Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: What Would Your 'I've Got To Disappear' Plan Look Like?

New submitter diacritica writes "This Ask Slashdot is inspired by manhunts à-la-Bourne movies, but taking a more realistic approach to the world we live in. You are native to and live in a big city (> 1M pop) in a G8 country of your choosing. At T = 0h, you accidentally witness a strange event. At T = 1h, you realize you're being followed and you get the feeling that the police/government might be involved. Contextual data: you are able to speak one language apart from good English. You are 25 to 45 years old. You are computer savvy. You are engaged/married, you have family living in the same city. 99% of your money is in a bank account. You prefer to go 'rationally' paranoid. What would you do in order to feel safe after those first 24 hours? Remember, you didn't commit a crime, but there are plenty of real-world resources invested in catching you."

789 comments

  1. One thing for sure by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wouldn't go out and get laid.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:One thing for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Get the hell off the internet
      2. Lose the mobile phone, iPad, and anything else with wireless capability
      3. Become invisible, wear solid black (or white) clothing, no logos, brands or anything else immediately identifiable.
      4. (If time permits) Wear sunglasses or some other type of glasses that distort how people see you, eg if the popular trend is cokebottle lenses, get those.
      5. (If time permits) Get a wig of a different hair color and lenght. This is much harder for men, but you can just get something that is different enough that it wouldn't draw attention.
      6. Very important. Do not pay with credit cards. At hour zero you should have withdrawn all available money, cash advance your cards, etc and convert those into prepaid/gift cards for one-time transactions.
      7. Write a letter to your friends/family explaining what is going on, mail it directly in the post office (don't drop it off in a box outside)

      After that, you're going to probably want to stay the hell off the grid. Buy some camping gear, take a bus two towns over, buy a bike, and disappear.

      8. If you're have such plans, activate the data-self-destruction on your home data remotely. It may not help your cause, but it will prevent any data from being planted. How would I do this? Send a specially crafted email from your cell phone before you lose it, that tells the system to encrypt everything and then unmount. If you really were hiding something, this would actually ignite some minor explosive to blow apart the hard drives, rendering the system inoperable.

    2. Re:One thing for sure by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      6. Very important. Do not pay with credit cards. At hour zero you should have withdrawn all available money, cash advance your cards, etc and convert those into prepaid/gift cards for one-time transactions.

      Uhh, every time you see something odd, do you rush to the bank and take out all your money? That's the only way you could have done this at "zero hour". It's not until 1 hour that you realize they're after you.

      Aside from that, you can't just walk into your bank and take all your money out as cash. Yes, if your balance is small, you can. Maybe your bank will honor the request. They don't have to. Most banks can force you to wait for your cash, since they are required to have only a certain fraction of the deposits on hand at any one time. You can get a check, but try cashing that once the government is on to you.

      And gift cards? Why would you encumber your cash in specific vendor's cards? What a great thing to do, find yourself with $1000 in Applebee's gift cards and all you can find is a Taco Bell.

      8. If you're have such plans, activate the data-self-destruction on your home data remotely. It may not help your cause, but it will prevent any data from being planted.

      Because, of course, the government doesn't have any spare computers they could plant the data on and put in your house and then claim it was yours to start with. Not at all.

    3. Re:One thing for sure by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Become invisible, wear solid black (or white) clothing, no logos, brands or anything else immediately identifiable."

      IOW, try to stand out in the crowd?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:One thing for sure by akboss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You left out that Alaska is a very large ans easy place to "disappear" in. Having lived there for 37 years I kind of know where to go to blend in. I also know enough people that have a dislike for the "government" as to help in any way they can. Come to think of it, it is hunting season and I could easy load up on moose and caribou and not have to surface for quite a while.

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    5. Re:One thing for sure by swalve · · Score: 2

      All of this rests on a ridiculous premise: the bad guys have inexplicably let themselves be seen. None of us are Michael Westen and the bad guys don't act like they do on Burn Notice.

    6. Re:One thing for sure by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "... and the bad guys don't act like they do on Burn Notice."

      Um.... actually, if they are "the authorities", the often do.

      Seriously: haven't you read all those stories about government harassment, FBI agents getting caught putting tracers on cars, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. ... ??

      DEA having to toss out a case against a drug smuggler because they didn't have a couple of $100 hard drives to put all the data on?

      I mean, come on. It's like watching the Keystone Kops from the silent film era, but every day.

    7. Re:One thing for sure by PerformanceDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmmm - I think the GP was refering to prepaid cards such as VISA or Mastercard that you can pick up at your local 7-Eleven and load with balances up to $1000. I use those cards myself when I want to purchase something from a web site that I don't completely trust to be PCI compliant. The cards costs about $3, can be bought and loaded using cash and there are no identification taking place whatsoever. I use them to avoid fraud, but they are equally useful to make purchases completely anonymously. As for cashing out your savings.... you could conceivably do this by visiting a number of different branches. Most banks will at least allow you to cash out around $10K without too many questions. Do that 2 or 3 times and you should be able to comfortably survive for at least 6 months.

      --
      Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
    8. Re:One thing for sure by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I would change my name to "Lord Lucan"...

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:One thing for sure by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rule #2: Don't post your escape plan on /.

    10. Re:One thing for sure by julesh · · Score: 1

      If you think someone with resources is trying to find you, visiting 2 or 3 branches of your bank is probably a very bad idea. You'll only have time to visit one before all the branches in your local area are being monitored.

    11. Re:One thing for sure by littlewink · · Score: 2

      " Come to think of it, it is hunting season and I could easy load up on moose and caribou and not have to surface for quite a while." In the wilds of Alaska not a problem but getting your vegetables might be! Be careful of the mushrooms.

    12. Re:One thing for sure by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Rule #2.5: Post a completely different escape plan on /. With luck, they'll get confused and follow the wrong plan.

    13. Re:One thing for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solid white or black is a terrible idea, you won't blend in at all. Blue jeans and a cheap collared shirt would be a much better bet.

      And when it comes to glasses and wigs, don't underestimate how big an effect a hat can have, or a dramatic change in hairstyle and/or facial hair.

    14. Re:One thing for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the real world, law enforcement does not get immedaite up to the second alerts out in the field when your ATM card was used at a third party ATM. Even if they did, its not like they have teams of people standing in every 1/2 mile area ready to swarm that ATM. Even if they did, unless you are still standing there when they get there, they are going to have NO idea where you went after that and you are going to blend in with the rest of the population. The chances of the team saying, there he is over there! In the movies, people are always captured when they are doing completely random things. In reality, almost everyone that is eventually caught has a pattern and someone stakes out that area and waits. Oh, he works at Mcdonalds, let's hang out there and wait for him. Not as glamourous or exciting as the movies but that is reality.

    15. Re:One thing for sure by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Why the city? If I was gonna disappear, camping in the mountains and/or desert. Rockies, Cascades, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. Stowaway on a train, pay with cash for everything. Hopefully if i thought I needed to do this I would have prepositioned cahes of food/water out there already, like many thruhikers already do. Lay in a supply of MREs and drycanned goods in a cave or abandoned cabin or something. And leave the phone behind for damn sure.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:One thing for sure by Creepy · · Score: 1

      And the latest fad of police using license plate scanners to Id where your vehicle has been, and often this is public record - anyone can track you this way. Who knows if they have facial recognition in place as well?

      A few other things - make sure any distinguishing features are covered, such as tattoos, piercings, etc. Grow a beard if male, or remove the beard if you have one, and add cheap sunglasses and a baseball cap, but once out of the area, discard both and replace at least the sunglasses. If possible, change your hairstyle. Buses and trains are your friend, cars are not. Get what cash you can from an ATM and leave the area as quickly as possible. Don't use cards of any kind, not just credit cards - frequent shopper cards also can be used to track your location, for instance, in addition to your buying habits. Don't call anyone unless you buy a burner phone, and if you use that, use it in a crowded place and then throw it away and leave the area as quickly as possible. Get out of urban centers - too much surveillance - catching a bus out of town probably is a good option. Make sure you don't have a bug on your person - especially check shoes where a cavity could be drilled out and larger tracking bugs could be placed.

    17. Re:One thing for sure by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

      That's where the Simpsons went to disappear. :)

      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    18. Re:One thing for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PCI compliant

      LOLOLOLOLOL my sides

    19. Re:One thing for sure by socceroos · · Score: 1

      $30K will allow you to comfortably survive for years and years and years. Do not try to live your cushy western life when on the run. Just be sensible.

    20. Re:One thing for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bank branches typically don't have more than 3K in their vault at any one time.

      If you ask for a cash withdrawal for that much, you will be asked to come back the next day because they don't have that much cash on hand.

    21. Re:One thing for sure by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Alaska doen't count. It has no cities over a million. It's largest city is only 290k. Anchorage area is 380k. In terms of City proper if you're in the US you have to be in NY, TX, PA, IL or AZ. No other states have cities with a million people in them.

      In terms of Metro area you could be a lot more states, but you're tied to the bit of the state least likely to include the anti-government rural types your strategy depends on.

    22. Re:One thing for sure by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      At least in the US, banks impose a daily ATM withdrawal limit--$300 I think. You could visit 20 different ATMs but after your collective sum totals $300 you're done anyway. But why on earth would you wish to "show up" on the net so many times when just dumping your funds in one go would eliminate future location predictions. Frankly if you're in G-8 country and in a major city odds are there are cameras capable of tracking wherever the hell you go anyway.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    23. Re:One thing for sure by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      You can live on meat. Our paleo ancestors all did. Vegetables are a frippery.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    24. Re:One thing for sure by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      Stowaway on a train

      Stowing a way on a train might be a really bad idea, FWIW.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    25. Re:One thing for sure by plover · · Score: 1

      Bank branches typically don't have more than 3K in their vault at any one time.

      If you ask for a cash withdrawal for that much, you will be asked to come back the next day because they don't have that much cash on hand.

      Where do you bank, the First National Bank of Sticks and Mud? The counter at the 7-11? Joe's Auto Repairs and Savings and Loan? Vinnie's House O' Money?

      Actually, that last one's not even possible. Vinnie always has more than that in his pocket.

      Seriously, where do you people come up with these ideas?

      --
      John
  2. Wouldn't YOU like to know? by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nice try.

    1. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Howard+Beale · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I would have at least posted as an AC...

    2. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think my plan is safe enough to say aloud... French Foreign Legion.

    3. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by tdillo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Spanish Inquisition because *nobody* expects the Spanish Inquisition. . . .

    4. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, my disappear plan is to [censored] to [censored] and catch the [censored] [censored] to [censored], [censored]. Then call [censored] and find out if [censored] and if so, go [censored] a [censored] and head for [censored]. Hole up for [censored] [censored] and wait for [censored] to [censored] and then check [censored] to see if [censored].

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by anomaly256 · · Score: 2

      It's interesting how good the 'powers that be' are getting at openly crowd sourcing information and strategy.

    6. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why I would ...

      ROFL

    7. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Damn, for some mod points...

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    8. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even know my plan, because I encrypted it with bath salts. One gram though and I am out of it.

    9. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2
      The word you were looking for is redacted. It is only censorship when someone else deletes your content.

      On a similar note, from reading the submitter's question:

      "Contextual data: you are able to speak one language apart from good English. [emphasis added]"

      ... I think it is fair to say that we are not said submitter in this scenario. ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    10. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did .

    11. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Funny

      French? So you're just going to surrender, then? :-)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    12. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they take you in. Of 10 seekers 1 comes in. Of 10 whom came in, 3 are hired. Also when you come to them they check your identity with diverse int'l police (interpol, eu warrants...) and others. Most importantly, France will always have your real identity, they no longer allow them to be "destroyed".

    13. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    14. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Contextual data: you are able to speak one language apart from good English.

      I speak good English and US English. Is that OK?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    15. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually a good idea.

    16. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sortez la vache !

    17. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Coeurderoy · · Score: 2

      Too obvious, try the Spanish Foreign Legion, nobody expects the spanish foreign legion, and they still use "identidad declaradas"

      http://www.legion-recrute.com/es/faq.php

      Of course they might be the ones out to get you ...

    18. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      US citizens would be less prone to believe that the the french are "surrendering" if they would not be so pissed at the fact that the general de gaulle was unwilling to surrenders all french sovereignty to the US after the war.

      So : remember Cambronne...

    19. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in French Foreign Legion, they are mostly non French here, that's why we created it to have a non coward army that stand, we are too cowards to do it ^^

    20. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      The word you were looking for is redacted. It is only censorship when someone else deletes your content.

      I think the use was probably intentional.

      Everyone knows that when the people who use the word "redacted" actually publish anything they've "redacted", all you have to do is highlight the entire document and paste it into a text window.

    21. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      It is a well known fact that the English invented the language, but that we perfected it ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    22. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      The word you were looking for is redacted. It is only censorship when someone else deletes your content.

      Who says it wasn't someone else?

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    23. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you are under 28 years of age, and I think they recently suppressed the right to unroll under a new identity (or to drop your old identity for the new one, I can't remember which), so this is becoming a solution not as good as it used to be. And besides that it sounds extremely dangerous to be in.

    24. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just too stupid a question to address.

    25. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is as safe as you can be on a battle front.

    26. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English.

    27. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "The word you were looking for is redacted. It is only censorship when someone else deletes your content."

      (dons tinfoil hat)
      Why would you assume his plan wasn't censored.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    28. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those two languages are mutually exclusive.

    29. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true that the Légion Etrangère can provide you with a fake identity for the time that you serve, but nowadays a background check (with consultation from Interpol from what I remember) is compulsory before entering the Legion.

      And when you read about the life in the Légion, you'd better leave your brain aside, and have a good training before entering it.

    30. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't expecting that posting.

    31. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Lorens · · Score: 1

      Verdun isn't really a good example. When talking of surrendering in the context of the French Foreign Legion one can only refer the French-hater to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camerone

    32. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too obvious, try the Spanish Foreign Legion,
      http://www.legion-recrute.com/es/faq.php

      Uh.. yeah. You DO realize that's the spanish language page for the FRENCH Foreign Legion right?

    33. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Actually "redacted" would have been better had it come to mind.

      I attempted to Alt-218 the thing, but Slashdot just ignores that. In my haste to fix it, "censored" came to me.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    34. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly no need for proper English.

    35. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by tiberus · · Score: 1

      The word you are looking for is [redacted].

    36. Re:Wouldn't YOU like to know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too obvious, try the Spanish Foreign Legion,
      http://www.legion-recrute.com/es/faq.php

      Uh.. yeah. You DO realize that's the spanish language page for the FRENCH Foreign Legion right?

