Scrameustache]

Saying "war is bad" is like saying "guns are bad."

No, saying "murder is bad" is like saying "war is bad".
Saying "canons are bad" would be like saying "guns are bad".

war is bad, and you're a piece of shit for disagreeing, for replying with a broken metaphor, for pulling a godwin...

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, just not the arms used for hugging.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you get for feeding the trolls.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[TheCRAIGGERS]

Saying "war is bad" is like saying "guns are bad."

No, saying "murder is bad" is like saying "war is bad".
Saying "canons are bad" would be like saying "guns are bad".

war is bad, and you're a piece of shit for disagreeing, for replying with a broken metaphor, for pulling a godwin...

You yell because I use a 'broken metaphor' while you personally insult me. First of all, that was an analogy, not a metaphor.

And for the record, the analogy is not broken. Guns and War both are horrible things that are somewhat checked by their very existence. Wars end wars. Guns protect you from other guns. Would it be better if neither of them existed? Yes. Are they inherently bad? No.

Just because you lacked the mental capacity to understand my point does not give you free reign to insult. Unless you really are just a troll, in which case I was wasting my time anyway.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Scrameustache]

Just because you lacked the mental capacity to understand my point does not give you free reign to insult.

Just because your mother is a whore doesn't make you less of a fucking little shit, you hypocrite. "Oh, it's not ok to insult people *insults people*", you godwin a thread and act superior? Eat shit and die.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[KillerLoop]

Please. A chance at a better beginning by destroying the infrastructure and society as a whole? Almost makes me hope that you experience this kind of "chance" yourself. Both peoples were FAR better off before the USA intervened. It's a shame that your kind of argument is brought forth at all. It's such a blatant example of lying into ones own pocket it almost makes me weep.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted?

[Eskarel]

I'm not sure exactly what to do about Afghanistan or Iraq, it is entirely possible that the damage is already done.

Personally, as much as I dislike the war, and think we shouldn't have gone in in the first place, we did so. As such, the only viable justification for full withdrawal is the belief that we can't manage any result which is better than the one we get by pulling out(which isn't going to be pretty).

What we have to do, both in the current wars, and in the future, is to find all the people who start spouting off about 21st century war making the Geneva convention outdated and fire them. Then we need to start acting like the good guys again. We need to stop bombing women and children, stop torturing people. Yes I know it gets results, but it's wrong.

Confidential

[amicusNYCL]

When asked about the reasons for the denial, a Swedish official responsible replied, '...secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision,' essentially meaning the reasons are confidential.

If only there was a website where we could learn about such things.

Re:Confidential

[cosm]

When asked about the reasons for the denial, a Swedish official responsible replied, '...secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision,' essentially meaning the reasons are confidential.

If only there was a website where we could learn about such things.

And if it only wasn't down for maintenance...

Re:Confidential

[Anonymous Coward]

They are very secrative about this.. but when a person gets ACCUSED of rape - they release it all over the world in a matter of minutes about who and what...

Re:Confidential

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

There is: Wikileak-leaks.

It sounds like nonsense lyrics from a Will Smith song, I know.

Re:Confidential

[Anonymous Coward]

And if only there were people in the Swedish police willing to risk a career and leak them ...

A cool website or no, you still need people who are willing to put their lives on the line for leaks to happen.

Re:Confidential

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust Us. We know what's best for you.

Re:Confidential

[mrscorpio]

Wooo hahaha!
I respect women when i'm on a date
I take em to a park or maybe a museum
and I only try to kiss them if there ready
Woohoo! What what say what what!
Help out your Mom and Dad by gettin a job
so you can help pay for school supplies
A woohoo say oh!
Wipe you shoes on the mat when you come in the house
Someone just cleaned that floor
Woohoo! Say what what! Hahaa!

Re:Confidential

[aliquis]

Anyway:
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utgivningsbevis
It's my impression _he_ don't need to be Swedish, as long as the organization is Swedish or something such. But their lawyers and he himself probably knows more about that than I do from reading Wikipedia and/or whatever I may have read before. Kinda weird how you need to register to enjoy the freedom and aren't anonymous and free of any responsibility (I can see why people think that's not acceptable, but do we really need all the exceptions of rights which are always added to things like this? Sure it sucks if people do evil.. But.)

Swedish:
"En behörig utgivare för webbplatsen ska alltid finnas. Webbplatsen får inte kunna ändras av någon annan än den som driver verksamheten, den måste vara tillgänglig för allmänheten, ha anknytning till Sverige, till exempel genom att redaktionen finns i Sverige och ha ett namn som är unikt och ett domännamn som inte kan förväxlas med namnet på en annan webbplats som finns registrerad hos Radio- och TV-verket.[3] Webbplatsens och utgivarens namn samt vem som har utsett utgivaren ska publiceras på webbplatsen."

Google translation:
"A competent editor of this page will always be. The site may not be modified by anyone other than the operator of the business, it must be available to the public, have ties to Sweden, for example by the editorial staff are located in Sweden and have a name that is unique and a domain name can not be confused with the name at another site that is registered with the Radio and Television Authority. [3] The site and the publisher name, and who has appointed the publisher will be published on the website."

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryckfrihet
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryckfrihetsförordningen
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen

"I Sverige är tryckfriheten en grundlagsskyddad rättighet som regleras i tryckfrihetsförordningen. Sveriges första tryckfrihetslag antogs 1766 [4], vilken var den första i världen.[5] I Sverige slås tryckfriheten fast i Regeringsformen, tryckfrihetsförordningen och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen. Dessa lagar är grundlagar vilket innebär att förändringar måste beslutas av två riksdagar mellan vilka nyval skett.[6]
Om något brottsligt trycks i text, som inte ingår i periodisk skrift, är det författaren eller den ansvarige utgivaren som kan lagföras (dömas) enligt 8 kap. 5 TF.Juridiskt skiljer lagen mellan tryckta texter såsom böcker och tidningar för vilka tryckfrihetsförordningen gäller och andra medier såsom radio och TV för vilka yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen gäller.[4]
Det finns undantag för hur långt tryckfriheten sträcker sig och dessa finns uppräknade i 7 kap. 4 TF.Rent kommersiellt material är inte lika skyddat av tryckfrihetsordningen som annan information.[7]"

Translated:
"In Sweden the freedom of the press a constitutional right granted under the Freedom of the Press. Sweden's first press law was adopted in 1766 [4], which was the first in the world. [5] In Sweden switched press freedom in the Constitution Act, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression. These laws are basic laws which means that changes must be decided by the two parliamentary sessions between which the election occurred. [6]
If a criminal is printed in the text, not included in the periodical, is the author or the editor that can be prosecuted (sentenced) under Chapter 8. 5 TF.Juridiskt distinguishes law from printed texts such as books and magazines for which Freedom of the Press and in other media such as radio and TV for the Freedom of Exp

Re:Confidential

[arth1]

There is: Wikileak-leaks.

It sounds like nonsense lyrics from a Will Smith song, I know.

Not any worse than "My Ding-a-ling", and that one topped Billboard 100.

Anyhow, don't you mean wikileakileaks.org? AFAIK, CryptoMe's Wikileak-leaks hasn't been active for years now.

Re:Confidential

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the Sewedish newspaper that was so quick to release the initial dubious rape claims? They seem to have good access to the internals of the Swedish government and no care for privacy.

Re:Confidential

[atisss]

Actually that's wiki-leaki-leaks

It is a shame

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision

If only there were some site that could be used to leak that kind of information.

Re:It is a shame

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

(Sorry amicusNYCL, great minds think alike.)

Re:It is a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

And fools seldom differ...

Re:It is a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

It is more likely that average minds will think alike.

Re:It is a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision

If only there were some site that could be used to leak that kind of information.

Assange, or at least his lawyer, know the reasons. In Sweden this kind of information is kept secret to protect the person the information concerns. Unless there is an ongoing criminal investigation, the person the information concerns has the right to access the information, unless, of course, there is some other person involved that needs protection from him/her, and if the person himself hasn't the right to access the information, his/her lawyer has. When it comes to government information that don't infringe on privacy right, it is automatically public information, unless there is a decision by a work group of the Swedish parliament that it should be classified. Most governments (inluding USA) outside Scandinavia do the opposite, information is automatically classified until it is decided that it should be made public. This openness also applies to some private organisations that has the role of "myndigheter" (kind of like privately held government bodies). There is an exception to this right of knowledge when a foreign state demands that the information is kept secret to protect it (most documents in Sweden that gets classified concerns EU, Sweden had one of the most open governments in the world before it joined EU in 1995, but at least it still isn't governed as secretive as USA).

So the information could, most likely, actually be published by wikileaks, if Assinge wanted to.

Motives

[Adrian Lopez]

I suspect it may have something to do with the United States.