      I did not expect that.

  3. I know where there is a cave near my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's in the woods and there is a small stream that runs through it. I have a 2 year supply of Wise survival food in my basement I could load up along with the firearm, ammo, and I'd be good.

    1. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 5, Funny

      xyzzy

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    2. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be sure not to leave hints in the mailbox.

    3. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just take a dump in the mailbox and no one will look in there ever again.

    4. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fool.

    5. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing happens.

    6. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      A hollow voice says "Plugh."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I know where there is a cave near my house. It's in the woods and there is a small stream that runs through it. I have a 2 year supply of Wise survival food in my basement I could load up along with the firearm, ammo, and I'd be good.

      Fail!

    8. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

      You've been eaten by a gru

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    9. Re:I know where there is a cave near my house by outlander · · Score: 1

      Wise survival food

      Potato chips?

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  4. I would ask slashdot by chichilalescu · · Score: 5, Funny

    see title

    --
    new sig
  5. Here. by xevioso · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) Hide in the Ecuadorean embassy.
    2) Hire a lawyer.

    1. Re:Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No profit ?!?

    2. Re:Here. by lasvegasseo · · Score: 0

      You can't hide there, they'll UPS you to Ecuador!

    3. Re:Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather hide in the Non-Euclidean Embassy. Off the grid, baby!

  6. What I would do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Post to Ask Slashdot
    2) ???
    3) Profit

  7. I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Get the best hooker you can find for the money you have

  8. The first rule... by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first rule of secret escape plans is that you keep them secret.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    1. Re:The first rule... by cffrost · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first rule of secret escape plans is that you keep them secret.

      Hang on... Okay, got it. Second rule?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    2. Re:The first rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell no one there's a first rule.

    3. Re:The first rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is bounded by the first rule.

    4. Re:The first rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a secret.

    5. Re:The first rule... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Note that this is the first, and apparently hardest, step of anything that includes the word secret.

      I've been saying for years, "The first step in keeping a secret is to not tell anyone." I'm no longer surprised at how many fail at doing so.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    6. Re:The first rule... by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      See you did it again, you are not supposed to tell anybody the first rule!!! it's secret gdmit!

    7. Re:The first rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Don't Ask Slashdot

    8. Re:The first rule... by The+Pirou · · Score: 1

      Don't get caught.

    9. Re:The first rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People thought the same of crypto systems at one point. Turns out public review has shown many systems to be completely insecure. So perhaps a plan in the general sense could benefit from peer review...

    10. Re:The first rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the first rule was, "You do not TALK about Fight Club..." And the second rule is, "You do not TALK..."

    11. Re:The first rule... by InterestingX · · Score: 1

      Hang on... Okay, got it. Second rule?

      Second Rule: Don't tell anyone about the first rule

  9. WWAD by tool462 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What Would Assange Do?

    1. Re:WWAD by Blade · · Score: 0, Troll

      Try and divert the media away from the serious sexual crimes he is alleged to have committed. But as role models go, he's pretty fucking slimy.

    2. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Serious sex crimes? He didn't corner a girl in a back alley, pull a knife, and force himself on her; she agreed to have sex with him if he used a condom, which he didn't.

    3. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And you don't consider that a serious sex crime why?

    4. Re:WWAD by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe because it's senseless, unprovable, he-said she-said bullshit?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:WWAD by Blade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a formal and serious allegation which he is avoiding answering to by hiding. If he's innocent, why is he hiding? Read up on the extradition laws and you'll find it's *harder* to be extradited from Sweden than the UK, and that if he gets extradited to Sweden then *both* Sweden and the UK have to consent to extradition to the US on charges that haven't even been brought yet.

      Two women have made serious allegations, he should face them using legal due process.

    6. Re:WWAD by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So it's OK to potentially infect someone with an STD or get them pregnant as long as you are spreading juicy emails from the state department?

      Not using a condom is a pretty big deal when the woman has asked you not to. You have no idea why she asked.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because his fears of political persecution are very justified. He is risking to spend far more time locked inside a room in the Ecuadorian embassy than he would get in the worst case scenario if he was judged guilty in Sweden (which is not very likely). Does that seem like someone running from "serious accusations"?

    8. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the two women inquired about their options and set off this chain of events, and now are not cooperating with the prosecution ?

    9. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that was what his first court case in the UK was about, was to deny extradition to sweden unless they stated that they wouldn't extradite to the US. Sweden wouldn't say either way and the UK said they didn't care.

      He also isn't hiding as everyone knows where he is and he's made it clear where he is. He isn't avoiding answering questions as he stated he would answer over the phone or pay to fly the swedish officials to the UK to ask questions.

      Then the allegations the women made are simply that allegations. They haven't filed any charges so there are no legal due process.

    10. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a formal and serious allegation which he is avoiding answering to by hiding.

      Yes, he's avoiding answering them by asking Swedish prosecutors if it was ok to leave the country before he did, and then inviting them to interview him either remotely, or in person in the Ecuadorian embassy. All opportunities were declined. It's obvious that it's not his testimony they want, it's his physical presence. He even volunteered to go to Sweden, as long as guarantees were offered that he would not be extradited to the US. They guarantees were never given.

      Read up on the extradition laws and you'll find it's *harder* to be extradited from Sweden than the UK, and that if he gets extradited to Sweden then *both* Sweden and the UK have to consent to extradition to the US on charges that haven't even been brought yet.

      Just like it's illegal for the US to hold you without trial. Doesn't particularly seem to have stopped them. The underlying assumption to your statement is that the people/countries involved care about the law, or think it applies to them. From previous experience, they know they can pretty much do whatever they want, and they're not going to be called on it by anyone that matters.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    11. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 0

      Read a few of the reader's arguments and you will see how absolute your "articles" are. The "reporters" did little more than put their opinions in the text disguised as "facts", as usual. Both articles are ridiculously biased and completely out of touch with reality.

      Sweden could and still can interrogate him in UK and they can prosecute him without having him in custody. They are just choosing not to, because the prosecutors want to have a circus and without the main character there is no show.

      Furthermore the accusations are impossible to be proved and would be dismissed by any court in any country with a sane justice system. Maybe even in Sweden, thus the absence of any process against him to this point. Even the "crimes" per se are ridiculous even if the "victims" are telling the truth.

    12. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Lesson of the day: "going to bed with a douche is a bad choice". It is your fault, especially considering that he didn't force you to anything and at any point you could have just sent him away. Now grow up and learn to be a big girl and choose your partners better.

    13. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part I consider serious is he was the fucking face of Wikileaks at that time, he stated how all this stuff COULD happen (and how he didn't stay in one place blah blah, etc.) and then he went and got his dick wet in a manner that could come back to bite him in the ass in EXACTLY THE MANNER he'd previously claimed to work hard to avoid?

      No offense but Assange is as big a retard as Manning (whose true indiscretion was being incompetent enough to trust Adrian Lamo, and under ANY circumstances bragging about what he'd done, be it to press or to some schmuck for street cred.)

      Gloryseekers often die, but how often is it in glory?

    14. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read a few of the reader's arguments and you will see how absolute your "articles" are. The "reporters" did little more than put their opinions in the text disguised as "facts", as usual. Both articles are ridiculously biased and completely out of touch with reality.

      Wow... Owen Jones' clearly marked opinion column contains his opinions. What an insightful criticism that is.

      Sweden could and still can interrogate him in UK and they can prosecute him without having him in custody. They are just choosing not to, because the prosecutors want to have a circus and without the main character there is no show.

      So they should try him in absentia because he doesn't feel like being extradited? And if he is convicted, presumably they can just leave a jail cell empty for a few years.

      How unreasonable of Sweden to believe that the defendant is an important part of a criminal trial!

      Furthermore the accusations are impossible to be proved and would be dismissed by any court in any country with a sane justice system. Maybe even in Sweden, thus the absence of any process against him to this point. Even the "crimes" per se are ridiculous even if the "victims" are telling the truth.

      Except that the alleged crimes would be serious sexual offences in practically any country, as pointed out by the UK Supreme Court. And Sweden's "absence of any process" actually consists of obtaining an extradition order from the UK, which is exactly what they are supposed to do under EU law.

    15. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 0

      Because it is not. I reckon that anything that does not fit in your sense of morals is probably a "serious crime" to you, but calling these accusations "serious crimes" only makes light of other crimes that are really serious, as murder, and real rape, that crime that involves violence and whose name people borrowed to use here in the same way MPAA borrows the term "thievery" and "piracy" to define IP violation.

    16. Re:WWAD by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Not using a condom is a pretty big deal when the woman has asked you not to.

      Perhaps it is. However, as long as consent was given the entire time it is not anywhere close to being rape or sexual battery. It just makes him a dick. She did not notice it till the next day. Rape is not retroactive. She can't demand breakfast as part of some verbal contract and then claim breach of contract constitutes rape.

      This is just theater. Assange has damn good reason to expect that once in custody he would be shipped off to the US. If Sweden really wants justice they can prosecute him without having him in custody. It's not like we don't have the technology to perform streaming video to a court room. Done all the time in the US now. Prisoners don't even step foot in the courtroom and are in a building across town.

      If they do convict him, then there might be a better case to get him back to Sweden to serve his sentence. That is highly doubtful, as most people are in agreement that this would never go to a conviction based on the testimony of those involved.

    17. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      1) Stating opinions as facts is not less fallacious because you are doing it in your "opinion" column.

      2) They can trial him in absentia, as happens with a lot of cases when the accused is unavailable by any motive. They can also question him and decide if they want to charge him before extraditing him. All in all if they questioned him, decided to charge him and judged him guilty (in absentia or not), they would be no worse than they are now and with a much stronger case.

      3) No they are not. They are minor offenses even in Sweden. the maximum penalty he would receive if he was found guilty would be 2 years in jail, which can be further reduced by good behavior to less than a year. That is the worst possible scenario. Similar "criminals" in Sweden have been granted social services penalties and no jail time. That if they can prove anything against him, which they can't because it is his word against the word of the accusers, which have a lot to gain with his demise even if he is innocent.

    18. Re:WWAD by EdIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      These are not serious allegations, and are not sex crimes. Not in any sane country.

      He was an asshole, I will grant you that. However, failing to put a condom on, even when the woman expects it, is more likely to be the plot of a Hollywood movie, than the actions of a "rapist" or "sexual predator".

      By that logic a woman in Sweden could demand cuddling and talking after sex and it would be deemed just as worthy of being a sex crime when it was not performed.

      The whole case is ridiculous and Sweden had their chance to prosecute and now are refuse to offer any guarantees against extradition to the US (which is quite reasonable under the circumstances) or prosecute him remotely.

    19. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No, his fears of political persecution are political sleight of hand on his part. You distract them with the circus of claiming asylum from a country which is no friend to freedom or human rights (seriously, look up any reasonably objective assessment of the Ecuadorean government's actions concerning freedom of speech and human rights - they are not a bunch of people who you may un-ironically state are "friends of freedom and human rights"), and claim that the reason you need asylum is some unspecified bogey man that's out to get you.

      In one fell swoop, he's destroyed any credibility he may have had, by providing a way for Ecuador to whitewash their human rights abuses using his own name and organization's name. "Ecuador MUST be a friend of free speech - look, they gave Julian Assange asylum because they care so much about free speech!"

      You're an idiot if you think his asylum-seeking behavior is anything but a self-serving dodge to avoid facing charges in Sweden.

    20. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, not one single person can provide a shred of evidence in the form of a statement from either of the women, their representatives, or the prosecution, to support this ridiculous bullshit about them "not cooperating with prosecution."

      If they weren't cooperating with prosecution, Mr. Assange and his lawyers would be trumpeting it from the rooftops. Instead, there is exactly ONE article from Crikey which draws this conclusion, based on the fact that Ms. Ardin apparently (according to anonymous sources, speculating that this departure means she's no longer cooperating) left Sweden to go to the Palestinian territories with a Christian missionary group, and a bunch of "me-too" articles CITING the Crikey report and saying "Crikey reports that the women have stopped cooperating."

      They have never said they're not cooperating, no representative of theirs has said so, the prosecution hasn't said so, and the defense hasn't said so either. So why are you supposing that they're not cooperating?

    21. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Stating opinions as facts is not less fallacious because you are doing it in your "opinion" column.

      Well, I don't see anything obviously fallacious in those articles. On the other hand, claiming that there is a secret conspiracy by the CIA to kidnap you (any evidence for which is never produced in court) which should make you immune to arrest isn't very impressive as an argument.

      2) They can trial him in absentia, as happens with a lot of cases when the accused is unavailable by any motive. They can also question him and decide if they want to charge him before extraditing him. All in all if they questioned him, decided to charge him and judged him guilty (in absentia or not), they would be no worse than they are now and with a much stronger case.

      Actually trials in absentia for criminal matters are extremely rare in the EU, as they are inevitably so one-sided that it's hard to see how they can be ECHR compliant. For example, take the Polly Peck affair - despite the fact that it caused a massive scandal that ended several ruling party politicians' careers, they waited about 20 years until they could hold the trial with the defendant present and get the convictions they achieved today.

      Questioning him by video link seems redundant. Since when have criminal suspects been able to demand that they only be interviewed in circumstances which they control and where the police have no ability to proceed with the process? How would they have a stronger case than the warrant they already have, which has been minutely examined by the UK courts and confirmed repeatedly?

      3) No they are not. They are minor offenses even in Sweden. the maximum penalty he would receive if he was found guilty would be 2 years in jail, which can be further reduced by good behavior to less than a year. That is the worst possible scenario. Similar "criminals" in Sweden have been granted social services penalties and no jail time. That if they can prove anything against him, which they can't because it is his word against the word of the accusers, which have a lot to gain with his demise even if he is innocent.

      I'm sorry, but I am going to side with the UK Supreme Court as to whether the allegations are serious enough to warrant extradition. The idea that two years in jail is a minor offence...

    22. Re:WWAD by gtirloni · · Score: 0

      Assange goes to Sweden and next thing you know he died of pneumonia in some prison cell and that's it. Meanwhile, in a cell in the US...

      --
      none
    23. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean she gave him syphilis?

    24. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on the extradition laws and you'll find it's *harder* to be extradited from Sweden than the UK

      no, u

    25. Re:WWAD by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      I'm not current on the whole sityation, but she'd have to be awfully damn blind to have let him have sex with her without a condom... putting the thing on is a monstrously obvious matter.

      1. He puts one on and this is quite obvious
      2. He pretends to put one on, but she is blind and cannot see he is going commando
      3. He doesn't even pretend to put it on and goes commando and she is blind as a fire hydrant and doesn't notice.

      He may be an ass, but she's not telling truthsies here.... or did i miss something?

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    26. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is risking to spend far more time locked inside a room in the Ecuadorian embassy than he would get in the worst case scenario if he was judged guilty in Sweden

      Really, you are arguing life in a US prison is better than life in the Ecuadorian embassy?
      Because the US has already set his sentence, and Sweden has already admitted they will hand him over to the US. Sweden has also shown publicly that there are no charges against him for rape, so why should the sentence for rape matter at all here?

    27. Re:WWAD by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2

      Here is what I don't understand: if the U.S. wanted them to, the U.K. could have detained and extradited him at least as easily as Sweden could. So why the fear that Sweden would extradite but not the U.K.?

      If there is no reason to believe that Sweden is more likely to extradite to the U.S. than the U.K. (my intuition is that, in fact, the opposite is the case) then I'm skeptical about Assange's real reasons for fighting extradition to Sweden.

    28. Re:WWAD by pdabbadabba · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time? I (and apparently others) would have expected the opposite. But if that's the case, Assange needs a new explanation for fighting extradition to Sweden, doesn't he?

      Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.

        If both these things are true (and I think they are) then while Assange seems to have no good reason to fear extradition to Sweden, Sweden seems to have a perfectly good reason FOR seeking it. No?

    29. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

      Agreeing to wear a condom as a condition of sex, then having sex without a condom, is a violation of the terms of consent that led to the sex. That is, sex without consent. That is, rape. A serious sex crime. In any sane country. Period.

      News flash: Todd Akin didn't make rape denial okay.

    30. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to spend the rest of your life in a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy than in some U.S. detention facility, even though option 1 is likely to last far longer and get a bit tedious at times.

    31. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jesus fucking christ.

      It was not rape.

      Having sex is not a legal contract. She was there for the fucking. During the fucking she did not say no.

      According to your twisted logic, terms of consent could have been that he was required to cuddle, or mow her lawn, or walk her dog, or some shit like that. Failure, after the fact is determined to retroactively take away consent?

      That's bullshit and insane crazy.

      If she did not want to have sex, or wanted to stop having sex, she could have done so.

      I'm not denying rape because rape never occurred. You don't to scream rape after the fact, while admitting that you gave consent the entire time , but just had regrets or a disagreement aftewards.

      Rape is a very serious allegation that demands lengthy prison sentences. Trying to apply some bullshit legal logic about consent, and breach of contract, etc. to it is just plane crazy.

    32. Re:WWAD by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps it is. However, as long as consent was given the entire time

      But that might not be the case, though. One of the charges is that he penetrated a sleeping woman without prior consent to do that.
      That's rape in almost any jurisdiction.

    33. Re:WWAD by swalve · · Score: 2

      why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time?

      Simply because that makes the story work. Deus ex machina internet rules lawyering.

    34. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How exactly could you present evidence in court that CIA is after you? Please enlighten me. It is no conspiracy theory that CIA has killed people for less than Assange has done, and it isn't any conspiracy theory the fact that US has sent people to Guantanamo for years for much less than this. Assange at least thinks the threat is real enough to risk spending God knows how many years confined in a small room in an embassy instead of risking to go to trial over an offense that won't get him a year in a Swedish jail in the worst possible scenario, which is extremely unlikely to happen if he ever even goes to trial.

      How exactly interrogating one of the parties is redundant? Ecuador offered the Swedish officials an opportunity to do just that and enter their embassy to question Assange. They refused. If their objective was to find the truth to access if they should press charges they would have accepted, that obviously wan't the case here. They are not even remotely interested in the truth.

      Oh, and yes, suspects can often choose the place and circumstances of their interviews if they are not charged with anything, which is the case here. They can even refuse to say anything in most countries.

      You can side with anyone you like that doesn't mean you are right, and yes, a crime whose maximum sentence is two years, which is seldom if ever applied by judges, and is almost always commuted to a year of communitary services, is a minor offence,

    35. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He didn't destroy any credibility with me and with many many people that are smart enough to understand the circumstances. Anyone with half a brain would have done the same he did. It is not his fault you lack such an organ.

    36. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 0

      Obviously not. If we assume that he will indeed be sent to US, which I believe he will, he is doing the only sensible thing he can. My answer above was to the statement that he is running from maybe a year in a Swedish prison by locking himself, maybe forever, in an embassy, which is absurd.

    37. Re:WWAD by swalve · · Score: 1

      If she did not want to have sex, or wanted to stop having sex, she could have done so.

      The presumption is that if she knew the condom was removed, she would have rescinded her consent and tried to stop having sex. Rape is not necessarily the violent street crime some people seem to want to limit it to, and consent is just like any other agreement: it is invalid if it was arrived at fraudulently.

    38. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      UK couldn't have legally extradited him to US. They could try and make something stick and do it, but it would generate a lot of confusion and bad publicity. No, it is a lot easier to do this if he gets convicted as a sexual offender.

    39. Re:WWAD by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I think you just rendered the concept of rape obsolete, and deprived rape victims of their right to redress

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    40. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      What a load of bullshit.

      US: "UK we intend to charge Mr. Assange with espionage, here's some trumped up evidence. Please extradite him to us."
      UK: "Right-o. Here you go, then."

      The UK has never been particularly reluctant to extradite people to the US. Why is Assange so special?

      Also, given that:
      1) Sweden would REQUIRE UK approval to extradite him on to the US legally (generating a lot of confusion and bad publicity in the UK anyway)
      2) Sweden choosing to extradite him to the US with or without Uk approval would ALSO generate a lot of confusion and bad publicity for Sweden;

      your argument makes no sense. There is NO scenario where anybody benefits MORE by involving Sweden. Absolutely none. And before you start telling us all about Temporary Surrender, perhaps you can explain to us how Sweden having an extradition agreement with the US negates its other treaty obligations as an EU member under the EAW framework?

    41. Re:WWAD by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      If he's innocent, why is he hiding?

      Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    42. Re:WWAD by artor3 · · Score: 1

      If the US were really out to get him, why did they allow him to leave Sweden? Why wasn't he arrested in the UK prior to his arrival in the embassy? Why would the US want the UK to send him to Sweden, instead of sending him directly to the US?

      The entire conspiracy theory is a bunch paranoid BS, invented by a very flawed individual who absolutely loves being in the spotlight.

    43. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 2

      You are too naive. The fact that people like you are buying these ridiculous accusations brought against him is proof enough that the strategy is working very well. When his image is smeared enough, they can do anything they want with him without worrying too much about public opinion.

    44. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the US really weren't out to get him, why were it's elected officials suggesting he be executed and charged with treason? Why won't they give a diplomatic guarantee that they will not extradite him?

      The entire "America can do no wrong" propaganda is a bunch of patriotic BS, propounded by a country with an extensive history of human rights violations.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    45. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 0

      I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time? I (and apparently others) would have expected the opposite. But if that's the case, Assange needs a new explanation for fighting extradition to Sweden, doesn't he?

      It's not so much "being in Sweden", it's "being in the hands of Swedish authorities". He's also worked quite hard to stay out of the hands of U.K. authorities. I think it's safe to say he doesn't want to be the corpus in the habeas of any US ally.

      Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.

      ...and other experts disagress. Even if that is true, it still doesn't explain why they're not willing to guarantee not to extradite him to the US.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    46. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The presumption is that if she knew the condom was removed, she would have rescinded her consent and tried to stop having sex.

      did assange know that? did she state that explicitly?

      consent is just like any other agreement: it is invalid if it was arrived at fraudulently.

      that's a whole tin of worms.

    47. Re:WWAD by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Meanwile, in a cell in Cuba...

      TFTFY

    48. Re:WWAD by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      I really don't get this. Did the women not feel the difference? Did they not look down there? Do they like to have sex only with their eyes closed or what? Either they went right along with the condom-free sex or they would have been saying no, trying to get away, etc...

      If they had a verbal agreement to use a condom beforehand but in the heat of the moment didn't then does that mean he raped her? If she went along with it then accusing him of rape seems extremely sexist to me. No.. it just is sexist. Unless she didn't go along with it... in that case there was a lot more obvious rape happening than just the lack of a condom.

    49. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before you start telling us all about Temporary Surrender, perhaps you can explain to us how Sweden having an extradition agreement with the US negates its other treaty obligations as an EU member under the EAW framework?

      because "temporary surrender" is not "extradition". see? you just slap a new name on it and you can get around all those pesky laws.

    50. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rooftop? IS wikileaks not good enough?

      Seriously, you have a point. If the document's existed, you would likely see them on wikileaks by now.

    51. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A trial in absention for criminal trials is generally not allowed. Most western places have a defendant's right to face their accusers and put on a defense enshrined in their legal system. It may technically be impossible for Sweden to put on a trial in absentia for a criminal offense. The US is definitely one of these places and the only way it can happen for a criminal proceeding is if the trial already started and the defended leaves midstream (it is considered willful consent to the absentia if they volunterily leave mid trial)

      Please note, some places do not consider civil crimes the same as criminal and allow abstentia in civil cases. You typically can get a default judgement against whoever doesn't show in the US but if they reasonably demonstrate they were not aware of the suit, they can have it vacated and insist in a new civil trial.

      I've heard this entire line, they could "trial in absentia" but I don't read Swedish so I have no clue if they can or cannot. I know their legal system is somewhat compatible with the US's as far as due process is concerned so I'm thinking maybe they cannot.

    52. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact it is SO serious that we'll extradite you to another country where you didn't commit the crime and whose nationals are not involved. I'm glad that the USA sees itself as the "safe sex police" for the whole world. Someone had to do it - it's a hard, thankless task.

    53. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Calling it a different name means nothing. Your argument that "temporary surrender isn't named extradition, so Sweden can do it," means less than nothing. Sweden is still bound by its obligations under the EAW to not surrender Mr. Assange unless it secures the consent of the UK. There is no special legal magic here, and the chain of consent is exactly the same as if the extradition request were submitted directly to the UK - it doesn't magically only require some third-level second assistant bureaucrat to stamp the right form if it's done through Sweden.

      But please, go educate yourself. You could start here for a very thorough breakdown of the relevant laws, and even read the laws themselves, so you can understand exactly how foolish you sound:

      http://gregcallus.tumblr.com/post/29939891330/assange-sweden-temporary-surrender-eaw

      And do try to get past your outrage when the author calls the "temporary surrender" thing a canard - I know Mr. Assange is your personal hero - and we all know that somebody who published the "Collateral Murder" video would never create a false story with the intent of deliberately misleading people - but the laws are cited with relevant links, and are fairly simple to read. And they demonstrate quite clearly that this argument that somehow Sweden could "legally" send him on to the US is complete nonsense.

    54. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd see more than "speculation based on rumours shared with Crikey.com by an unnamed source in Sweden who might have gone to university with one of Mr. Assange's accuser's suggests that maybe she has stopped cooperating with the prosecution," that's for damned sure.

      If Mr. Assange could demonstrate that one or both of his accusers have stopped cooperating with the prosecution, he'd have a MUCH stronger legal standing. And yet nobody's actually saying this, except for the FUD-spreaders working on his behalf on the internet.

    55. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Assange's defenders could rise to the moral level of accepting what rape is and accepting that the allegations are rape, we could rise to the moral level of Assange himself and accept the seriousness of the charges. Then we can discard the potential for extradition by demanding he stand trial or face charges for his alleged crimes, with a guarantee that he won't be extradited for unrelated reasons. If you read the other responses, you'll see that the left has not risen to this moral point, and instead has become rape defenders.

      I am a WikiLeaks supporter. I even think Assange has been a positive force in terms of journalism. That doesn't mean he isn't a rapist.

      Pretending that violating sexual consent is anything other than rape only undermines WikiLeaks and Julian Assange's journalistic work. And it ensures that he can be extradited for unrelated reasons by muddying the waters.

    56. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

      Having sex is not a legal contract.

      Yes, actually it is. Any matter that concerns consent is a legal contract. It's a verbal contract, which isn't the same as a written one, but it's a contract nonetheless. In sex, consent is a contract. You can withdraw consent (and rescind the contract) at any time. So can your partner(s). It is every involved party's responsibility to achieve and maintain consent; failure to do so is rape, because sex has happened without consent. That is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion.

      According to your twisted logic, terms of consent could have been that he was required to cuddle, or mow her lawn, or walk her dog, or some shit like that. Failure, after the fact is determined to retroactively take away consent?

      Have you had even a little bit of sex? Do you realize that you have to wear a condom during the sex? I hate when Slashdot commenters make fun of sexual experience, but here it matters. Do you not realize that the prophylactic is required during the time the penis penetrates the vagina? The requirement that a condom is worn is no different than a requirement that a hired driver obtains liability coverage; the consent is void unless the other party is protected.

      If you genuinely think that it's okay to tell someone that you will have sex with them under conditions that you violate, and you think this isn't a violation of their consent to sex, I genuinely hope you never ever have sex. If you do, you are a rapist.

      You don't to scream rape after the fact, while admitting that you gave consent the entire time , but just had regrets or a disagreement aftewards.

      According to the allegations, she didn't consent at all. She consented to an act that didn't take place, and not to the act that did. Protected sex and unprotected sex are not the same thing; it is possible to consent to one and not the other.

      I am not saying Assange did or didn't do any of the things above. I'm talking in the abstract, as the parent post did. If the fact is that someone, anyone, agreed to wear a condom and did not, it's fucking rape.

    57. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > He even volunteered to go to Sweden, as long as guarantees were offered that he would not be extradited to the US. They guarantees were never given.

      Unlike some other states Swedish politicians are separate from the legal system.
      Hence would be illegal to for a politician to give "guarantees" what a court of law would or would not do.

      We like it that way.

    58. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I really don't get this. Did the women not feel the difference? Did they not look down there? Do they like to have sex only with their eyes closed or what? Either they went right along with the condom-free sex or they would have been saying no, trying to get away, etc...

      What you're suggesting is that a woman must have a certain level of vaginal sensitivity (according to you) in order to assert a right to not have unwanted sex? If she doesn't know, from sensation—either from lack of experience or sensitivity—whether the penis penetrating her is covered with latex, she cannot complain that it wasn't covered with the latex she stipulated it must be before it penetrated her? Or are you saying that there is a statute of limitations on withdrawing consent; after she has realized the penis penetrating her isn't protected as she stipulated, she must accept the penetration? Are you suggesting that sex without adequate lighting, narration, or other sensory aids that would indicate a missed cue, is not really sex? Do you have a vagina? Do you know what it feels like to be penetrated with a penis with or without latex covering? Any penis? Every penis? Under any circumstance? Who the fuck are you?