Re:Motives

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I can imagine that the last thing Swedish government wants is for their citizens to know that it's because of pressure from the US. I'm surprised they didn't invent some other reason as a cover for that, maybe they couldn't make one that was less suspicious.

Re:Motives

[the linux geek]

Because the US particularly cares whether Assange lives in Sweden? If the Swedish government is in the US's pocket like plenty of people seem to believe, you'd think that they would strongly favor Assange living there (all the better to trump up fake rape charges, of course.) Alternatively, you could go with the more mundane but rational-seeming explanation, which is that Sweden doesn't want Assange because he draws a lot of attention to himself and gets complaints from the local women.

Re:Motives

[pushing-robot]

To be fair, the US isn't the only country or organization that has secrets. Wikileaks is unpopular with a lot of people. Heck, if they were revealing your private information you'd be pissed at them too.

Re:Motives

[Adrian Lopez]

Because the US particularly cares whether Assange lives in Sweden?

Countries tend to care when others give asylum to their enemies. That's not quite the case here, but it's close.

Re:Motives

[digitig]

Because the US particularly cares whether Assange lives in Sweden?

Yes, if it gives him legal freedom of speech protection that he doesn't have at the moment.

Re:Motives

[commodore64_love]

If Assange can't live in Sweden, it forces him to flee to some other location within the US' grasp... perhaps even the US itself.
I'm surprised the EU has not spoken-up, to tell the US to stop interfering with its domestic policies.
Also surprised the US hasn't tried to assassinate Assange yet.

Re:Motives

[commodore64_love]

Not if I was a Senator, Congressman, President, or other member of the government. It would be my job to keep my employer (the People) informed, not to hide things my boss would disapprove of.

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the US isn't the only country or organization that has secrets. Wikileaks is unpopular with a lot of people. Heck, if they were revealing your private information you'd be pissed at them too.

Except it's not private information. You can hardly call the mischief and outright illegal and immoral actions of governments private. Not to mention that governments aren't people that can have private information in the first place.

Re:Motives

[LWATCDR]

I think it is the Boogieman.. Oh wait same thing. It could also be that he really did sexually molest someone in sweden and they just don't want him there.
I mean if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think then he would have had a tragic car accident long ago.

Re:Motives

[MichaelSmith]

If Assange can't live in Sweden, it forces him to flee to some other location within the US' grasp... perhaps even the US itself.

That would be the worst place for him to go. So far he has been safe in Australia where he has the advantage of citizenship. I suspect he has too many ex girlfriends there to make it a happy place though.

Re:Motives

[Oriumpor]

Let me just use some flashy marketting material:
Land, Air, Sea, Space and Cyber.
From the USAA posture statement 2009:

Why is this important to the Army?
Cyber intrusions and attacks are a real and emerging threat to national security. The Nation faces a dangerous combination of known and unknown vulnerabilities, capable adversaries, and limited situational awareness. It is critical for the Army to grow its cyberspace operations to counter adversary targeting of both our information and our information infrastructure. To maintain our dominance in cyberspace the Army will continue to grow our abilities to better defend our own networks and have capabilities in place to conduct network warfare against adversary networks.

Guess what with just that basic research I can tell you: according to that philosophy Wikileaks is an adversary, and Jullian Assange likely qualifies as an enemy of the state.

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

The US doesn't particularly care about Assange living -- they've made it clear already.

It is sad that so many Americans are buying the official red herring and hate him. You should be questioning the US Army commanders -- it was they who let incriminating things happen under their watch; it is them who are so inept at managing information systems that one single disgruntled peon was able amass data about years of operations.

Not to mention US politicians from the last 50 years, who are as responsible for the rise of militant Islam (and especially terrorism) as the mullahs and the mujahedins - the US gave the crazy a powerful motive, some serious training and money and, finally, legitimacy by even declaring them worthy of a "war".

Is that an accident? Emmanuel Goldstein doesn't think so. I think his tinfoil is a bit too thick, but his argument isn't totally worthless.

Also, believe it or not, but the US satrap who bosses the embassy in any small European country, has enough clout to at least get on the phone with the head of state, deliver his request and have the head moving -- on the hour.

From what I've seen first hand while I was involved in politics -- the operation mode of the satrap is close to what you normally call "bullying", and he doesn't always feel the need to watch his language during those calls.

Re:Motives

[Pstrobus]

On Slashdot, Freedom of Speech is "good" when it protects us, it is "bad" when it protects the people with whom we disagree. Look at all the STFU @$$hole! comments.

Maybe the Swedes just decided "We don't want an attention whore who will fsck up the neighborhood and we don't want to discuss it with all the whiney jerks who think this whore is $Deity."

Hollywood is not exactly a Shining Beacon of Greatness in the World, perhaps Sweden didn't want to follow in H-wood's footsteps.

Re:Motives

[newcastlejon]

If he really did molest anyone I'd think Sweden would want him there. For the trial, what?

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think any senator, congressman or the president believes for a moment the people are his/her boss, you're a deluded idealist who deserves all of his tax burden.

/ I know what you mean

Re:Motives

[DeadPixels]

I mean if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think then he would have had a tragic car accident long ago.

I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts. I'm just surprised that so many people on /. seem to fall into the same trap of assuming that "The Government" can do these things while simultaneously going on about how stupid and inept various branches are.

Re:Motives

[Pstrobus]

Actually, it is spelled "Gub'mint" as in "Big Gub'mint" the all purpose bogieman du jour.

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is pretty unintentionally funny.

Re:Motives

[grcumb]

I mean if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think then he would have had a tragic car accident long ago.

'Accidents' like that breed martyrs and heroes. Sex scandals and related FUD breed contempt and disillusionment.

Re:Motives

[couchslug]

"Not if I was a Senator, Congressman, President, or other member of the government. It would be my job to keep my employer (the People) informed, not to hide things my boss would disapprove of."

Quite right. There can be no justification for military security of any sort, so your duty as a member of government would be to dump as much information as possible into the open...

Re:Motives

[Adrian Lopez]

I mean if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think then he would have had a tragic car accident long ago.

Why bother with a tragic car accident when diplomatic pressure will do? There's no need to kill Assange if all you want is to better be able to prosecute him should the need arise.

Re:Motives

[Adrian Lopez]

Guess what with just that basic research I can tell you: according to that philosophy Wikileaks is an adversary, and Jullian Assange likely qualifies as an enemy of the state.

Assange has not been declared an enemy of the state, nor is he being sought by the US government. Right now he's just an annoying gnat to those in power, but it could be worse. It's really the "could be worse" part that really concerns the US government.

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were a leader of a soverign power and any subversive actively looking to attack my government in any of it's "Domains" I'd make sure they were treated as an enemy by me and my allies, even if I didn't make it public.

Re:Motives

[Scrameustache]

Because the US particularly cares whether Assange lives in Sweden?

"to gain the freedom of speech protection offered by Swedish laws" right off the fucking summary, top of this very page, you have no excuse.

If the Swedish government is in the US's pocket like plenty of people seem to believe, you'd think that they would strongly favor Assange living there (all the better to trump up fake rape charges, of course.)

"media reports of rape and molestation accusations against Assange at the end of August, two days after he had applied for a residence permit."
That one is from the fucking article, so you almost have an excuse not to understand the sequence of event. Almost.

Alternatively, you could go with the more mundane but rational-seeming explanation, which is that Sweden doesn't want Assange because he draws a lot of attention to himself and gets complaints from the local women.

Yes, that's why they sullied his name just days after he applied for legal protection above and beyond what Australia has to offer him. They get him a lot of attention and then he doesn't get protection because of all the attention: Ta-daaa!

Re:Motives

[Scrameustache]

So far he has been safe in Australia where he has the advantage of citizenship.

Australia is in a competition with Canada for "best lapdog of the USA", he's as safe there as a peaceful protester at a G20 summit.

Re:Motives

[MichaelSmith]

So far he has been safe in Australia where he has the advantage of citizenship.

Australia is in a competition with Canada for "best lapdog of the USA", he's as safe there as a peaceful protester at a G20 summit.

Wherever you go, Government is a club.

Re:Motives

[Scrameustache]

if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think

You say the USA is a boogieman, and you prove it with a strawman. *sigh*

Re:Motives

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I'm just surprised that so many people on /. seem to fall into the same trap of assuming that "The Government" can do these things while simultaneously going on about how stupid and inept various branches are.

Incompetent tyrannical governments are a lot more common than competent tyrannical ones. For every Hitler, there are a hundred Mussolinis. Which is lucky for the rest of the world, I guess, but doesn't make things any less miserable for the people who have to live under them.