      If they had a verbal agreement to use a condom beforehand but in the heat of the moment didn't then does that mean he raped her?

      Yes. That's what I said already. You haven't even offered a disagreement, only really stupid fucking questions.

      If she went along with it then accusing him of rape seems extremely sexist to me. No.. it just is sexist.

      What does sex have to do with it? If he had stipulated a condition for consent, and she had agreed, and that condition was omitted but the sex still occurred, that is rape. Consent is a mutual agreement; there's no condition of who has which genitals when consent is achieved or withdrawn.

      Unless she didn't go along with it... in that case there was a lot more obvious rape happening than just the lack of a condom.

      According to the allegation, she didn't go along with it. She agreed to sex with a condom; she didn't agree to sex without a condom; the latter is what occurred; she didn't consent to the sex that happened, she consented to entirely other sex.

      It's called consent. Learn what the fuck it is.

    59. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is an agreement between US and Sweden that allows quick extradition process without hearing. the extradition process would take years in the UK.

    60. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is no, there are no guarantees that Sweden will not extradite him to the US if he's in their custody, and they cannot make that guarantee. Sounds like keeping away from Sweden is a wise move for Assange.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    61. Re:WWAD by orzetto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The US extradition treaty with Sweden has some very curious provisions. See this commentary by a lawyer. Section VI b of the supplement to extradition treaty, in force since 1984, states that:

      If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may: (a) [...] or (b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States.

      So, in force of this particular clause, once in Sweden Assange may well be quickly aquitted of the trumped-up rape charges, then sent to the Guantanamo concentration camp, and the US government may keep him there indefinitely "pending prosecution" along with hundreds of illegally detained political and war prisoners. Note that section VI b makes no mention whatsoever of the conditions in which Assange would be detained, nor does it specify any time limit for the prosecution. Even if Sweden requested the US to return Assange, the US would likely just ignore the request once they have Assange in their hands, citing national security concerns.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    62. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US really was out to get him, he'd already be taken by "extraordinary rendition". He's just a smug douchebag who's smearing everyone he can will pretending to be the victim.

    63. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      And you're a whiny douchebag who hasn't contributed a fraction of things Assange has towards freedom and the rights of citizens, smearing everyone you can while pretending to be superior.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    64. Re:WWAD by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like it or not there were senior people in the government of the most powerful nation in the world publicly calling for him to be hunted down.

      Yes we're used to automatically assuming that anyone who says the CIA is after them is crazy. 99.99% of the time this is the correct response.

      when the homeless man on the street corner says the CIA have him bugged he's almost certainly wrong. When someone who's deeply pissed off the CIA and the american government like Assange did says the same they're probably correct.

      Sure he might actually be guilty of rape. it might all be true. that's a possibility.

      But do you really think the CIA or similar isn't out to get him?

      It ceases to be a conspiracy theory when it's just plain sensible and likely.

    65. Re:WWAD by joseph90 · · Score: 2

      As I understand it, Sweden has interviewed a murder suspect in Serbia (or so it said on the BBC) so if they can do it for a murder suspect then why not in this case.

      J.

    66. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, reality check. Assange has demonstrated that he doesn't care about the law, or think it applies to him, by publishing all this confidential material. He clearly thinks he's above the law, and this hiding out to avoid justice is just the latest example in his game. And for those of you who thought "wow, this Assange guy has balls" in the past, the latest developments show he is completely lacking in the cojones department.

      If the countries involved take the same tack with him, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, and he pretty much deserves it.

    67. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, dude, no means no. The current debate on rape is not about whether or not it's OK to fuck someone who told you no. That's never OK, and no one who isn't a rapist himself thinks otherwise. So ... you're kind of painting yourself as someone who goes around fucking people who told you no. And you didn't even post AC. You have balls.

    68. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Uh, reality check: it wasn't illegal to publish all that confidential material, nor is Assange under US law, as he is neither resident in, nor a citizen of the US.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    69. Re:WWAD by julesh · · Score: 1

      The UK has never been particularly reluctant to extradite people to the US. Why is Assange so special?

      There are a lot of powerful people in the UK who are currently looking for a good excuse to abandon our controversial extradition treaty (signed by the government prior to the current one) with the US. There is an ongoing media campaign against it. The current government has appeared at times to be very critical of it, although they are obviously reluctant to do anything about it. The US pushing for extradition of a Commonwealth citizen on what would blatantly be political grounds might be just the push it needs to get it overturned.

    70. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true,they conduct interviews outside Sweden for other charges ( murder for one)

      http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unt.se%2Fuppsala%2Fmordmisstankt-forhord-i-serbien-1701566.aspx%23.T-tO934j_Nw.twitter

    71. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might note that the UK is compelled to refuse extradition in cases where the death penalty is an option.

      In the United States, espionage can carry the death penalty.

    72. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has no "extensive history of human rights violations" except as claimed and publicized by such pillars of the community as Iran, Libya, Russia, China, etc. It is true that the US is much more open about any infractions, no matter how minor, than any other country.

    73. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 1
      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    74. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK signed an extradition treaty with the USA. So technically, he could have been extradited from the UK right there and then before he went to the embassy.

    75. Re:WWAD by kralin · · Score: 1

      The reasons for him fearing extradition from Sweden but not from the UK has little to do with the respective legislation of the two countries.

      The reasons he fears extradition to the US from Sweden are far more likely to be found in the extraordinary behaviour of the Swedish authorities throughout the evolution of this story (well documented), as well as the connections they seem to have been entertaining. Many governments (among them the US and Sweden) will disregard the rule of law if they think (or want the public to think) that the gravity of a given issue warrants it.

      Perhaps such fears are unfounded, but given the circumstances, I understand why he entertains them. I probably would to, if the loss of my personal freedom and safety were at stake.

    76. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If both these things are true (and I think they are) then while Assange seems to have no good reason to fear extradition to Sweden, Sweden seems to have a perfectly good reason FOR seeking it. No?

      The one year of community service he might face if he were charged totally explains the UK's willingness to do whatever it takes to extradite him. Totally explains Assange being Interpol's #1 most wanted.

      Use your fucking brain.

    77. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Well, he wasn't in custody then. Technically, if the US had issued an extradition request, he could have been extradited while they held him before his bail hearing. But there was no real reason to. As far as everyone else was concerned, things were progressing nicely. Arrest, bail hearing, extradition - it was only when he successfully sought asylum that a spanner was thrown into the works.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    78. Re:WWAD by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Agreed, circumstances draw the line between paranoia and fact.

      Here in South Africa in the 1980's as more and more white people became anti-appartheid the government's clampdown on people supporting banned organisations (e.g. any organisations that wasn't supporting appartheid) led to litterally thousands of civilians having their phones bugs. Mostly people whose only crime had been to express some "liberal" viewpoints. In fact it became so common (and so rarely did anything get done about it if you were white) that people who discovered a phone bug would deliberately leave it in place so they could show them off at cocktail parties.
      Being "bugged by the cops" was a STATUS symbol for liberal whites - proof that you really WERE against the evil nationalists.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    79. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, what elected U.S. officials are there that suggested shooting Assange and charging him with treason?

      Mike Huckabee suggested it, but he's well known to be a nutjob (i.e. Southern Baptist Minister) and wasn't at the time either a U.S. official nor an elected anything. He's also one of the folks that makes ominous statements about how the current president might not be a U.S. citizen himself. Given that our constitution requires that the person charged with treason be a U.S. citizen, it's a particularly unsuited-to-politics politician that's needed to suggest this. (Article III, section 3)

      The Australian government considered treason charges against him, but since he's a citizen that's perfectly within their right. There may be some room for the UK to consider him a traitor to the commonwealth also, but that's simply my conjecture.

      Love,
      A typical fat, stupid American.

    80. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.

      Please inform us as to where you received your law degree so that no other luddite will ever again be tempted to so wrongly pontificate on international law...

    81. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. The US and Sweden have a bilateral extradition treaty that has seen plenty of use already. He was available for questioning for 37 days post the complaints first being made, and informed the Swedish authorities of his travel plans before leaving. The same woman leading the witchhunt now was the same woman who approved his leaving Sweden in the first place.

    82. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't care about you, they are after the 80%....if they convince the John Doe's their story is right then the story becomes a non-story and that's the end of it.

      Watch the pathetic tv show we call News sometimes, they'll do something like "blah blah was arrested for blah blah, this horrible act of blah blah" and that's it, you'll never hear if the person was found innocent or guilty, or even what happened afterwards (unless public outcry is loud enough to want to find out -- and when this happens is another whole topic).

    83. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Huckabee suggested charging Assange with treason, and Palin demanded he be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden.

      Not being an American myself, I didn't realize that they were at the time they made their comments, ex-elected officials (although, at the time Palin was still considering running in the next Presidential election), so consider my previous post officially ammended to "ex-elected officials and politicians". Regardless of how nutjobby they both may be, they were both (at one time, anyway) elected by the American public, and in positions of power.

      Given that our constitution requires that the person charged with treason be a U.S. citizen, it's a particularly unsuited-to-politics politician that's needed to suggest this. (Article III, section 3)

      Your constitution also grants the right to a speedy trial (how long has Manning been awaiting trial for now?), the right to due process (Guantanamo Bay? Presidential kill lists?), and limited term copyright (lol). It's pretty safe to say it appears largely irrelevant to how your politicians actually conduct themselves. That said, yes, I'm pretty sure the legal system would have had a hard time pinning a treason charge on him (assuming he was given a trial, and not just summarily executed by presidential decree).

      The Australian government considered treason charges against him, but since he's a citizen that's perfectly within their right.

      That one I can speak more knowledgeably on, being an Australian. The Government asked the Federal Police to provide a list of crimes involving unauthorised disclosure of information, and treason was included on that list. There was never any actual consideration of invoking it, as the Federal Police themselves said that Assange hadn't violated any Australian law (source).

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    84. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been discussed many times; I'll try to summarize what I believe has been stated:

      Sweden has a very open policy for extradition to the US, the UK does not and even has rules that they can not hand someone over if there is the possibility of the person facing a death sentence. The UK has been known to tell the US no on more than one occasion (and, I'm guessing, this was the reason Assange went to the UK in the first place).

      Second, what would the US warrant asking for Assange from the UK be? How would the US write up that Assange did a crime that is a crime in the US and the UK? In fact, it is not even known yet if Assange even broke a US law so it would be hard for the US to get a valid warrant that the UK would take seriously (of course, Gitmo and the like don't fall under US laws so not a problem for the US once they have him). As for Sweden, thanks to the new laws they put in place and treaties with the US they would be able to hand him over without process :( The UK was/is big enough to not have those laws shoved down the throats, Sweden is not, neither is Canada :( and probably a bunch of other small countries that trade with the US as well (I'm guessing most European, Middle East countries and Austrialia, New Zealand as well).

      See, the UK has a convenient out (for themselves and to make the Americans happy) by sending him to Sweden, Assange would get do process, definitely not facing a death sentence for the charges being implied on the warrant and then it's left to Sweden to decide what they want to do (who are very tied to the US right now so you can easily guess what is going to happen). And, yes, Sweden would need to consult the UK about the continuation of the extradiction, but this is really just a formality and even if ignored would have no real impact against any of those countries (if it even got reported).

      Keep in mind that governments can be very patient too, Assange is tied up, being smeared every which way he can be (whether true or not is immaterial until a Trial is done), and it may be in the US's interest to have Assange spend 2-3 years in a Swedish jail and then extradite him when no one remembers his name....

    85. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't get this. Did the women not feel the difference? Did they not look down there? Do they like to have sex only with their eyes closed or what? Either they went right along with the condom-free sex or they would have been saying no, trying to get away, etc... If they had a verbal agreement to use a condom beforehand but in the heat of the moment didn't then does that mean he raped her? If she went along with it then accusing him of rape seems extremely sexist to me. No.. it just is sexist. Unless she didn't go along with it... in that case there was a lot more obvious rape happening than just the lack of a condom.

      The events never happened.

      The women are making shit up, or their lawyers are, at behest of one of the powerful governments involved (probably the US, but who knows, it could be several of them.) These allegations only appeared once the governments got pissed with him, and the evidence that they are both sex-workers was also suppressed.

      There is quite literally, nothing to see here on the "rape" aspect. It's just a stupid story to try to smear without having any proof of anything.

      The guy SHOULD run from these governments, and also, keep doing what he was doing to piss them off they all deserve it.

    86. Re:WWAD by jafiwam · · Score: 1
      The "rape" crime has no evidence to back it up (and conveniently enough, by it's very nature under Swiss law).

      You are advocating throwing someone in jail for literally, nothing.

      So don't be getting all hot-headed and sanctimonious on us douchebag. The chicks you know still aren't going to fuck you no matter how they see you blathering on about rape on the internet.

    87. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that even a lubed condom is a pain in the rear to take off without a load of jizz in it. Yes, I have had sex before, unlike the rest of you schlubs. Taking it off would be obvious. Which means there's plenty of time for the "hey I do not consent to this action" intervention. The whores are simply lying about this, it's made up.

    88. Re:WWAD by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time?

      Because Sweden has done it before, and might as well do it again:

      In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured (...)
      ...
      Sweden imposed strict rules on rendition flights, but Swedish Military Intelligence posing as airport personnel who boarded one of two subsequent extraordinary rendition flights in 2006 during a stopover at Stockholm’s Arlanda International Airport found the Swedish restrictions were being ignored (...)

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    89. Re:WWAD by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      1) The very passage you quote supports the conclusion that Sweden has stopped rendition flights that originate on Swedish soil and are conducting investigations to make sure they don't happen again.

      2) You conveniently fail to mention that immediately following the passage you quote from wikipedia about Sweden is another passage detailing similar involvement by the British.

      3) Extraordinary rendition != extradition. My understanding is that the U.S. is prepared to charge Assange with an actual crime (conspiracy to violate the espionage act, I think .. though it's hard to know since the charges haven't actually been brought yet). If they do that (and it seems to me they could), then there is absolutely no doubt that Britain would extradite him at least as fast as the Swedish, and there would be no need to bother with extraordinary rendition.

    90. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      She never told him no. She asked him to use a condom, he forced his hand (without violence) she conceded. He didn't use violence to force anything from her. At any moment she could have sent him away. Instead of saying: "really you should have be using condoms" while kissing him how about saying: "Get out of here now!" while pushing him away.