Note: I am not comparing the US to either Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Just pointing out that a belief that the government is evil, and a belief that it is stupid and inept, are not necessarily contradictory. Actually I think the US government is, like most very large organizations, home to a few very good people, a few very bad ones, and a whole bunch in the middle doing their best to get through their day.

Re:Motives

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There can be no justification for military security of any sort, so your duty as a member of government would be to dump as much information as possible into the open...

Nice argument there. Did you gather all that straw yourself, or did you have help?

Almost everyone agrees that some degree of secrecy in the affairs of government, particularly in matters of defense, is necessary. But this does not mean that our current "classify everything, admit nothing" level of security-state paranoia is in any way justified.

Re:Motives

[aliquis]

Maybe we could had blamed the muslims?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDeeoUNvAk :D

Re:Motives

[aliquis]

Yes, if it gives him legal freedom of speech protection that he doesn't have at the moment.

He could post it on:
https://www.flashback.org/
or even:
http://thepiratebay.org/

Both has left Sweden to get even _more_ freedom.

Want more safety (not freedom)?
https://www.flashback.name/
https://www.vpntunnel.se/

Re:Motives

[winnetou]

I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts.

I know a Secretary of State who told the UN Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

He lied.

Re:Motives

[quenda]

I suspect he has too many ex girlfriends there to make it a happy place though.

You do realize this guy is an über-nerd and for many years was a hard-core hacker?

Re:Motives

[quenda]

Australia is in a competition with Canada for "best lapdog of the USA", he's as safe there as a peaceful protester at a G20 summit.

The current governing party even uses American spelling for its name.

Re:Motives

[MichaelSmith]

I suspect he has too many ex girlfriends there to make it a happy place though.

You do realize this guy is an über-nerd and for many years was a hard-core hacker?

Recent press coverage suggests he knows how to pull a chick.

Re:Motives

[Eskarel]

You can argue that certain operational details ought to be kept secret within certain contexts(where, when and who for instance), but what and why should really be public, at least after the fact.

You don't need to say that these troops were in that place at this time(and you surely don't need to say where they will be), but what those troops did and why they did it is something we ought to know.

We are responsible for what they did, for good or for ill. We pay for it both literally and metaphorically. We must know.

Re:Motives

[quenda]

Sounds like Moss in the 8+ club.

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be the worst place for him to go. So far he has been safe in Australia where he has the advantage of citizenship. I suspect he has too many ex girlfriends there to make it a happy place though.

And I call astroturf Mr "Smith" - safe as IQ.org??

Replace "suspect" with imply/slander and you'd be credible - either you're a moron or a plant. Like the Packer and Murdock press haven't been hunting with cheque books for just such a story

You can get up now, Hinderaker's come and gone, and, yeah, you've got some in your hair

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

So far he has been safe in Australia where he has the advantage of citizenship.

Yep - safe as Neville Shumaker (The Seed Bank) at the Perth airport - no wait, the airport security guards stopped the illegal arrest by the Americans and Neville was held at the police lockup pending a formal application by the US. The US didn't want to wait and test the courts they "vanished" him - from an Australian police station. Hard to do without Australian assistance. Now Neville is enjoying a 100+ year sentence in the US. Very fucking safe being an Australian citizen...

Of course if you name is Nugan, Australia *is* a safe place.

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is the Boogieman.. Oh wait same thing. It could also be that he really did sexually molest someone in sweden and they just don't want him there.

That is not, in itself, ground for denying someone Swedish residency. If there were evidence that he applied for residency to be able to commit criminal acts inside Sweden, it would be.

His claim for residency is solely based on him working as a journalist for Aftonbladet. Most likely they didn't believe he would work for Aftonbladet as much as he claimed/is demanded for recidensy.

There are a lot of other reasons he could state for residency. The most obvious is him needing a political asylum (if it could be claimed that his life would be put in danger otherwise). If he was a Swedish citizen, he would also likely have the right to be protected by bodyguards from the Swedish Security Service.

Re:Motives

[Anonymous Coward]

he really did sexually molest someone

Ultimately a matter for the courts, but if you look into the case it really smells like a honeytrap / smear campaign. A speciality of the Russians ("Kompromat") but the CIA certainly do it too.

Basically the story appears to be that he had 100% consensual sex with some girl, then she got mad that he was also seeing somebody else and filed a harassment charge. At this point she was ENCOURAGED to upgrade it to a rape charge by the police, which seems rather odd. This was quickly downgraded again before being dismissed entirely due to zero evidence, but of course the lurid headlines had been achieved by then. Then right on cue, just as the story is dying down, "new information" appears to re-open the charge. I would bet good money that this information is i)coming from somebody on a government payroll and ii)eventually proven to be false, but not before it has accomplished its goal of further tarnishing his reputation.

Re:Motives

[Xest]

"I mean if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think then he would have had a tragic car accident long ago."

So you're saying they can't influence other countries? you're saying the claims in this document are completely false, and that the Swedish authorities actually decided to raid The Pirate Bay off their own back, despite it being unconstitutional in Sweden to do so?

http://torrentfreak.com//images/pirate_mpa.pdf

If the US can get Sweden to raid their own citizens web servers over mere IP infringement, then why would you think getting them to refuse residency to someone who they view as a national security risk is such a far stretch?

Your viewpoint is rather naive in the face of the evidence which reasonably demonstrates the US absolutely does seem capable of influencing the actions of foreign governments.

Christ, I live in the UK and the US hoodwinked us into partaking in a possibly illegal war with them using fake intelligence about WMDs and selling it to our security services as authentic, costing us many soldier's lives, and billions in costs as well as a massive dent to our reputation politically across the globe. You really think pressuring a country to refuse citizenship is that unlikely? seriously?

I wish I lived in your world, where the US government is a harmless puppy incapable of action outside it's borders. Hell, Che Guevara might even have been enjoying his 83rd birthday next June, and Osama Bin Laden might have decided to just go back home to enjoy a peaceful life with his family in Saudi Arabia. I'm sure there's a good few million Iraqis that would appreciate living in that world moreso than the real one too.

Re:Motives

[Zumbs]

The main reason that the US government has not had Assange disappear is the simple fact that if Assange did disappear, everyone would know who did it. The political fallout of highprofile political murder is simply not worth it. However, that does not mean that they cannot retaliate. By blacklisting him and his coworkers, by hacking wikileaks, by using diplomatic channels to limit his movement (such as it may have happened here) and by digging up / fabricating filth on his character. Much more efficient, much less fallout. And even people who do support wikileaks and know these things, may start thinking that Assange may have raped those women, and he really is a smug.

Re:Motives

[markusre]

assuming that many "inteligent" people tend not to let themselves believe in some omnipotent god, could they look for a substitute in a omnipotent government?
not that they need some virtual protctor but someone or something that can always be used as a reason to explain things?

Re:Motives

[murdocj]

"media reports of rape and molestation accusations against Assange at the end of August, two days after he had applied for a residence permit." That one is from the fucking article, so you almost have an excuse not to understand the sequence of event. Almost.

Guy gets famous, women from his past come forward and accuse him of rape etc. Do YOU understand the sequence? Happens a lot, no secret black hat government conspiracy required.

Re:Motives

[Scrameustache]

Guy gets famous, women from his past come forward and accuse him of rape etc. Do YOU understand the sequence?

I understand that you do not have the facts right (not women from before he was famous). And I see that you contradict me with bullshit supposition you made up... eat all the shit you want, but don't come vomit up at me in slashdot: STFU and get informed instead of spreading your ignorance.

Re:Motives

[LWATCDR]

"Christ, I live in the UK and the US hoodwinked us into partaking in a possibly illegal war"
Wow and you can not even put any responsibility on your own government... It is the US's fault and your nation is yet another poor victim of the evil US.
Really?
Yes the US is the Boogieman.

Re:Motives

[Ihateturtlenecks]

I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts.

I know a Secretary of State who told the UN Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

He lied.

Ya, we know. That proves Dead Pixels' point. If they really were so evil and powerful they would have

1 Generated a lot more ineternational support for the invasion of Iraq

2 Planted evidence of NBC weapons or simply have claimed to have found them

Re:Motives

[LWATCDR]

You do know that the US did fine some Chemical weapons don't you? You know the ones that where supposed to be gone.
Not that masses that was thought to be their but still some.

Re:Motives

[LWATCDR]

What I find so interesting is that people will dismiss that he might actually be guilty.
That what none of his fans realize is that practically nobody know who the heck he is. There is just a small group of use that does know the masses do not know or really care.
If he died tomorrow in an accident 98% of the population if not more wouldn't remember him in six months. A few tragic hipsters would wear tee shirts with his picture on them but the vast majority just wouldn't care.

Re:Motives

[Draek]

If the Swedish government is in the US's pocket like plenty of people seem to believe, you'd think that they would strongly favor Assange living there (all the better to trump up fake rape charges, of course.)

Assuming, of course, that the US government has any sort of long-term planning. Given the way they've handled the whole Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and the PR circus around them, I highly doubt it.

Alternatively, you could go with the more mundane but rational-seeming explanation, which is that Sweden doesn't want Assange because he draws a lot of attention to himself and gets complaints from the local women.

You forgot to mention that the complains were withdrawn shortly after being made.

Re:Motives

[Xest]

You seem to have some insecurity complex about your country such that you feel the need to remain in denial about it's ability to ever do anything wrong. I didn't say our government is free of blame- of course they are, if not only for trusting US military intelligence more than they should. The fact our government screwed up royally doesn't change the fact the US fed false intelligence to us and hence doesn't change the fact a supposed ally - the US - manipulated us in a way that was a major factor in what turned out to be an illegal war.

You're more than welcome to blame our government too, I do, but the blame isn't mutually exclusive, it's not one or the other, the US is still very much to blame as well, very much in the wrong, and most certainly did influence our decision to go to war based on false evidence. It's sad that you're only capable of seeing things in such a binary manner by assuming that if someone blames the US for something then they're inherently inable to see fault in their own country, that's a rediculous viewpoint, but it's apparently one you have all the same.

Just because our government deserves some blame, doesn't mean your government deserves none.

Re:Motives

[commodore64_love]

But there's no reason to keep secret operations that have over a month ago.

The People aka the boss have a right to know what their government is doing, so when the government does objectionable things (like killing children or other innocents), the people can demand that it be stopped.

Re:Motives

[Harry Coin]

Do you mean those non-serviceable mustard gas shells? If that's all that they found, then it's particularly clear that Iraq DID destroy their stockpiles. Finding a few shells only indicates that their compliance was not perfect. I will sleep so much better (and poorer) now that our intelligence agencies have removed their old foil against Iran.

Translation

[DaMattster]

The Swedish Government will not grant Assange a resident permit because they are concerned about reprisal from the United States. It is sad that they have to outright deny for reasons of secrecy. It is even more unfortunate that the DoD is so screwed up that it levels an accusing finger at Assange and it turns out that no one was hurt as a result of Wikileaks. Apparently, governments hate it when the people discover the mischief they are up to.

Re:Translation

[cappp]

Not necessarily. If Assanage wanted to release the exact details of his rejection he's more than free too - but, like with pretty much every government out there, it is against the law for official bodies to discuss the private details of individuals' interactions with the state. This is especially true when considering things like passports, residence, and visas.

Anyway it need not be quite as cloak and dagger as suggested - the Swedish work permit requires employers to certify that they

* have advertised the post in Sweden and the EU for at least ten days. (For new recruitment.)
* offer terms of employment that are equal to those of a Swedish collective agreement or what is customary within the profession or sector
* give the relevant union organisations the opportunity to express an opinion on the terms of employment in the job offer.

As far I remember the newspaper that offered him employment didn't advertise the post to anyone else. A purely bureaucratic explanation.

That’s not to say that Sweden isn’t worried about international repercussions but there are other explanations available. Swedish citizenship includes an assessment of good conduct which I would assume applies in the initial residence application as well.

The Migration Board requests information regarding this from other authorities: The Enforcement Service (if you have debts)
The Swedish National Police Board (if you committed a crime or are suspected of doing so) and
The Security Service (security checks).

They could also be holding out until all the charges against him have been clarified.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not to say that Sweden isn't worried about international repercussions but there are other explanations available. Swedish citizenship includes an assessment of good conduct which I would assume applies in the initial residence application as well.

It's political. Take it from a Swede. This is going to sound like the classic racist "they're letting just anyone in these days!", but Sweden really does let pretty much every one in. We're talking convicted, not accused, rapists and even murderers. And once you've been given your residence permit, it takes a miracle to lose it. I've never heard of a deportation for a residence permit holder for anything less than murder 1.

Re:Translation

[Xest]

"Not necessarily. If Assanage wanted to release the exact details of his rejection he's more than free too - but, like with pretty much every government out there, it is against the law for official bodies to discuss the private details of individuals' interactions with the state."

You seem to be missing the point, Swedish officials aren't saying that he has been given a reason, Assange is saying he hasn't. As they haven't contradicted this- something they could do, because to simply say that he has been given a reason without going into detail as to what that reason is would not breach European data protection laws it seems unlikely that he's lying which you appear to be implying.

The rest of your post focuses on work permits, however this is not what Assange was denied, he was denied a residency permit, which is required for a stay of longer than 3 months. These are two completely separate documents. Your link about good conduct is about citizenship, which is again different to residency which you apparently understand. You can gain residency without being a citizen, and without also applying for a work permit. You seem to have falsely asserted that conduct to become a citizen is the same as conduct to apply for residency which is not necessarily the case, citizenship brings with it a lot of benefits from the right to vote, to the right to consular protection if you get yourself in trouble abroad- as such there are much greater restrictions on who can become a citizen than who can become a resident, because a resident is basically just someone granted permission to have an extended stay. Neither of these documents you have brought up are relevant in this case.

In denying an application for a residency permit the Swedish government hasn't refused him permission to work, nor have they refused him permission to become a citizen. They have refused him the opportunity to stay in Sweden past the standard 90 days meaning that he must leave the country and attempt re-entry if he wishes to return there. They have effectively said that he is not welcome as a long term visitor to the country. The real test will be whether he is denied entry if he attempts to re-enter Sweden.

Re:Translation

[cappp]

Just a quick correction - all the reports indicate that Assanage was denied a work and residency visa (the summary was notably lacking in that detail), which is why I looked into the work visa requirements. A work visa requires one to also obtain a residency visa. As far as I could tell there is no way to get a residency visa to live in Sweden without getting a work visa at the same time.

I'd be really interested in any info' you found on residency in Sweden though - everything I found explicitly linked it to work unless one was an EU citizen (which he's not) or has a familial connection (which hasn't been made public if it's true). As far as I can tell merely extending his stay in Sweden wouldn't be sufficient to gain the protections of Swedish law, he would have to be a full resident (which implies, as far as I've been able to find, the right to work).

Molestation charges?

[cobrausn]

Man, I hate to say it but if you're going to release 400,000 stolen US military documents you had better be a freaking saint, or you will fry.

Re:Molestation charges?

[PRMan]

Jesus was a saint. Look at what happened to him. Heck, look at the saints...

The reality is, anytime you challenge the current power brokers, expect to be fried.

Re:Molestation charges?

[commodore64_love]

>>>anytime you challenge the current power brokers, expect to be fried.

I guess we need to kill them first then. - or - dissolve the US (or EU) government as a "bad idea", thereby making the powerbrokers powerless.
Personally I'd like to see a return to the Article of Confederation, with just a few modifications.

Re:Molestation charges?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we need to kill them first then. - or - dissolve the US (or EU) government as a "bad idea", thereby making the powerbrokers powerless.

Sorry to break it to you, but the government already lost power to banks and corporations. Which part of the U.S. does Sweden fear? Its military power, or its economic power? Remember the infamous illegal raid on the Pirate Bay? Remember who said wikileaks was an example for why should the ACTA be accepted globally?

Re:Molestation charges?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause it's ok to illegally classify information to cover up illegal acts (involving killing people mind you) Assange was accused of having 2 female partners who thought they were exclusive but weren't. One could qualify as an act of treason, the other American television popularizes on a dozen shows every day between the hours of Working->Not Working. Maury Povich even has a regular segment where he does paternity tests with awesome popcorn munching results.

Re:Molestation charges?

[bug1]

"I guess we need to kill them first then."

Or just expose them to the public (via some anonymous website maybe) and let mob rule decide their fate.

Re:Molestation charges?

[gad_zuki!]

What do we know about the historical Jesus? Most likely a homosexual rabbi who associated with prostitutes and who went against the power structures of his time - various religious sects and the state. I wouldn't call a outspoken heathen who attacks people in temples in fits of rage a saint. The religious whitewashing of his life, is of course saintly, but that's a teleological argument: Jesus was saintly because he was Jesus. The historical Jesus was quite the attention seeking rabble-rouser. He's more Louis Farrakan than Mother Theresa.

Re:Molestation charges?

[mosb1000]

A lot of people seem to think that in order to be a saint, you must be "nice". You almost never see the kind of behavior (Mother Theresa, if you will) coming from the main protagonists in the Bible, not Jesus, not any of the saints, not the profits, not Moses, not David. The only one I can think of that didn't run afoul of established authority was Ruth.

To be a saint, you must stand for what is right and good and true (and you don't have to be perfect either). That usually means engaging in behavior that is not socially acceptable at some point in your life.

Re:Molestation charges?

[pyrrho]

what? no. the saints go on the fire first.

Re:Molestation charges?