    91. Re:WWAD by The+Pirou · · Score: 1

      Saying that the US allowed Assanage to leave Sweden is like saying the US allowed Roman Polanski 30 years to board a different plane or leave the airport whenever he saw a US security detail waiting to pick him up.

      As for conspiracies, why would the UK threaten to raid an Embassy, raising future doubt over the sovereignty of other Embassy situations? The UK is potentially willing to damage relations with Ecuador and other countries by violating the sanctity of an Embassy to pursue a rape case that disregards content from the original police incident reports. I'm not going to quantify the weight of the evils of rape versus other injustice, but given the circumstances, this is a pretty weak reason to cause an international scene. Neither of the alleged victims behaved much like a victim for the initial police reports, and as adults who consented to at least most of their evening & partying with Assanage, this is a far cry from taking advantage of an underage girl (child) as in Polanski's case.

      So why the red notice from Interpol? Is Assanage a ranking member of a drug cartel, an arms dealer, or a sex Trafficker?

      "Who decides that Julian Assanage is harmful?"
      It seems to be the US Government...

    92. Re:WWAD by wesk · · Score: 1

      So any statement issued by an elected official means the government is in total agreement? Not by a long shot. I'm not saying there's no history of human rights violations committed by the U.S., but who ever said "America can do no wrong"?

    93. Re:WWAD by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Except that once the police told her they would charge him with rape, she refused to sign her statement. Not only that, but against protocol her statement wasn't recorded, only written down. So, it's the police officer who wasn't present vs. her word and Assange's.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    94. Re:WWAD by jkflying · · Score: 1

      It's called consent. Learn what the fuck it is.

      She didn't have an issue with it while he didn't have the condom on. THAT is consent. She can't retract that consent at a later date.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    95. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Assange's defenders could rise to the moral level of accepting what rape is and accepting that the allegations are rape, we could rise to the moral level of Assange himself and accept the seriousness of the charges. Then we can discard the potential for extradition by demanding he stand trial or face charges for his alleged crimes, with a guarantee that he won't be extradited for unrelated reasons. If you read the other responses, you'll see that the left has not risen to this moral point, and instead has become rape defenders.

      I am a WikiLeaks supporter. I even think Assange has been a positive force in terms of journalism. That doesn't mean he isn't a rapist.

      Pretending that violating sexual consent is anything other than rape only undermines WikiLeaks and Julian Assange's journalistic work. And it ensures that he can be extradited for unrelated reasons by muddying the waters.

      He is under an arrest warrant for sexual assault. The whole "do we call it rape" discussion is a side show.

    96. Re:WWAD by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Could you detail the extraordinary behavior of the Swedish authorities for those of us who haven't been following this story especially carefully? All I've heard is that they refuse to interview him in the U.K. which, to me, does not seem extraordinary at all (since it is not clear in Sweden that it would be legal to do so, and therefore doing so would leave any potential conviction open to legal challenge).

    97. Re:WWAD by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      I've heard that and it may be true. I don't know. But either way, having done it once changes very little. If it is unclear whether such an interview is legal, then authorities probably worry (rightly) that if they conduct an interview outside the U.K., then any eventual conviction could be open to legal challenge. This might have the benefit of settling the legality of extraterritorial interviews, but the risk to the Swedish prosecutors of having the potential conviction thrown out is not one I'd want to risk if I were them.

    98. Re:WWAD by platypusfriend · · Score: 1

      You, my friend, are a logical person.

    99. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire "America can do no good" propaganda is a bunch of patriotic BS, propounded by a continent with an extremely extensive history of human rights violations.

      FTFY

    100. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      And if Sweden goes to the UK and asks, "Is it okay if we extradite Assange on to the US from here under the EAW you sent him to us under," you don't think that will cause just as much backlash, for both Sweden AND the UK?

      This doesn't even buy the UK the *semblance* of plausible deniability, because the EAW framework explicitly states that Sweden MUST seek the approval of the UK before sending him on to ANY non-EU member state while he is in their custody under the auspices of the EAW. There is no way that the UK can claim "they never approved it," unless you REALLY think that Sweden has cheerfully agreed to take the fall for the US AND the UK, and that all of the fallout, penalties, and sanctions that will be levied against them will be taken with a smile that says, "We don't care about international law, our treaty obligations, or the opinions of the world, as long as we can make the US government happy while not benefitting ourselves in any way, that's ALL we really need."

      Also, please note that I think Sweden:
      1) receiving an extradition request from the US;
      AND
      2) agreeing that the extradition request is valid and worth seeking the UK's approval for;

      Is incredibly unlikely to begin with. There is no evidence - zero, nada, zip, zilch - that the US has any evidence of wrongdoing on Assange's part, the only charge they could likely slap him with at all would be espionage (some extradition treaties *specifically* omit crimes such as this as extraditable offenses). Without evidence, specific charges, and a formal request (the collection & assembly of which would require the cooperation of dozens of people here in the US, as well as at least a handful in Sweden), there is no chance he will be extradited. I know you're going to bring up the "but what about rendition to Egypt," which just shows you're cherry-picking: that was a denial of a request for asylum and a repatriation after the denial - which, as you're no doubt aware NOW, since Mr. Assange is seeking asylum, is an entirely different process than extradition.

      From the Swedish government's website (emphasis mine):

      Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.

      The state requesting for extradition must show that there is reason for extradition in the specific case. The outcome of the crime investigation in the requesting state - generally a conviction or a detention order - must be enclosed with the request for extradition. When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death

      It's pretty clear that the US would have some very high hurdles to clear to even begin an extradition process - remember, this is legal terminology: "may not" is not "maybe yes, maybe no" - "may not" is "you are restricted from doin

    101. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, the left has a singular opinion on this matter huh? I would find your declarations are fucking offensive, if they weren't so ridiculously broad as to lose all meaning.

      1. Nothing that happens relating to Assange's sex crimes undermines Wikileaks

      2. The left has no collective opinion on the extradition of Julian Assange. Fuck you. Somehow, you've misrepresented the most often held position I've encountered among progressive supporters of Wikileaks, deny they hold it, and then claim it as your own. Fuck you. Many of us would gladly surrender the alleged rapist to Sweden if they disallowed extradition to the US. Again, Fuck you.

      3. Given the stigma attached to rape, I find you to be more of a more of a scumbag for promulgating allegations of RAPE than any scumbag who lied about his condom use. I would say as much in a jury. I'd convict someone of a lesser crime, but on principle I would never convict anyone of this crime using your language.

      3. If you want to devalue rape by referring it to as any violation of sexual consent then you have to deal with a lot of rapists and a lot of rape apologists, by your own screwball definition. In sex, like any matter, someone can act like a scum bag. That doesn't make them a rapist. But if you want to refer to rape as "any specific, nonconsensual action that was part of an otherwise consensual sexual encounter," then you are going to bear the responsibility for the a) the increased legal burden and b) the legitimate rapists who will not find justice in a swam of your lesser "rape." Fuck you.

    102. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.

      Not even remotely true. It has happened before and could easily happen today, in a number of ways (in London, via video, even via phone). However, the decision is taken at the discretion of the prosecutor, which for some reason refuses to give any reason as to why in this case.

      BBC interview with Swedish prosecutor: http://audioboo.fm/boos/928311-swedish-prosecution-authority-on-julian-assange-case-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4

      Spread this fact around, if you please. :)

      On a side note, there was an interesting case happening at almost the exact same time: two Irishmen almost beat someone to death, got caught on camera, we have their names and addresses, they went back to Ireland - whereupon our prosecutors in Sweden says that "we never ask for extraditions via Interpol unless it's actual murders". Which was almost funny since they were saying it in the same days as they asked for Assange back (who had left legally, with permission to do so).

      I really think he should get interrogated and judged and all that. But I also think the Swedish prosecutors are making our country look really bad.

    103. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange should have kept his organ in his pants.

    104. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. No true scotsman doubts the veracity of the conspiracy to nab Assange. With ironclad logic like that, it's hard to believe you haven't convinced the world.

    105. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Sweden has a very open policy for extradition to the US

      No more open than the UK's.

      even has rules that they can not hand someone over if there is the possibility of the person facing a death sentence.

      So does Sweden.

      Second, what would the US warrant asking for Assange from the UK be? How would the US write up that Assange did a crime that is a crime in the US and the UK?

      You tell us - obviously you're the one with the inside line on what indictments and evidence the US must have against Assange to request his extradition from Sweden or the UK.

      And, yes, Sweden would need to consult the UK about the continuation of the extradiction, but this is really just a formality and even if ignored would have no real impact against any of those countries (if it even got reported).

      Not true at all - the chain of approval in the UK for continued extradition is *exactly* the same as if the US had asked the UK to extradite him directly - there is no loophole here allowing some third level bureaucrat to rubber-stamp an extradition order. If Sweden ignored this, they would be in violation of their obligations to the UK, and the EU at large, as an EU member state, and would thus be subject to fines, penalties, and possibly even criminal charges for the people involved. There would most certainly be repercussions for Sweden deciding to ignore its obligations as an EU member in order to do a favor for the US which does not benefit Sweden in ANY imaginable way.

    106. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      So Sweden deciding to deny asylum and repatriate two asylum-seekers from Egypt back to their home country is some sort of extradition process now? You realize these are two entirely separate processes, don't you?

    107. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Not being an American myself, I didn't realize that they were at the time they made their comments, ex-elected officials (although, at the time Palin was still considering running in the next Presidential election), so consider my previous post officially ammended to "ex-elected officials and politicians". Regardless of how nutjobby they both may be, they were both (at one time, anyway) elected by the American public, and in positions of power.

      So what your post should have said was, "Why do some people who are just as obnoxious as Mr. Assange when you point a camera and a microphone at them say these sorts of things, even though their opinions matter very little and are in no way a statement of official policy, suggest these things?"

      And the answer to that is, by being incendiary, they keep that camera trained on them for a few more seconds. Mr. Assange's behavior certainly suggests that he understands this principle at least as well as Gov's Huckabee and Palin.

      Also, the charge against Assange would not be "treason," the charge would be "espionage" - there's a difference. You don't have to be an american citizen to be convicted of espionage, you do for treason. And the US has a fairly high burden of proof to show that he was anything but a passive recipient of the information, unless Mr. Assange is MUCH more stupid than any of us give him credit for, and he put something like, "LOL SO HOW MUCH DO I PAY YOU TO GET ME THE SEKRIT DATAZ FUR MEEE SO I CAN PUBLISH DEM?" in a chat log.

    108. Re:WWAD by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      It's a formal and serious allegation which he is avoiding answering to by hiding. If he's innocent, why is he hiding? Read up on the extradition laws and you'll find it's *harder* to be extradited from Sweden than the UK, and that if he gets extradited to Sweden then *both* Sweden and the UK have to consent to extradition to the US on charges that haven't even been brought yet.

      You are assuming that the powers that be will follow the rules. We have seen plenty of examples where the U.S. does not bother to follow the rules. In fact, sometimes they even break the law to get what they want. But since they are the "good guys", any law breaking is OK. It wasn't too long ago when we were talking about the data from the Mega Upload servers that were stolen by U.S. feds while the Australian judge was deciding if the U.S. could have it. When you have proof that the other side does not follow the laws, then you can't believe that they will mysteriously follow the laws this time, just because it's your ass on the line instead of some "dirty pirate".

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    109. Re:WWAD by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Are we completely sure those two girls weren't part of a setup?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    110. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the other responses, you'll see that the left has not risen to this moral point, and instead has become rape defenders.

      We are not rape defenders. You are fucking retarded.

      The act of sex between two consenting adults does not require lawyers and a bunch of legal language. It is insane, and hence retarded, to create all these ridiculous fucking conditions, and then claim that rape occurred if the sexual activity did not go exactly to plan.

      She was there the whole fucking time. She could have stopped at any point. She is just as responsible for the unprotected sex as he is. Once again, SHE IS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPROTECTED SEX AS HE IS.

      You're a complete fucking retard to be going on and on and on about how consent can be retroactively revoked because something did not happen. In this case it is a condom, but according to your logic, because it is limited to the concept of consent and legal contracts, it could be fucking anything.

      Then you call us rape defenders. Well, fuck you. I'm all for castrating men who have performed rape. This was not rape. Period.

    111. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute.
       
      Everyone knows that it's one of the favorite tools of spooks to set someone up for some kind of sexual misconduct when they can't find someone or get them in jail on any real charges. No one is defending rape, just some people choose to ignore obvious frame-jobs, which is exactly what this is.
       
      Grow up.

    112. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      You are advocating throwing someone in jail for literally, nothing.

      I'm not advocating throwing anyone in jail at all. I'm advocating rising to the moral level of knowing what rape is. Furthermore, allegations are not nothing. Authorities investigating those allegations believe he should be questioned. Julian Assange believes he should be questioned. But putting all of that aside, it's disgusting that people are, for political reasons, defending sex without informed consent. That is what I'm on about.

      So don't be getting all hot-headed and sanctimonious on us douchebag. The chicks you know still aren't going to fuck you no matter how they see you blathering on about rape on the internet.

      Stay classy.

    113. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      She didn't have an issue with it while he didn't have the condom on.

      According to her allegations, she did in fact have an issue with it.

      She can't retract that consent at a later date.

      According to her allegations, she didn't give consent in the first place. She consented to an entirely other act, which didn't take place, namely sex protected with a condom.

    114. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Rape is sexual assault. The sexual assault described is rape. It's not uncommon for warrants to be issued under the terms of the classification of crime, rather than the specific crime.

    115. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      It may or may not be a frame, that is why there should be a serious investigation; that requires a guarantee against extradition for unrelated issues. But we can't know whether or not the allegations are true at this point, and unless you're privy to some information that isn't public, you can't either.

      And I must disagree, there are numerous people defending rape. They are saying that it is okay to agree to wear a condom, then fail to wear a condom, but proceed to have sex anyway. They're blaming the alleged victim by saying that she should have known; they're comparing agreeing to protected sex to agreeing to walk the dog. This is rape denial and rape defense, of a very obvious kind. And they're by and large doing it according to political motivations, which shows just how morally twisted even elements of the left can be.

    116. Re:WWAD by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Again... Were here eyes closed? Her head is what, 5 feet away. Did she close her eyes and say.. ok.. come in now?

    117. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      The act of sex between two consenting adults does not require lawyers and a bunch of legal language. It is insane, and hence retarded, to create all these ridiculous fucking conditions, and then claim that rape occurred if the sexual activity did not go exactly to plan.