[slick7]

Man, I hate to say it but if you're going to release 400,000 stolen US military documents you had better be a freaking saint, or you will fry.

Saint or not, Assange is nothing more than an information broker. How does an Australian receive so much information about the inner workings of the US government without complicity within the government itself?
Excuse the pun but there is something rotten in Denmark. The US has something to hide, and they are not doing a good job of it. Secrecy is the first step in tyranny. Complacency of the people is the second. Obfuscation by the ruling elite promulgates more of the same, ad inifitum.
Someone once said you can't handle the truth, it has also been said that the truth will set you free, but first it will really piss you off.

Re:Molestation charges?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not releasing anything and got my server ports scanned by "slashdot.org" itself... someone more knowledgeable than me care to please explain if domains can be spoofed, if a rotten DNS is in the way. or something?

More on-topic, couldn't Assange be exchanged with some Chinese prisoner, so as to appease both tyrannies.

Ok, maybe I do give them reason to scan my ports... 8-/

Re:Molestation charges?

[Eskarel]

Actually Mother Theresa wasn't very nice either. She might have taken care of the poor and the down trodden, but from what I've read she firmly believed that they were poor and downtrodden because God wanted them to be that way and she didn't lift a finger to try and stop them from being poor and downtrodden in the first place.

Re:Molestation charges?

[vegiVamp]

> you must stand for what is right and good and true according to the clerical authority that is to declare you a saint

Fixed that for you.

Re:Molestation charges?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, like when Saint Thomas More burnt protestants at the stake. Normally killing innocent people is frowned upon, but not for a saint!

Re:Molestation charges?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Secrecy is the first step in tyranny. Complacency of the people is the second. Obfuscation by the ruling elite promulgates more of the same, ad inifitum.
Wrong, tyranny is the first step in tyranny. Secrecy is the first step in privacy. See kristallnacht and tiananmen square.

Re:Molestation charges?

[Wireless Joe]

"Man, I hate to say it but if you're going to release 400,000 stolen US military documents you had better be a freaking saint, or you will fry."

Or apply for and receive Swedish citizenry before releasing anything.

Re:Molestation charges?

[slick7]

Wrong, tyranny is the first step in tyranny. Secrecy is the first step in privacy. See kristallnacht and tiananmen square.

Secrecy, once accepted, becomes an addiction. Edward Teller
The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness. Niels Bohr
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. John F. Kennedy
As to privacy, discretion is the first step. Too many people make known what should be private, as in private information. Governments, at least democratic republics, are elected and have no right to privacy as long as the voting constituency pays their salaries.

Re:Molestation charges?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought there was something in there about performing 3 miracles.....

Re:Molestation charges?

[hitmark]

The mob only rule when their access to junk food and reality tv is at risk...

Re:Molestation charges?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Expect to be fried today but plan to be on the T-Shirts of young ones 50-100 years down the road.

Whaaahhh!!!!!!!

[onyxruby]

And if this happens to leak, than he of all persons has no basis to complain...

A lesson in assymetric warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

If you create a subversive organization it has to be led by someone no one knows except organization cell leaders.

If you are the "leader" of said organization and it's known externally, you are no longer the leader.

Otherwise, you are no longer able to do battle assymetrically, they know who you are and you know who they are.

And yes, the DoD has declared "Cyber" as a theater, meaning information is a weapon, so yes Assange is in every way a public "leader" of a subversive organization to those wikileaks wages war upon.

Sorry Julian, it's time to find a new job.

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[Sponge Bath]

If you create a subversive organization it has to be led by someone no one knows except organization cell leaders.

You should always use code names like "CmdrTaco" and "CowboyNeal".

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[stephanruby]

Sorry Julian, it's time to find a new job.

That's too late for that. He's pissed off so many governments. Hiring him would just mean you'd create yourself an unnecessary list of powerful enemies. No, he's basically stuck with that kind of job for life. Except for Al Jazeera, or may be Amnesty International, I can't think of any other organization that would have the balls to take him on as an employee.

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinese mines are always hiring :)

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[MindKata]

"If you create a subversive organization it has to be led by someone no one knows except organization cell leaders."

The way the world is going, with the endless undermining of privacy, in the future there isn't going to be anyone that will be able to stay secret enough to be the leader of any subversive organization. Therefore in time, all political protesters will be able to be got at in any country. Sadly it will make even the concept of freedom of speech meaningless in practice as fear of reprisal will silence anyone even thinking of speaking out. But then people who seek political power are almost by definition seeking the power to control others and so its no wonder then that they are collectively moving the world towards a state where they can truly control everyone. People who seek power are determined to gain control over everyone.

We are therefore rapidly moving towards outright collective world control, where there will be no where to run from repression because everywhere will be repression. If that isn't bad enough, history shows not all people who seek power have the best interests of their people at heart. Worse still, the very act of seeking power over someone else is implicitly an act of Narcissism and Narcissism is characterised by a self interested lack of empathy towards others. So much for any fairness in a world so controlled by the unquestionable wishes of a powerful minority who are almost by definition self interested and so lack empathy towards others.

We are certainly heading into interesting times :(

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[ThatsNotPudding]

Hustler probably would offer him a job as foreign correspondent just throw another middle finger to the US establishment. But given the main (ahem) thrust of this magazine, I don't think it would help Assange's claims of character assasination.

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[canesfan]

"Hustler probably would offer him a job as foreign correspondent just throw another middle finger to the US establishment."

So you mean people would actually start reading Hustler for the articles???

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[Ihateturtlenecks]

Actually, Amnesty International doesn't think much of him either.

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[stephanruby]

[citation needed]

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare

[Ihateturtlenecks]

Not that this isn't already brought up in every topic dealing with Wikileaks but here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews

Wikileaks NOT planning to release those docs today

[Scrameustache]

WikiLeaks does not speak about upcoming releases dates, indeed, with very rare exceptions we do not communicate any specific information about upcoming releases

Julian Assange
Editor-in-chief

http://rixstep.com/1/1/20101018,00.shtml

Not all that surprising is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say I'm surprised. I'm sure just about any country assessing his application for citizenship is going to be thinking a lot of things, namely: Is Assange an international incident waiting to happen?

SOP?

[Nidi62]

Just curious, but what is the Swedish government's normal position on revealing the reasons for accepting/denying residency? Do they normally refuse comment on topics such as this, or is the response to Assange's case different? The article doesn't say, and so this could easily be simply an attempt to make mountains out of anthills.

Re:SOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not allowed to reveal it.

Re:SOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

They always refuse. They think that the motivation behind the decition could contain personal information and leaves it to the person who was denied residence to disclose the information to the public if he/she chooses to.

Re:SOP?

[Jugalator]

It's not different, so that part is actually a non-story.

These decisions are always secret here, no matter how benign, but if Assange want to speak up, it's up to him.

I think it's just there to protect his privacy. Like if he had been subject to a medical operation or something.

I feel for ya...

[halivar]

The only difference between +5 Interesting and -1 Redundant is 2 minutes.

Re:I feel for ya...

[Br00se]

You get what you pay for.

Re:I feel for ya...

[interkin3tic]

And the difference between +5 interesting and -1 redundant is 6 virtual points you can spend towards an imaginary pony named Mr. Bubblecatcher.

Re:I feel for ya...

[bigstrat2003]

Bah! I don't care for your silly rew- he catches bubbles, you say?? Tell me more.

Re:I feel for ya...

[blair1q]

No, it's 10 seconds taken to read the thread before replying.

Re:I feel for ya...

[onionman]

But one problem is that the thread might be updating while you're typing. I've several times thought that I was the first person to present a particular idea only to watch it get modded redundant because another post shows up 5 seconds earlier (because it was posted while I was typing mine).

Re:I feel for ya...

[aliquis]

imaginary pony named Mr. Bubblecatcher.

Sure you don't mean a robotic unicorn catching farries and stars accompanied by Erasure?

Re:I feel for ya...

[commodore64_love]

I've seen posts modded "redundant" even though they were the first posted. /. really needs to hire better mods.

this is not as strange as it may sound.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Asked if she could comment on the grounds for refusal, Wikström replied, "No, secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision."

The person writing this is likely misinformed.

In Sweden all gouvernment documents are public, except some related to individual persons, such as this. It's confidential to protect people's pricacy, but you can always request all documents about yourself. So, Assange will have access to the full file.

Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Toy G]

Between this, the Piratebay farce and the victories for far-right parties, it's now clear that Sweden is not the "neutral" political paradise it once was.

It's a shame that the current crop of politicians haven't got the guts to stand up the bullies of the world; their predecessors worked hard and bravely during the Cold War, risking total annihilation, and I'm sure they'd be ashamed to know that their spineless children are frightened by their own shadows.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[hedwards]

Unfortunately there are a few nations out there that are powerful enough economically that it's hard to ignore them completely. The US being one and China being another.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Between this, the Piratebay farce and the victories for far-right parties, it's now clear that Sweden is not the "neutral" political paradise it once was.

So it is no longer possible to found a pan-European party called 'Al Queda' in Sweden? Too bad, as if these games continue I might have voted for them just to protest. I'd like to see the faces of some US senators as they digest the news of the founding of this new peaceful, pan-nationalistic party who suggest people defending themselves under attack.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is totally clueless:

- Sweden was "neutral" during WWII, meaning it was effectively on the Nazi side.
- Sweden was "neutral" during the Cold War but effectively on the NATO side through military cooperation and secret joint defense plans with Norway (a NATO founding member).
- Sweden's politicians are almost exactly the same as they have been for the last decades.
- Sweden's "political paradise" is, if reading "paradise" as something akin to socialism, a myth created by clueless socialists outside of Sweden/Nordic countries, social democracy is not socialism (although some social democrats themselves do not understand this).
- Sweden's "political paradise" is, if reading "paradise" as social democracy, not a by-product of political ideologies but instead the product of common traits in Nordic cultures over at least hundreds if not thousands of years, social democratic politicians seldom grasp this and as for socialists the very concept and existence of such positive anti-postmodern and anti-nihilist cultural traits is incomprehensible.
- Sweden's Sverigedemokraterna is not a far right party, they're a centrist party with an anti-immigration stance. I'm not Swedish but I wouldn't be surprised if they grow fast because Sweden has some catching up to do compared to Denmark and Norway, or even Germany. People are preparing to fight for their homes, their own nations, all across Europe and they're right to do so, and even the political left is starting to realize these people are right.
- Swedish citizenship is not a birthright of the entire world no matter how many non-Swedes seem to assume so, nor is Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, or Finnish citizenship. Or for that matter Russian or German or any other country.

Assange has absolutely no right to expect a Swedish citizenship.

Sweden does not owe anyone any explanation at all about his application and their decision.

The US is an irrelevant banana republic, lame haters need to get themselves a new bogeyman.

People like Assange and the parent are not generally wanted or cherished in Nordic countries because they are just the kind of stupid shortsighted and myopic troublemakers (and we have enough of those already both from within and outside) who destroy our societies.

Assange would fit right in in the US where they worship at the altar of "larger than life", he should seek political asylum there for whatever reason he think he has (Australia has all the freedoms of any other democratic country but maybe he simply pissed off too many Australians?).

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

That does not mean that you have to break out the Vaseline can, like our current prime minister has a habit of doing.

The first trial of the Pirate Bay went so smoothly, it just had to have been petroleum based.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden was "neutral" during WWII, meaning it was effectively on the Nazi side.

No, actually it means that they were neutral. Imagine that.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is an irrelevant banana republic, lame haters need to get themselves a new bogeyman

And you apparently have no idea what "banana republic" means.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Angst Badger]

It's a shame that the current crop of politicians haven't got the guts to stand up the bullies of the world; their predecessors worked hard and bravely during the Cold War, risking total annihilation, and I'm sure they'd be ashamed to know that their spineless children are frightened by their own shadows.

That's because they don't have Soviet shadows to be afraid of anymore. Cold warriors had guts? These were the same people who were fond of the slogan, "Better dead than Red," which is to say, they'd rather have ended the human race forever in a blaze of nuclear fire than fight a long guerrilla struggle against Soviet domination in the astronomically unlikely event of Soviet world conquest.

You can always spot the chickenshits by looking for the people who talk loud and thump their chests a lot.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually it means they were effectively on the Nazi side.

Switzerland was neutral as well, yet effectively on the Nazi side in some ways, such as providing banking services and storing gold for the Nazis. Some of which gold had formerly taken the form of dental fillings and jewelry and coins and ingots whose former owners had met with untimely deaths in automated killing factories. Of course this was of no concern for a neutral party involved in the transaction.

Allied airmen who made it to Switzerland were safe from the Nazis but the same cannot be said of many Jewish refugees who made it to the Swiss borders only to be handed back to the Nazis. Some of these refugees even had their own sizable holdings in Swiss accounts. Of course this was of no concern for a neutral party involved in the transaction.

Neutrality is far more complicated than most people imagine.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Um ... you don't actually know what the Swedish role during the Cold War was, do you? Hint: they were anything but the chest-thumping jingoists you're talking about.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[mikael_j]

I take it you're deliberately ignoring that Sweden listened in on all german communications going through Sweden and forwarded anything interesting to the british...

Or that the swedish army helped danish and norwegian troops with equipment and training. Although officially those troops were just "police", police with artillery...

Or the rescue of nearly all of the 8,000 jews living in Denmark.

Not to mention the work of Count Folke Bernadotte and Raoul Wallenberg who worked to save concentration camp prisoners.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[guyminuslife]

It isn't a place in the mall?

Traditionally, banana republics are controlled by American corporations. Maybe that's what GP was trying to say. I don't see Chiquita propping up Obama as a military dictator, but you never know.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Jugalator]

Between this, the Piratebay farce and the victories for far-right parties, it's now clear that Sweden is not the "neutral" political paradise it once was.

Wait a minute here... Sweden isn't revealing their reasons because this is Julian Assange -- Sweden aren't revealing the reasons because they never do in these cases. If Assange wants to however, it's up to him. It's to protect his privacy. On that topic, you won't hear doctors going into depth in an operation either, but feel free to ask the patient...

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Securityemo]

"We" thought germany would win the war, at least in the short term, and prepared for that eventuality.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Securityemo]

"We" were signals intelligence spies, selling/providing data to the NATO and the US.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Securityemo]

The parent is quite correct, even if I don't agree with him as to the best approach to the "islamic menace" being shutting and barricading all the doors. American liberals don't understand what the "socialism" in sweden really is, and that it's basically just a jacked-up tax system and a cultural focus on maintaining the collective for everyone's security and freedom instead of just the individuals direct freedom. "The third way" isn't a perfect mix between socialism and capitalism, it's the sweet spot where the individual has as much freedom as possible in his actions balanced against his contributions to the collective that protects him from the consequences of this actions. The Social Democrat government was getting stagnant, and the system non-optimal (and decaying) so it was voted out.

Have you played "Penumbra: The Black Plague", made here? Remember the Tuurngait?

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

such as providing banking services and storing gold for the Nazis.

So are you saying that refusing to do business with the Nazis would have somehow been more neutral?

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right. The public transparency principle in Swedish government does not apply to documents that would compromise the privacy of an individual.

The transparency is rather hard-core though. When you ask any Swedish government agency for any non-secret document they have 48 hours to deliver it. In theory you could easily grind the whole system to a halt with a lot of (frivolous) requests...

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[tehcyder]

as for socialists the very concept and existence of such positive anti-postmodern and anti-nihilist cultural traits is incomprehensible

The definition of socialism is not "postmodern and nihilist", that more accurately describes some forms of artistic anarchism.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the German troops allowed to pass through Sweden between Norway and Finland.

Or the endless iron and steel exported to Germany to build their war machines.

Or Sweden's general enthusiasm for eugenics from the 19th ce

Or the fact that the whole Swedish entertainment industry was one huge Nazi propaganda machine.

Aside from a few token gestures to keep the guise of neutrality, the bulk of Sweden's efforts in the war were pro-Nazi.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore

[mikael_j]

Nice troll there.

Sweden was practically surrounded by Germany, in order to not risk an invasion our government deicded to cooperate as much as necessary. The government was by no means pro-nazi (if you refute this then it is painfully obvious that you are trolling).

As for the eugenics, not all that unusual for europe in the early 20th century and was hardly a pro-Hitler thing.

Media a bunch of liars

[Anonymous Coward]

If we trusted the media as much as they trust each other, we'd think we're living in a George Romero movie I mean there's been over a hundred Zombie's announced by the media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries

They can't get the status of someone's pulse correct 1/3rd of the time with someone like Bob hope (who was announced dead 2x before actually kicking the bucket.) How the hell could they get: a date, a quantity, and a source correct? I mean I'd expect 1. So if we take that to heart, the statement:

"Wikileaks will release 400,000 documents Today"

Turns into:

"Wikileaks."

Reasons are confidential for us

[Anonymous Coward]

Well AFAIK the reasons are only confidental to the public, Assange himself should have been informed of the decision and the reasons behind it. So maybe he will reveal the reasons?

Wikileaks 2.0

[joeszilagyi]

Fork now, go 100% anonymous, and every time you dump the data, immediately tip off at the same time the various news media contacts you have internationally, providing each with a redundant encrypted access avenue that is detached from the main 'body' of Wikileaks 2.0. No one person should ever be known by name. Cultural war is war, after all. Act like it.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

But this won't raise any money to pay their bills. A spokesperson of sort makes it tangible to the unsavvy.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

You are either interested in disseminating information or aggrandizing your own name. You can't do both. The fact that we know the name Julian Assange means someone wanted the latter.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0

[dirkdodgers]

I'm undecided about that. When it comes to this kind of information, at this time, public is probably safer than would-be anonymous.