      According to the allegations, it was not sex between two consenting adults. One of the adults consented to an activity that was not performed and explicitly did not consent to the activity that was alleged. This doesn't require legal language or a lawyer, it's a simple fact of the two sex acts being different. Any person engaging in sexual activity can agree or decline to engage in specific acts. If she had agreed to, say, vaginal penetration but not anal penetration, and he had elected to penetrate her anus anyhow, it would be disgusting to frame that as "did not go exactly to plan". Consent can be conditional on specific actions, period.

      She was there the whole fucking time. She could have stopped at any point. She is just as responsible for the unprotected sex as he is. Once again, SHE IS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNPROTECTED SEX AS HE IS.

      We weren't in the bedroom, nor were we in her head. We can't know that she could stop at any point; we can't know that she was even aware that he wasn't wearing a condom. Furthermore, this logic essentially discards date rape as real rape. There is a huge set of possibilities here. According to her allegations, she did not agree to sex without a condom, which occurred anyway. She isn't responsible for that.

      You're a complete fucking retard to be going on and on and on about how consent can be retroactively revoked because something did not happen. In this case it is a condom, but according to your logic, because it is limited to the concept of consent and legal contracts, it could be fucking anything.

      I didn't say it can be retroactively revoked, not once. I'm saying it was never given in the first place. She, again according to her allegations, did not consent to unprotected sex at all. You can't frame this as something that happened after the fact.

      Then you call us rape defenders. Well, fuck you. I'm all for castrating men who have performed rape. This was not rape. Period.

      It may or may not have been rape. But if her allegations are true, it certainly was. Denying it by assigning blame to her for something she didn't agree to do is rape denial, period.

    118. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Who knows? That's something an investigation might ask. But hey, you might not know this... some people have sex with the lights off. Some people, in fact, have sex with their eyes closed. It's also possible that she discovered the transgression sometime during the sex and was either unable to stop it or did stop it. We don't know a lot. That's why there should be an investigation, like any other similar allegation.

      But claiming she must have known and therefore silently consented is a tremendous assumption, and one for which there is no evidence at all.

    119. Re:WWAD by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      >> The events never happened.
      Possibly buy how can anyone but the three of them know that

    120. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      lol, the left has a singular opinion on this matter huh?

      Clearly not. I am a part of the left and I'm shocked by my comrades' positions.

      1. Nothing that happens relating to Assange's sex crimes undermines Wikileaks

      Already is.

      2. The left has no collective opinion on the extradition of Julian Assange. Fuck you. Somehow, you've misrepresented the most often held position I've encountered among progressive supporters of Wikileaks, deny they hold it, and then claim it as your own. Fuck you. Many of us would gladly surrender the alleged rapist to Sweden if they disallowed extradition to the US. Again, Fuck you.

      You misunderstand me. My disappointment is that this position, which you and I evidently share, is not universal among Wikileaks supporters.

      3. Given the stigma attached to rape, I find you to be more of a more of a scumbag for promulgating allegations of RAPE than any scumbag who lied about his condom use. I would say as much in a jury. I'd convict someone of a lesser crime, but on principle I would never convict anyone of this crime using your language.

      So you are saying that unprotected sex where consent was only given for protected sex—that is, nonconsensual sex—is not rape, and on a jury you would not convict nonconsensual sex as rape? Gee, and you wonder why I'm so upset by the moral positions of WikiLeaks' defenders.

      3. If you want to devalue rape by referring it to as any violation of sexual consent then you have to deal with a lot of rapists and a lot of rape apologists, by your own screwball definition. In sex, like any matter, someone can act like a scum bag. That doesn't make them a rapist. But if you want to refer to rape as "any specific, nonconsensual action that was part of an otherwise consensual sexual encounter," then you are going to bear the responsibility for the a) the increased legal burden and b) the legitimate rapists who will not find justice in a swam of your lesser "rape." Fuck you.

      Any nonconsensual sex is rape. That's a tautology. And when you're using the exact language of Todd Akin you may want to look at yourself in the mirror.

    121. Re:WWAD by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Care to tell us more about that agreement? Like...what it's called or where I can read it? I Googled this and found nothing (in fact, all I found was evidence to the contrary: that extradition from Sweden would be harder). In the meantime, my suspicion is that you are just making this up.

    122. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Good try. There is not a true scotsman fallacy anywhere in my texts. I am not dismissing your opinion because you doubt his innocence (and thus is not a "true scotsman"). I am dismissing your opinion because of the many arguments I posted here, which you fail to debunk, and pointing that your stupidity, and that of people like you makes it easier for the people trying to smear him to do their job.

    123. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      They can trial him in absentia. They just chose not to.

    124. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American people aren't the problem, it's our out of control government. We want the sons of bitches out of office too, but have no choices when elections come around. Some are predicting a civil war if Obama is reelected, going to be hard to fight if the UN takes our guns...

    125. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf

      Chapter21 section 2.

      I don't think that is the case except for when his presence is not deemed without importance to the hearing. Swedish law says the suspect must appear to the main and appeals hearing, If the court claims his appearance is necessary to an inquiry, and to any preparatory meeting if "it is presumed" his presence will "promote the purpose of the hearing".

      I did some further searching and found an English version of the Swedish code of judicial procedure. This document seems to make the case that what is happening with Assange is not only customary and within the powers of the Swedish judicial system, but actually somewhat required of it. It appears the extradition is in order to maintain its fairness to Assange. Also, according to it, all information that could help Assange is supposed to be released so the concept of the accusers no cooperating with the authorities or not wanting the prosecution should have been released by the government.

      Chapter 23 also states that once an investigation is started by the police or the prosecutor, the police can only investigate simple crimes and the police have to turn "complicated" investigations over to the prosecutors office. Only the prosecutor can make the decision to drop a case or investigation and only if there is no substantial public or private interest that would be ignored.

    126. Re:WWAD by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      So any statement issued by an elected official means the government is in total agreement?

      No, but its a good reason to be wary of that government.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    127. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Nowhere there it says the process cannot follow in his absence, It just says that he is bound to be present, not that in his absence he can't be tried. Sweden does not follow common law, where trials in absentia are not allowed.

    128. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's OK to potentially infect someone with an STD

      No. If Assange had an STD he'd be liable for anything potentially up to attempted murder (if he knew he was infected). IANAL, I'm sure there'd be a charge if he didn't know - reckless endangerment? But one thing is definite: not rape. Rape is an entirely different crime and it's insulting to rape victims to call this sort of thing rape.

      It's entirely logical that a woman would require her partner to be tested for STDs before she'll engage in sexual acts with him. It's also completely understandable that she'd want to have him tested afterward if he hadn't been tested before. However, retroactively calling it rape is stupid.

      or get them pregnant

      Condoms are too flimsy and unreliable to be used as a single point of failure when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancy. If women are sexually active and don't want children, they should be on birth control - condoms can and do fail.

    129. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Please show me where the law says it is allowed then.

      My interpretation of the code I presented is that the requirements for the defendant or suspect to be present is to maintain a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused. Having one in absence of the defendant or suspect would seem completely counter to that.

      In the US, criminal trial in absentia is prohibited by constitutional and the same Judaical rules as well as various laws. It is not a matter of common law baring it.

    130. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Trial in absentia for criminal offences is indeed forbidden in common law, but in most countries that follow Roman Law it can be done, for example. Either way the point is moot. Even if in Sweden it couldn't be done, they could still have interrogated him in UK and charged him if they decided there was enough evidence to do it. Then they could have asked for him to be extradited to stand trial. They did not. Sweden refused all opportunities it had to interrogate Assange.

      Now add that to the fact the "crime" in the worst possible scenario for Assange would imply in his being imprisoned for a year or so in Sweden (which almost never happen in cases like this), against possibly staying in an embassy room for life and you will see how ridiculous these claims about his doing this to evade his "crimes" is.

    131. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Trial in absentia for criminal offences is indeed forbidden in common law, but in most countries that follow Roman Law it can be done, for example. Either way the point is moot. Even if in Sweden it couldn't be done, they could still have interrogated him in UK and charged him if they decided there was enough evidence to do it. Then they could have asked for him to be extradited to stand trial. They did not. Sweden refused all opportunities it had to interrogate Assange.

      Did you read the sections of the code I mentioned? It said he could only be absent from their custody if his statements are unimportant. We are not talking about what you think should happen, we are talking about a written law.

      Now add that to the fact the "crime" in the worst possible scenario for Assange would imply in his being imprisoned for a year or so in Sweden (which almost never happen in cases like this), against possibly staying in an embassy room for life and you will see how ridiculous these claims about his doing this to evade his "crimes" is.

      Actually, the only thing I'm seeing as ridiculous is the constant comparison of someone who imprisoned with someone who is holed up in essentially a large house with unlimited restrictions on communications, business opportunities, free interaction with outsiders, and all the contraband that would otherwise be denied in prison. Being in prison is not just a restriction on movement. The situation Assange finds himself in now is not entirely unlike a lot of his life in which he lived out of hotel rooms and such.

    132. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange is an Australian. Why would he trust the US justice system? After rendition, torture, and Gitmo, it has no credibility. Even the President talks about bringing people to justice using drone attacks and seals.

    133. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      The text you quotes says absolute nothing about any inability for them to charge him or even give him trial in absentia. It only said that he has the obligation to be present when called for inquiry and when called for trial. Anything else can't really be inferred from this excerpt you posted, no matter how much you want it to be.

      Your ignorance also shows when you plainly reveal that you have no clue where he is and what is a Swedish prison. Being in a Swedish prison (which is reasonably nice place by any standard, mind you) for a year would be far less problematic than being in a small room, in an embassy of two rooms and a bathroom, for the rest of his life or at least for many years.

    134. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Actually, *everything* you have written is based on the true scotsman fallacy - you assume that ANYBODY who disagrees with you must be of limited intellect, and naive, because the "truths" you've divined - in spite of every fact pointed out to you by anybody with any knowledge of, you know, the actual law - are self-evident to 'anybody with a shred of intelligence.' This is amply evident in your blanket assertions of naivete, idiocy, ignorance, and stupidity in response to anybody who's dared to disagree with you, or point out facts that contradict your assertions.

      When you keep asserting things without proof, we call that "taking it on faith." If you want to worship at the altar of Mr. Assange, feel free - but you'll have to excuse the rest of us for actually understanding the facts of the situation, and those of us who see that all of your articles of faith are predicated on the actual facts not existing, if we continue to doubt your blind assertions.

    135. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.
      2.
      3.
      3.

      Please explain how we can be expected to take you seriously when you can't even fucking count to 4?

      Also, please explain for us, Rep. Akin, how your logic explains this:
      1) Sex without the other person's consent is, by definition, rape;
      2) A woman agrees to have sex with a man, but only if he uses a condom;
      3) The man says "Right, that's cute, but no, I won't wear a condom, and I'll have sex with you anyway."

      Therefore: The man has violated the implicit agreement on which her consent is predicated - and thus he is having nonconsensual sex with her. How is that not rape?

      To illuminate further - let's say I meet a girl and take her home to my place. She agrees to have sex. While we're having sex, I begin biting her nipples and forcing my penis into her ass. My defense? "What, she agreed to have sex! That means I can do whatever I want!" Have I raped her in this scenario? Why or why not?

      (Hint: "consent to have sex under certain conditions" is not equivalent to "consent to have sex ANY WAY YOU WANT, AT ANY TIME.")

    136. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not rape defenders. You are fucking retarded.

      it's funny you say that, because in continuing to read your post, it's pretty fucking clear that defending rape and blaming the victim is pretty much *exactly* what you're doing.

      "I didn't cum," isn't even remotely the same category as "you held me down and violated me without a condom, which I explicitly told you I wanted you to use," so stop trying to pretend they are. This isn't about "not going to plan," this is about "agreeing to a condition, and then willfully violating it."

      She was there the whole fucking time.

      Yes, asleep. She woke up to find him penetrating her. One of the other instances, she was there too - except she was being held down, with her legs forced apart by him. Read the allegations as outlined in the extradition report. What you are saying is that, unless the woman screams, cries, struggles, and basically enrages her attacker to the point that he murders her or beats her to within an inch of her life, she hasn't been "legitimately" raped. News flash, genius: if she has not consented, she is being raped.

      But do tell, Rep. Akin - when did you get a Slashdot account?

    137. Re:WWAD by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      At the most it is a tort.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    138. Re:WWAD by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Agreed, they want their hands on him, period. After that, a whole bevy of charges will be unleashed and the sex charges will fade away.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    139. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      And still you haven't added even one single fact or argument to debunk mine. The only thing you accomplished with your posts is to show that you do not understand what is the fallacy you so eagerly cite and that you have no argument at all to contribute to this discussion besides your obviously wounded pride. No, if anyone here is spilling fallacies from the first post to his last word is you, my good sir.

      And no I don't worship Assange, THAT is just another fallacy on your part. I never even once gave him a single word of praise in my posts. I am just not naive enough to take these absurd accusations, which are internally inconsistent, as absolute truth, like you. And even if those accusations were true I still can't accept the circus that was created around it blowing them to ridiculous proportions.

      I can call you an idiot without being fallacious because my arguments do not depend on your idiocy. You are mostly irrelevant for them and for about everything else in the universe. Calling you idiot is just a logical conclusion of your lack of arguments and your inability to engage in a discussion with more than childish whinings. It is actually a favor I am doing to you by helping you to achieve some self-awareness.

    140. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you have no laws you can point to, no previous cases in Sweden that survived challenge you can point to, and despite being given direct access to the English version of the judicial code, you are going to close your eyes or mind, eyes, and impose whatever rationale you can imagine despite evidence of the contrary. And you have the gull to point to my ignorance.

      I do not think we will ever convince the other of anything here if it continues this way.

    141. Re:WWAD by socceroos · · Score: 1

      ...with a guarantee that he won't be extradited for unrelated reasons.

      Am I missing something here? He specifically asked for this guarantee on multiple occasions and none was given.

    142. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      My point is, that should be our demand. We shouldn't be denying rape without an investigation, we shouldn't be pretending things that are rape aren't. We should, as I said in the post you replied to, "rise to the moral level of Assange himself".

    143. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Apparently I can read and comprehend English texts and you cannot. The very judicial code you pointed says nothing to back up your arguments. Period.

    144. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yep, no true scotsman disagrees with you. We know. You haven't offered any "facts" - you've offered condescending name calling and senseless repetition of your own biased speculation as if they are facts.