If anything happens to Assange, the entire world knows where to look. Even the Mossad can't make public figures disappear without leaving a trail. Whereas a would-be anonymous leaking organization can be easily disappeared or infiltrated.

The problem with being anonymous is that you never actually are.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a named, known entity, leaking sensitive documents would be impossible. As Robert Gates said, no intelligence assets in Afghanistan were compromised by 90,000 documents being leaked by Wikileaks. If you were a US military whistleblower sitting on that, would you just let it all out there unredacted, or would you balk at risking the lives of hundreds or thousands by leaking? Wikileaks is like giving your leak to Bob Woodward. You're advocating giving it to 4chan.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0

[uolamer]

Fork now, go 100% anonymous, and every time you dump the data, immediately tip off at the same time the various news media contacts you have internationally, providing each with a redundant encrypted access avenue that is detached from the main 'body' of Wikileaks 2.0. No one person should ever be known by name. Cultural war is war, after all. Act like it.

Depends on how it's done, but I like the idea. Problem I see is that wikileaks only gets much of their data because of their site existing, people have to have a way to get them the data to begin with and know who to give it to. Every day people that run across the data to start with need a easy place to go...

Re:Wikileaks 2.0

[internettoughguy]

I'm undecided about that. When it comes to this kind of information, at this time, public is probably safer than would-be anonymous.

If anything happens to Assange, the entire world knows where to look. Even the Mossad can't make public figures disappear without leaving a trail. Whereas a would-be anonymous leaking organization can be easily disappeared or infiltrated.

The problem with being anonymous is that you never actually are.

Mossad suck, they can't even steal passports and get away with it :)

Of course, it could be S.O.P

[DaveV1.0]

It may be that Sweden does not tell others why people have been denied residence for matters of privacy. Perhaps Assange should ask and then tell the world.

Re:I thought.......

[Anonymous Coward]

>I am sure the Swedes aren't keen on granting citizenship to every Tom, Dick or Harry alleged pervert.

brennz (715237) is a pervert.

Now you're an alleged pervert too - hope you weren't planning taking up Swedish residence...

Re:I thought.......

[Anonymous Coward]

Specially not a pervert Dick.

Re:I thought.......

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

For

Notable individual, possibly subject of CIA smear campaign.

Against
Notable individual, possibly subject of CIA smear campaign.

Well said... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Jesus was a saint. Look at what happened to him. Heck, look at the saints... The reality is, anytime you challenge the current power brokers, expect to be fried. - by PRMan (959735) on Monday October 18, @06:27PM (#33939752)

See my subject-line 1st, but realize 1 thing also: Sometimes, if you plan things well & things go your way, You CAN "take the 'power brokers' right down" w/ you...

(Yes, it IS doable, & I am sure we've all been there & done that to SOME extent, when/if it was necessary (especially to prove a point or to recoup losses incurred in conflicts of ANY kind)).

APK

P.S.=> Because as "Downtown Nino Brown" put it in the film "New Jack City"? " If I'm going down, I'm taking a lot of people with me..." apk

Happened again and again and again

[KZigurs]

For an interesting account - find a copy of The Big Breach online. Secrecy et. al.

NSA/GCHQ connections

[AHuxley]

and have have much pull in Sweden. In the 1960's Swedish crypto machines where been exported to the world.
The NSA wanted to ensure a flaw to allow reading of messages on every new device shipped.
In 1957 a top NSA's cryptographer called William Friedman went on a tour of the UK and Sweden. Private arrangements where made for 'trap door' tech - the key floats out with the message. By the 1980's this was leaking, Congress knew and the US press talked of it in 1986. Talks where also held to ensure another huge Swedish telco did not work too hard on any new strong crypto.
More at "Rigging the Game" http://cryptome.org/jya/nsa-sun.htm

Re:NSA/GCHQ connections

[shermo]

http://www.swedennotswitzerland.com/

'we enjoy meatballs'

+4 insightful, really?

Re:NSA/GCHQ connections

[AHuxley]

insightful to know about junk crypto, Swedish 'neutral' ~Nordic safe maths and deep links with NSA/GCHQ I guess.

Re:NSA/GCHQ connections

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to point this out but, that document is about Switzerland, not Sweden.

Re:NSA/GCHQ connections

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!

Re:NSA/GCHQ connections

[Anonymous Coward]

and have have much pull in Sweden. In the 1960's Swedish crypto machines where been exported to the world.

Sweden is up in Scandinavia, Switzerland is a small landlocked country in continental Europe. They're not the same.

Re:NSA/GCHQ connections

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're mixing up Switzerland and Sweden, if you RTFL...

Re:NSA/GCHQ connections

[AHuxley]

"NSA urged Mr. Clark not to write about Mr Friedman's 1957 trip and two others, suggesting that such revelations could hurt the agency's ability to read foreign secrets, the author wrote."
His trips where to the UK, others to Sweden and Switzerland. The http://cryptome.org/jya/nsa-sun.htm link is good background reading on methods.
More at http://biphome.spray.se/laszlob/cryptoag/crypto_ag.htm

We Need another WikiLeak

[Nom du Keyboard]

Perhaps WikiLeaks will now leak the reason for his denial. Would be poetic.

Re:We Need another WikiLeak

[blair1q]

It would be even more poetic if he never found out.

Re:We Need another WikiLeak

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be even more poetic if he never found out.

Assange likely already knows why he is denied residency. It is to protect his privacy that the Swedish government can't reveal this information. Assange is free to do whatever he wants with it.

russia is not a safe place of dissent

[Anonymous Coward]

Alexander_Litvinenko_poisoning

Normal Government Beaurocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Julian Assange has NOT been blacklisted.

The VISA application was made in connection with a job offer and that job offer has been withdrawn.

Thus the VISA is denied.

This is how it works everywhere.

Try getting a work VISA for the USA without a job offer. Will not happen. Not anywhere.

This makes me embarrased to be a USian.

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be a time when my country stood up for the high ground. It seems that it is becoming increasingly despotic. I just hope this guy doesn't decide to kill himself like Deborah Palfrey (DC Madam) did, or come to some unfortunate accident like Gen. Patton did, when he threatened to talk.

----
The first thing I think when I wake up in the morning: 'There is no truth.' The last thing I think before going to bed: 'Nothing is forbidden'
--Mayor Menino

Re:This makes me embarrased to be a USian.

[metrix007]

USian is not a word, retard.

Democracy and Responsibility

[Chicken_Kickers]

Wow. Around half of the comments in this thread are for "lynching" Assange and Wikileaks. Now, I am all for secrecy where it is warranted. For example, the launch codes for nukes should be kept a secret. However, atrocities and war crimes should not. Governments may try to cover it up but exposing such atrocities is not only a right but a responsibility of a human being. If you come from a country where governments are elected, then you are responsible for what your government did, unlike people from dictatorships. By not caring or worse, supporting efforts to cover up atrocities by your military and character assassinate Assange, you too have blood on your hands. Show me and the rest of the world, that the Unites States deserves its "Leader of the Free World" moniker.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Requiem18th]

I suspect /. has been infiltrated by CIA astroturfers, that or 12 years old rednecks. Could be both.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[TehDuffman]

But to that point do we consider the outcome of WW2 to be that the "good guys" won? In today's age the "good guys" would have been made to be the bad guys. Shit happens in war, if a war is "just" like the one in Afghanistan (not so much Iraq) then why should we make the private that threw a grenade into a room that had people shooting at him and killed 5 people; 3 of whom were woman/children the bad guy?

I'm sorry but war is hell shit happens, until we live in an Utopian society that is a fact of life.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[dropadrop]

Wow. Around half of the comments in this thread are for "lynching" Assange and Wikileaks.

Well if there is a character assassination going on I guess it's working. :D

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Heretic2]

Wow. Around half of the comments in this thread are for "lynching" Assange and Wikileaks.

More like half the comments in this thread were posted by employees/contractors of the NSA/DHS/CIA/DIA/whatever. US tax dollars hard at work. I'm just SOOOOOO glad we're operating with a major deficit so we can hire guys to troll up message boards with the skill of a 13 year-old. *face palm* Might as well just outsource that shit to India and save a buck, it couldn't be any more obvious than what they do now.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

They already outsource the news to India. Go read some cnn.com or msnbc.com. Grammar mistakes in news FRIGHTENS ME in a way that Osama bin-dead-for-a-while-now never could.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, they have medicines that can help with your condition ....