      Your assertion: "The UK couldn't have legally extradited him." Pure bullshit. The UK could easily extradite him, in exactly the same manner that Sweden could easily extradite him: the US simply has to file an extradition request in which they outline their case. This has to happen whether *the UK* or *Sweden* has him in custody.

      Temporary surrender which you're so worried about may only be invoked *in the context of an extradition request.* Furthermore, it does not abrogate Sweden's obligation to seek the UK's approval to extradite him on to a third non-EU-member state, nor does it change the approval authority in the UK or Sweden one whit - the US must *first* request extradition; Sweden must then *agree* to the extradition request, *and also* seek the UK's approval - and that approval must be given by the *same* people in the UK who would approve or reject an extradition request filed directly by the US to the UK. Only once both Sweden and UK's approvals have been given, could he be extradited on to the US. And the US has not even filed charges - there is an "investigation," and every report citing official sources say that "an indictment is unlikely."

      Now, even if they were to indict for espionage... that falls into the category of "political or military crime", which is, near-categorically, non-extraditable by both Sweden AND the UK. It is also a capital crime, which is, again, non-extraditable by both Sweden AND the UK.

      Your argument that he is doing this out of some grave fear that the US will somehow extradite him away to languish in Guantanamo is bases SOLELY on speculation, and your assumption that THREE national governments would be SO eager to "destroy" Mr. Assange that they would ALL ignore their treaty obligations, international law, international relations, and their own citizens in order to get at him. Trust me - Mr. Assange is doing a bang-up job of destroying his credibility all on his own, all the US, Swedish, and Uk governments need to do if they want to "destroy" him... is wait and let him do it himself.

      You can call me an idiot, and naive, and foolish all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you have offered NO FACTS to back up your assertions, and that your entire case is one big unfounded conspiracy theory. I really hope someday you'll mature enough to be able to separate political rhetoric from actual facts - it's a crucial skill that one acquires as one learns how the world works.

    145. Re:WWAD by socceroos · · Score: 1

      This is correct. If the rape charges are true. It all comes back to that doesn't it.

      On one side of the coin you have the proponent of due process and justice - nothing to be sneezed at, for sure. On the other side you have people in power of that same proponent of justice actively subverting justice to bring down the man accused.

      Who budges? Who should? The guy getting all the news focus and scrutiny? hmmm.

    146. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand what you're implying, but I'll take a shot. Are you saying that you think I'm suggesting Assange should give up and go without a guarantee? I'm definitely not. I have had no purpose in this thread other than to call out rape denial and rape defense. I stand by what I said: we should demand a guarantee against extradition as a condition of Assange cooperating with the investigation of his alleged rape. That's all.

    147. Re:WWAD by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Well, I never read your original comments since I couldn't be bothered scrolling up, but I agree with you there. What about this though: How do you produce a fair trial under his curcumstances - especially when there is the very real threat of planted evidence and charges? He isn't just dealing with two pissed off women, he's standing in the face of a half a dozen very powerful and very embarrased governments.

    148. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You are the one who offered no facts at all. You apparently have absolutely no knowledge regarding the laws and treaties involved in this case and still insists on speaking blatant lies and misinformation as if they were the most absolute truth.

      UK can't easily extradite him to US because the only crime US can impute over him at the moment is espionage, which is not extraditable. Surely they could ignore international law and their own law (as they have done time and again) and just do it, but why would they bother? Once it has him in its power Sweden can "temporarily" surrender him to US when the time is right, with or without UK authorization especially if he is a convicted criminal there. It will be much easier to sway public opinion when he is a convicted sexual offender.

      This has been cleverly orchestrated to both discredit him as a criminal and give US enough grounds to eventually have him in custody without making him a martyr. Once US has him in custody it can ignore international law as it always does and refuse to give him back.

      Regarding the track record of these governments whose integrities you so vehemently defend, both UK and Sweden have already proved that international laws and their own laws are irrelevant when their governments want to do something. The extradition of UK citizens to US that had committed no crime in UK is just one example, and the farce of Piratebay judgement in Sweden was another. For God's sake UK even threatened to violate international laws and invade an embassy. They even have a law made to be used just for this at will in blatant violation of international law.

      I shouldn't have to even comment about US, but I will do anyway. US is a little better than North Korea at the moment, but not by much. US plainly stated it does not recognize political asylum and mostly laugh at international law, despite the fact that it offers political asylum to many people this very moment and invokes international law whenever it is convenient to them. Additionally US government feels it is within its right to ignore human rights, arrest people without formal accusations for undetermined time, and use torture. All in the name of fighting terrorists that are as big a threat, statistically speaking as being hit by a meteor.

      I would advise you to concede you have no argument left (if you ever had any) and just let go. It is painful to watch you embarrassing yourself. The FACT is your country is corrupt to the bone "Americano" and your myopic posture is in grand part of what is wrong with it. You believe unconditionally, with almost religious fervor, in the integrity of manipulative governments regardless of the countless proofs in the contrary. You hate this man for exposing how rot the institutions you defend are and so you need to believe he is a villain and a liar to keep holding to your absurd beliefs. You are pathetic.

    149. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Evidently you cannot comprehend what you read. It says the defendant or subject of the questioning has to be present in plain and simple words.

      Now close your eyes and ignore that and go on your merry way doing whatever you have to to justify your beliefs.

    150. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      It says it is his responsibility to be present and not a requirement for the process to take place, but be my guest to keep pulling lies from your ass and hiding your head under the ground in order to justify your prejudices.

    151. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It say shall attend, is bound to be present. Those are not words giving an option to do something. If the law say you shall stop at red lights, it does not mean if you feel like it.

      As I said, this is to ensure a fair trial. Try reading it again and not weaseling words into it in order to keep your seemingly incorrect views.

    152. Re:WWAD by kralin · · Score: 1

      I am expressly not listing any elements involving the validity of the allegations themselves, but only such ones that may influence Assange that are outside the scope of the alleged crimes. There is more to be said (see links in the text), but here are the main points of swedish behaviour which are likely to trouble Assange:

      • Preliminary investigation: failures to follow procedure and the probable biais of an investigating officer due to personal acquaintance with one of the defendants unfortunately put the investigation itself in a bad light.
      • No case: the investigation was opened, closed, then re-opened on request of the lawyer representing the two women. The investigators themselves did not consider the evidence sufficient for court.
      • Proportionality: the fact that Assange has already been held in house arrest for over 500 days and faces at least short imprisonment in Sweden prior to any trial raises serious proportionality concerns. Given this result, I believe the argument of Assange's lawyers in court, that the use of an European Arrest Warrant simply in order to further an investigation before any actual prosecution takes place is disproportionate, to be valid. However, opionions are divided on this issue.
      • Questioning in the UK: there is no legal problem whatsoever for the prosecutor to do this outside of Sweden, and indeed Sweden has questioned defendants or suspects abroad in the past. This is a decision that is entirely up to the prosecutor, and that decision has not satisfactorily been explained (audio interview with Swedish prosecution authority). Only recently, one justification has been given, and it is essentially one of prestige, which is a rather poor explanation given the fears expressed by Assange and the lack of any non-extradition guarantees by the Swedish government. I would be very curious to know what the real justification was before the case blew up.
      • Connections: as mentioned in previous post.
      • Expected future behaviour: opinions expressed in the press by Swedish journalists and intellectuals have become virulent, to say the least. Along with the media, public opinion has swayed in disfavor of Assange, giving cause for Assange to fear a fair trial, should it ever come to one. This case would likely collapse before any trial, according to Ove Bring, professor Emeritus of the Swedish national defence college (see previous link). However, with media and public opinion and concerns of prestige being as they are, this has become less likely. Interestingly, similar reasons may be given to argue that an actual extradition from Sweden to the US has become even less probable. It would go down very poorly in the court of global, public opinion should Sweden do so after months of trying to get him to return to Sweden for completely unrelated reasons. Personally, I believe Assange's fears have alway also centered around receiving a fair trial. With time, this fear has probably become increasingly real.
    153. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      As I said it means he has the obligation to attend. Nowhere it says the government can't follow the process if he refuses to cooperate, but keep repeating to yourself that you are right, by all means. We both know you are not but if you repeat enough times maybe you will end believing it.

    154. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      sigh.. If it says he must attend and they have a hearing without him attending, where is the law or case law that says it is a valid hearing when he doesn''t attend?

      You just saying it will be valid means nothing. Show me the law that says it will be. I'm sure if it is common, you can at least point to a case of it.

      There is only one that I read about. It was where someone was out of the country and a judge said his presence wasn't substantially material enough to require his presence and a video conference would suffice. This further strengthens my position though.

    155. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I think you do just what Assange is doing. Secure asylum, demand immunity from extradition as a condition of facing the real criminal charges. It's not perfect, but you can't delay justice indefinitely, and you can't do so on the basis of a hunch that you might be framed; and if you have evidence of being framed, the best way to gain attention for that evidence is in a very public court case.

    156. Re:WWAD by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      This is really informative. Thanks for all the effort. I'm not sure that all this lends much support to the hypothesis that Assange reasonably fears that Sweden will extradite him to the U.S., but given what you've said I certainly don't blame Assange for not wanting to have to face prosecution in Sweden on the rape charges themselves.

    157. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Once it has him in its power Sweden can "temporarily" surrender him to US when the time is right, with or without UK authorization especially if he is a convicted criminal there. It will be much easier to sway public opinion when he is a convicted sexual offender.

      I don't know how to get this through your thick skull any more clearly: NO THEY FUCKING CANNOT.

      Temporary Surrender can ONLY happen in the context of an *extradition request*. The US MUST submit an extradition request for this to even be an option. Read the text of the treaty, specifically, Article VI. Go ahead, I'll wait. In case you're too dimwitted to know how to click a link, I'll even reproduce the *entirety* of Article VI from the US-Sweden extradition treaty for you here:

      If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
      1) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or
      2) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States.

      "Temporary surrender" may ONLY happen "if the extradition request is granted." THERE MUST BE an extradition request from the US for any 'temporary surrender' to happen. Now, what would the US request extradition for from Sweden? Riiiiiiight - the same thing they'd request extradition for from the UK, that is, "espionage." As you've correctly noted, the UK would almost certainly refuse that extradition request from the US, and Sweden would do the same thing because they specifically exempt "military and political crimes" as extraditable offenses in the original 1963 treaty (which the 1984 treaty, implementing 'temporary surrender', amends) - see Article V of the 1963 treaty between the US and Sweden.

      And frankly, since you're so keen to suggest that all three parties are happy to disregard international law and do whatever they damn well please, then all the worry about "legal challenges" is moot, because if there really is such callous disregard for that law, then the US will simply fly in and kidnap him whenever and wherever they damn well please, regardless of any laws to the contrary. So why would they go through this incredibly convoluted conspiracy to get their hands on him in a manner that is completely illegal, when it's a lot easier to simply make him disappear? Remember - Sweden and the UK would have to be *willing conspirators in violating their own laws* to perform any sort of "sham extradition" - and they don't benefit from colluding in that way, at all. They would, in fact, be working to their own detriment.

      Do you see why your little conspiracy theory holds no water yet? Either these countries are bound by the rule of law - in which case, their laws specifically PROHIBIT them from extraditing him to the US via "temporary surrender," or they refuse to be bound by any law that's inconvenient for him, in which case he will be kidnapped at gunpoint whenever it's convenient for the US to collect him, from wherever he happens to be sitting, and all these legal justifications are simple posturing to give him an excuse to dodge facing the charges that await him in Sweden.

      What it boils down to is this, "fredprado" - my country may be corrupt to the bone as you sa

    158. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      And that my good sir is another bunch of fallacies (which are basically the only thing that you can write apparently. There is no dichotomy between "respect the law to the letter" or "do whatever you wish". There is a lot of middle ground and a lot of reasons not to go to either extreme. Actually the extremes are virtually inexistent.

      What US obviously wants is to make of him an example without making him a martyr. That cannot be accomplish by simply extraditing him by force from UK. They need to sway public opinion enough to avoid the making of a martyr and then, and only then make him an example to his peers, which by the end of this smear campaign will ideally be few.

      But I waste my time trying to explain this to a stubborn idiot like you. You will never accept the obvious. So be welcome to hide in your illusions of fair governments and proper justice if that makes you happy.

    159. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      There needs to be no law saying what is allowed. In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something it is allowed. None of the texts you posted strictly say the process cannot follow without his presence. If a law says I cannot cross red lights it does not make physical impossible for me to cross red lights. Conversely if a law says I must present myself in my trials it does not make it impossible for the trial to proceed if I, by any motive, decide to ignore such law.

      If you found yourself a case where the judge allowed for it than it is within his discretion, and, as nobody tried to ask a judge if he would allow it in this case, even because nobody pressed any charges against Assange, then you can safely argue that they are purposely avoiding the possibility of it being granted.

    160. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Right - like I said originally: no true scotsman could ever disagree with your points.

      I notice you have no comment on the actual texts of the treaties I've quoted to you, and yet you continue blindly asserting that I'm the uninformed one who is making things up and has offered no facts to support his points.

      I waste my time trying to explain this [...] You will never accept the obvious.

      Right, because I'm not a true scotsman. You haven't explained anything. You have failed to provide any evidence, documentation, or even *logically consistent reasoning* that would support any of your fanciful little conspiracy theories - there is nothing "obvious" about your point, because your "point" is a house of cards built of speculation, supposition, and blatant falsehood. You've offered up NOTHING other than the blithe assertion that "anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot who overlooks the obvious conclusion, namely, that I'm correct and everybody else is dumb."

    161. Re:WWAD by EdIII · · Score: 1

      You really are a fucking asshole. Do you know why you are so offensive? It's because you are a complete fucking retard, and when people that have a modicum of common sense call you out, you call them rape defenders. Then you have the unmitigated gall to act as if you have the moral high ground and are the only one acting with civility and a conscience.

      Fuck You.

      While you are enthralled with your own moronic pedantry, you fail to realize just how wrong and utterly stupid your position is .

      So let me turn that around for you dipshit:

      I'm with a woman (stop laughing /.) and we are getting into it and clearly about to have sex (I said stop laughing), and I ask, "Are you on birth control?" .

      She is either irresponsible, confused if she took it or not, or just plain lying.

      We have sex. Note, I said WE. So I was raped? If your view is not completely sexist, then by your logic I was in fact raped.

      That is not correct . You see, I am a mature adult and take ownership of my actions. I was not forced to lick her pussy. Neither was I forced to continual pump my dick into her pussy over and over again. I was a man capable of making rational decisions during the entire act of sex.