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that the people posting to lynch him aren't working for the DoD or similar?

If you (as a corporation or government entity) were anti-wikileaks, why wouldn't you direct your employees to post comments in line with what you think here on wikileaks?

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Blackajack]

I vote in every election, and I am politically active. No party that I have voted for has ever got a single seat in parliament, I belong to an association that has been active for over ten years and has hundreds of paying members, but still is not officially recognized.

Pray tell me, am I responsible for my government because I'm not throwing molotov cocktails?

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Deserved because the rest of the world has no balls. Europe lots of talk about freedoms and the like but... England has spycams up the wazoo. France is decrypting most cell and Internet traffic. Germany, well they have a lot of history repressing minority's. Russia, one word Putin.

SO bu-tweet who do you like better? Any time the euro-zone want to step up...Oh right your too busy selling nuclear power plants to Iran and North Korea and guns to Africa /. home of hypocrites

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[ffreeloader]

Wow. Paranoid more than just a little?

It couldn't possibly be that there are people who honestly disagree with you could it? You know, citizens of the US that actually understand its history, its founding principles, and hate where people with your ideology desire to take it? Couldn't possibly be that some of those people see you as a traitor with your distorted, warped anger towards that which you cannot understand for you do not even understand the consequences of that which you espouse.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[DrugCheese]

Maybe. At what point would you start throwing them? When such atrocities are committed to your family? Your friends? Your neighbors? Your state? Your college alumni? Your toothpaste demographic? Where do allegiances lay first if not to humanity.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[Harry Coin]

Wow. Paranoid more than just a little? It couldn't possibly be that there are people who honestly disagree with you could it?

It could be. In fact, it's likely. However, do not doubt the propaganda efforts of the government. The DoD and many other organizations absolutely employ astroturf bloggers. Their posts are often as sincere as yours, but rarely as condescending.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[KillerLoop]

That's why people are against wars und do not want to wage them needlessly. War is hell, yes, and it becomes even more frustrating when a populance has been tricked into supporting a war that is so far from a good cause I'm lacking an analogy.

Waging imperialistic wars is teh shit, and a populance that supports it is rightly seen as the shitheads of this age.
In a way there are certainly worse shitheads, but what makes the US-shitheaddom particularly insulting is that the american ideal was something for the whole world to aspire to, human rights and freedom and all that. Having betrayed that ideal makes it so much worse in my book.

Having the word freedom on gitmo is more than a casual reminder of "arbeit macht frei" and the perverse reinterpretation of certain words and ideals to suit the exact opposite.

The world could, right now, be a lot farther ahead to a utopian society if the USA wouldn't have decided to betray their own foundations. Two needless war not being fought, all this terrorism-scare and tightening up and loss of personal freedoms not happening - I'd certainly say that this would be a better world to live in. Having to argue that with people who learn in schools "debating-skills" for the sake of debating, where it's almost a free choice which side to take and which points to make, doesn't make it much better for me.

Re:Democracy and Responsibility

[ffreeloader]

Wow. Paranoid more than just a little?

It couldn't possibly be that there are people who honestly disagree with you could it?

It could be. In fact, it's likely. However, do not doubt the propaganda efforts of the government. The DoD and many other organizations absolutely employ astroturf bloggers. Their posts are often as sincere as yours, but rarely as condescending.

I know the US government does monitor, and does infiltrate and investigate both criminal and terrorist orgs online. They need to do that. It's an integral part of law enforcement today, as it should be.

However, this idea that the government is the one doing most of astroturfing is ridiculous. Socialist groups do a ton of astroturfing and spreading their propaganda online. The conservatives don't do nearly as much as leftists in this regard.

Look at this site. Almost any defense of conservative values and viewpoints is modded as trolling or flamebait. Take your own post for instance. The post I replied to was far more aggressive, one-sided, and demeaning than mine(which is why I replied to it the way I did), but you chose to criticize me and let the truly negative poster slide because his post was left-leaning and anti-government.

And

[mahadiga]

When will Wikileaks disclose Swiss bank a/c details?

Annnnd?

[Uberbah]

I think the biggest problem with Wikileaks was not the idea itself (a site dedicated to government transparancy), but that Assange instead chose to use the information as a weapon to advance his personal views about the wars.

Is this more of the "why doesn't he present both sides" bullshit that Micheal Moore gets hit with? On one side you have the U.S. government and a media that loves to parrot it's claims, and on the other you have a few people dumping documents on a web site. Where is your Concern for a media that refuses to call torture, torture when the U.S. does it?

So your selective poutrage is duly noted.

Re:Annnnd?

[Eskarel]

Michael Moore is an ass. He trashed his own credibility by massaging reality and making a spectacle of himself. I could live with that, but in doing so he damaged the credibility of the things he was arguing most of which were and still are real problems that need to be addressed.

Re:Annnnd?

[Uberbah]

Michael Moore is an ass. He trashed his own credibility by massaging reality and making a spectacle of himself. I could live with that, but in doing so he damaged the credibility of the things he was arguing most of which were and still are real problems that need to be addressed.

You can a lot about critics by the substance to noise ratio. Michael Moore attacks his targets with a lot of substance (My Pet Goat, communist fucking Cuba having the same level of health care as the United States for 1/37th as much $$$ per patient, etc). Whereas a lot of critics of Michael Moore hit him with empty word salads without a single citation, counter argument, or a bit of logical reasoning.

In other words, they're either lazy or full of crap, or both.

Re:Annnnd?

[Eskarel]

I haven't seen Sicko, I have seen a lot of his other work.

He pulls an awful lot of stunts and massages facts. Which, as I said, is sad because he doesn't need to. He's got a lot of really really good points, but he gets all foaming at the mouth and fakes things to make his points stronger, which does more harm than good.

To clarify, I believe GM were a bunch of bastards, guns should be banned, the Iraq war was a mistake, the PATRIOT act was a violation of everything America stands for, US health care is a joke, and pretty much everything else he stands for.

What I don't believe is pretending that the GM guy didn't meet with him when he did, pretending that Canadians leave their doors unlocked, turning opposition to the Patriot act into a giant stunt or any of the garbage he pulls to try and get them across.

Re:Annnnd?

[Uberbah]

He pulls an awful lot of stunts and massages facts.

...and speaking of empty word salads...

What I don't believe is pretending that the GM guy didn't meet with him when he did

I can't comment on that one as I haven't seen Roger & Me...but got anything newer than a 21 year old movie?

pretending that Canadians leave their doors unlocked

Pretended how? Some Canadians do, indeed, leave their doors unlocked.

turning opposition to the Patriot act into a giant stunt or any of the garbage he pulls to try and get them across.

It's called making a point.

You mean like this guy??

[pablo_max]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article548380.ece

Re:You mean like this guy??

[Kagura]

Alternative headline:

Swedish government refuses to violate an individual's right to privacy when asked by an unrelated party about that individual's personal life.

The spin here is unreal. I'm really not impressed with Slashdot lately... I only come here anymore because there are still insightful comments on some stories.

Re:You mean like this guy??

[Zemran]

This whole story is such a non event. Yes, as you say, no one has really said anything and nothing has really happened. No country would grant a residence permit to someone while they are under investigation. They cannot say anything as anything they do say could be taken out of context and may prejudice the case... it is all too obvious to be worth discussing. After the case has been dealt with, a decision will be made and then we can discuss whether it was the right decision.

So they'd tell Julian, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they'd tell Julian, then? Because if they want to let HIM decide whether to release the information to the public or not, then they'd have no reason NOT to tell him, and a need to TELL him so he can disclose it.

Or, maybe your explanation was bollocks.

I'll let YOU decide whether to release that information to the public.

The Local? O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the news sources in the world carrying this story and you have to pick The Local? They can't even read the TT bulletins without stumbling over their pretty small feet and getting basic facts wrong? You're either a shill or stupid.

Where's the evidence for JA withholding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the evidence for JA withholding the information? It rather looks to me like the reasons he's been refused are being kept secret from Julian himself, therefore he CANNOT (because he doesn't *know*) reveal why his entry was refused.

Hell, the Swedish government could say "We told him why" but they haven't. So there's ZERO evidence of what you want to believe.

And, in any case, would Sweden be in trouble for leaking wikileaks' chief editor's information? If Julian DID complain, he'd look foolish.

saint? naah

[jDeepbeep]

Jesus was a saint.

Or a fringe-loonie who thought he was G-d. Or a complex historical forgery. No man in that period of time, at that age, would have been unmarried, and walking around like a mendicant monk in a bathrobe. I don't buy the whole divine rebel story.

Not that implausible...

[rbarreira]

Perhaps WikiLeaks will now leak the reason for his denial. Would be poetic.

That could well happen:

WikiLeaks Leaks its Own Donors Due to Email Mishap