      Rape is specific. It means that the act was against the person's will the entire time. Not some sort of legal and gestalt understanding and agreement of all specifics you can possibly imagine, such as alignment of the stars, who will win the next Super Bowl, or some weird shit like that.

      It was not a specific circumstance which could only be evaluated after the act was completed.

      So, fuck you. Nobody here is defending rape. Just calling you out for being a ridiculously retarded pedant obsessed with redefining the act of rape to be so broad and inclusive, that the very act of rape loses all power and meaning.

      What you need is to be turned into a woman and sent to Africa, or Afghanistan you retarded fuckstick. Than you might actually start to understand what rape really is.

    162. Re:WWAD by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      If you agree to have sex with her only if she's on birth control; and if she tells you, falsely, that she is on birth control; and if you proceed to have sex; yes, you were raped. You didn't consent to sex without birth control, only to sex with birth control; you had sex you didn't consent to. It's interesting that you assumed I would be inconsistent on this, I've given you no reason to believe that.

      To the rest of your post, I'm glad to see you've stayed classy. Especially the part where you claim no one is defending rape, then proceed to say I should be raped. Keep it up, it really helps your case.

    163. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Keep repeating your mantra and maybe you will believe in it. Then again maybe not...

    164. Re:WWAD by EdIII · · Score: 1

      You're about as backasswards retarded as any fundamentalist out there.

      People are calling you a fucking asshole because you are saying we are rape defenders you fuck.

      In my hypothetical scenario, I would not have been raped. You're not going to find anyone who agrees with you, and any sane country run with even a modicum of logical and rationality would not make the baseless and damaging conclusions about rape that you have.

      You insult the victims of rape with your definition. You insult all people of intelligence with your pedantry.

    165. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There needs to be no law saying what is allowed. In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something it is allowed.

      Really? so the government can at any time plant evidence that you SCUBA dive naked and arrest you for that on fake charges because there is no specific law forbidding it? Look it up, there is no law saying the cops cannot plant evidence of a non crime then fake a crime out of it. They cannot do it because they are not authorized by any reasonable interpretation of any law.

      You are right when concerning free people. But the process of there being free people requires government to be restricted to what is specifically allowed.

      None of the texts you posted strictly say the process cannot follow without his presence. If a law says I cannot cross red lights it does not make physical impossible for me to cross red lights. Conversely if a law says I must present myself in my trials it does not make it impossible for the trial to proceed if I, by any motive, decide to ignore such law.

      It says the defendant must be present at certain stages of the game. In the US, it's grounds for convictions to be vacated with no chance of retrying them if they trial in asbentia. Your counter examples negate the fact that in all cases, it is not legal to proceed. Because the law against red lights doesn't stop you from crossing on a red light, it does not mean you escape punishment or consequences if caught doing so. The same happens with the court or a prosecution- if they do not follow procedure, the entire case is subject to consequences.

      If you found yourself a case where the judge allowed for it than it is within his discretion, and, as nobody tried to ask a judge if he would allow it in this case, even because nobody pressed any charges against Assange, then you can safely argue that they are purposely avoiding the possibility of it being granted.

      Ok, I'm posative you have a reading comprehension problem. Did you miss the part in the law that says the defendant doesn't need to be present if his questioning isn't substantially material to the case or the part where I said the one case I read about, the judge specifically declared the testimony wouldn't be substantially material to the case? This means the judge followed the existing law or rules as laid out. If it was possible for Assange to claim his testimony or statement would not be substantially material to the proceeding, his lawyers would have already attempted to have a ruling on it where a judge would agree and allow the questioning without him being there.

      Hell, even if your version of things is remotely correct, Assange's lawyers would be arguing it in court right now and we would have legal documents available to show it. The fact that doesn't exist, the fact that I cannot find any other cases similar to what you insist is possible, the fact that you cannot either and I'm sure if there was any, all sorts of Assange supporters would be plastering them all over the net, these facts combine to suggest you are not connected with the reality of the situation.

    166. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the last point I made.

    167. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Please provide a single fact, logical connection, or other piece of evidence to substantiate your own claims, and maybe you will be believable.

      Then again, since you can't...

    168. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I already did, but you refuse to accept any of them. There is no point in keeping repeating myself.

      But don't worry, just keep repeating the same fallacies time and again and maybe they will become truth.

    169. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Your first sentence is infantile. The police cannot plant evidence because there are laws that say they can't. Doing that is forgery, perjury (if they are called to court), illegal arrest, abuse of power and many other offences all covered by specific laws. Laws are mostly negative, Positive laws only exist to open exception as amendments to other more general negative laws.

      And Assange lawyers did argue requesting video conference to avoid extradition, but their requests were refused. The diplomatic authorities of Ecuador also offered to Sweden an opportunity to interrogate him in UK inside their embassy, which was arbitrarily refused by the prosecution. Swedish authorities had many opportunities to question him, and declined all of them.

    170. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      I keep hitting the "Parent" link, and see no substantiated evidence in the comments from you. In fact, the only links and evidence based on the actual laws is my own.

      But keep telling yourself that your bullshit assertions are "fact." It's almost cute.

    171. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You won't see what you don't want to see, it doesn't matter if it jumps on your face and bites you. That much has been made more than clear by your words, and exhaustively. I am also flattered that you find myself cute, but unfortunately I am not available.

    172. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      You won't see what you don't want to see

      Please point out just one post in this chain that contains an actual, supported-by-evidence fact that you have supplied. Just one.

    173. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Doing that is forgery, perjury (if they are called to court), illegal arrest, abuse of power and many other offences all covered by specific laws. Laws are mostly negative, Positive laws only exist to open exception as amendments to other more general negative laws.

      Sounds like you started just writing anything that popped into your head that sounded legal. Listen Matlock, of course the police cannot do that- that was the entire purpose of posting such a silly analogy based on your statement. But there aren't specific laws, there are generic laws that would include that behavior. Before you said they have to be specific.

      And Assange lawyers did argue requesting video conference to avoid extradition, but their requests were refused.

      IF it was refused, then a judge at least said Assange had to be there. Your trial in absentia is moot now according to the judicial code and a judge interpreting it.

      he diplomatic authorities of Ecuador also offered to Sweden an opportunity to interrogate him in UK inside their embassy, which was arbitrarily refused by the prosecution. Swedish authorities had many opportunities to question him, and declined all of them.

      Arbitrary is being improperly used here. IF the lawyers couldn't get a judge to determine his presence was not warranted, then the Ecuador government would have no luck either. You see, it is precisely because of his lawyers failures that the judicial system says he needs to be present for this to proceed.

      You are right though, there might have been opportunities to previously question him, but there are plenty of current opportunities and he is refusing with people like you insisting on imposing beliefs that do not seem to ground well in reality. So lets look where we are at. I'm looking at laws and rules that indicate Assagne needs to be physically present in order for this to come to a conclusion in whatever way it might go. You have pointed out that his lawyers contested the point of his presence being necessary unsuccessfully which furthers the concept of it being neccesary according to the Swedish law. You on the other hand, without pointing to any laws or cases to which it has happened are insisting that whatever you think must be true enough for you to believe it despite all other indications.

      I guess we are still in a place where we each are steadfast in disagreement. I doubt that will change soon.

    174. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      There is no possible way to give you the evidence you want. The only way to proof beyond doubt that he is being targeted in a smear campaign would be for him to accept being extradited, going to Sweden, getting some weird and disproportional sentence, possibly being charged for something else after arrival too, and ending in US. That is a high price to pay to prove you are right, and I doubt he wants to be a martyr.

      But as I posted in my first post he is confident enough that this is the case to risk being stuck for years, or even for life, in a two rooms embassy, instead of facing charges that would never imply in more than a year (with good behavior) in the worst possible scenario in a Swedish prison, which could be seem like a Hotel compared to any US prison. Even if he is considered guilty, the most likely outcome for a primary offender would be communitary services, though, not even the prison.

      You can keep defending the integrity of Sweden as much as you like, despite all evidence on the contrary, but were I in Assange skin I would have done exactly the same. It pays to be paranoid when dealing with US government.

    175. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Your first paragraph does not even makes sense. Your analogy was indeed silly, in that you are right, and there is no point in arguing with silly analogies besides trying to make a fool of yourself.

      And now you are on the hopes my friend and trying to pull arguments from your sorry ass. No judge refused the offers, the Swedish prosecutors did, the same prosecutors that didn't bother to press charges against Assange.

      And no, no Swedish judge was ever consulted about the Ecuadorian embassy offer or even the lawyers request. Furthermore the prosecution has autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order.

    176. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your first paragraph does not even makes sense. Your analogy was indeed silly, in that you are right, and there is no point in arguing with silly analogies besides trying to make a fool of yourself.

      I suspected you would have difficulties understanding a simple concept but I am somewhat surprised at this point. If you still do not get the point, I simply cannot explain it to you. Perhaps you can ask around some.

      And now you are on the hopes my friend and trying to pull arguments from your sorry ass. No judge refused the offers, the Swedish prosecutors did, the same prosecutors that didn't bother to press charges against Assange.

      Now wait a minute. I said the only case I know of where the prosecution was overridden in needing the suspect present for questioning was when a judge rules that his statement wouldn't be substantially material to the investigation. You replied in turn that Assange's lawyers attempted to get the same thing but failed. Are you or are you not claiming that Assange's lawyers attempted to get Sweden to waive the custody for the inquiry and if so, are you also claiming their Assange's lawyers did not ask the right people?

      And no, no Swedish judge was ever consulted about the Ecuadorian embassy offer or even the lawyers request. Furthermore the prosecution has autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order.

      No Swedish Judge would have to consult with the Ecuadorian embassy. The ruling would have already been made when his lawyers failed to negate the in person requirements.

      Finally, you are correct, the prosecution does have autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order. However, the rules state that he must be present during that interrogation. IF he wished to challenge that, he can do so by asking a judge for relief. I'm assuming that you are confused and not outright making things up, I'm also assuming that his lawyers are not imbeciles either. This means that for both those assumptions to be true, Assange's legal council would have attempted to get a judge to rule on it. If they didn't, it would seem to be because they know the requirement to be there in person is too strong to waive and it would be a waste of the courts time or they are incompetent and failed to try.

      Either way, not getting a judge to rule on the insistence of him being present is a sign of something. The prosecutor is not above the judicial authority of the land.

    177. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      I'm asking for ANY evidence that you've provided to support a single point. ANY. Where is the evidence the US is seeking extradition - do you have an extradition form? Has any government official said something about an extradition request? Have charges even been filed as a result of the investigation? Where is the evidence that it would be "easy" for Sweden to do this - do you have any actual legal scholars willing to explain how Sweden could extradite him on without breaking its own treaty obligations and causing a public relations shitstorm for itself, alongside the penalties and sanctions that would come with violating EU law? Do you have any actual evidence suggesting that Sweden is willing to do that when there is absolutely zero benefit to itself? Do you have any actual evidence that the UK "cannot" extradite him directly to the US, so are sending him along to Sweden to help out the US - as you asserted previously? Do you have any evidence to suggest that they would refuse direct extradition, but the same government officials refusing to extradite directly would sign off on a third-party extradition from Sweden?

      I'm going easy on you - I'm asking you for ANY evidence that would support your conspiracy theory, or even a likely and logical chain of events. And frankly, "Because Assange says so," is all you've been able to offer.

      When you say:

      There is no possible way to give you the evidence you want.

      That's you admitting: "I have no evidence, and every argument I'm making is based on guess, speculation, and my own personal biases, not on the actual facts of the actual situation and the actual laws applying to it."

      So, thanks for conceding - I look forward to reading your retractions.

    178. Re:WWAD by jkflying · · Score: 1

      According to her allegations,....

      Which she refused to sign. Those allegations, legally and ethically, mean absolutely nothing.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    179. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      It is not my fault that your definition of evidence is whatever you accept as evidence. That is circular logic, and just another fallacy, I gave you plenty of evidences of inconsistencies in the process and in the behavior of the people involved.

      I can't give you evidence that the US is trying to extradite him because, as I claimed it won't yet, so as I said the only way to obtain such evidence is to put Assange in the position they want, which won't happen now that he is granted Asylum.

      Now you can keep your fantasies and personal biases as much as you want, or you can grow up and concede that your arguments not only have no evidence to back them up, they simply do not make sense, they are internally inconsistent and basically resume to: "You can't absolutely prove you are right, and so you are wrong.". A phrase that can also be applied to evolution, quantum physics, classical physics and basically any scientific achievement of mankind.

    180. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I suspected you would have difficulties understanding a simple concept but I am somewhat surprised at this point. If you still do not get the point, I simply cannot explain it to you. Perhaps you can ask around some.

      Perhaps you can learn to reason. There is no concept here to be understood but your inability to understand that you used an analogy that basically proved you were wrong, which just accomplished to show how feeble is your mind.

      Now wait a minute. I said the only case I know of where the prosecution was overridden in needing the suspect present for questioning was when a judge rules that his statement wouldn't be substantially material to the investigation. You replied in turn that Assange's lawyers attempted to get the same thing but failed. Are you or are you not claiming that Assange's lawyers attempted to get Sweden to waive the custody for the inquiry and if so, are you also claiming their Assange's lawyers did not ask the right people?

      Man, you are slow, it is tedious to explain things to you. He has not been charged of anything, the prosecutors used an international agreement to request his extradition to be interrogated without consulting a Swedish judge, there is no process open in Sweden, there is nothing a Swedish judge can do until the charges are brought against him. The lawyers and the embassy offered the alternatives to the prosecutors. The prosecutors declined them.

      Furthermore the Swedish prosecutors could interrogate him with him present in the embassy, or previously in UK custody, at any moment they wished. They chose not to. They don't want to interrogate him. They don't want to ascertain the truth. They want to crucify him. Period. This case would never even go to court in any country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence against him. It is just his word against the word of two people in two different cases.

    181. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      It is not my fault that your definition of evidence is whatever you accept as evidence. That is circular logic, and just another fallacy

      LOL how's that work again? My definition of evidence is actual facts - not speculation. It's not my fault you can't provide any facts, just a bizarrely complex conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. If you can seriously call a demand for facts and evidence 'circular logic and a fallacy,' then it's quite clear exactly how deep your neurosis runs. I'm sorry to see you're in the grip of it, but don't expect me to indulge your childish fantasies that you're engaging in rational thought.

      Let's just review the points of your conspiracy theory that fall down on logical inspection:

      -- No evidence to support the theory that the US is going to charge him, or will try to extradite him; In fact, officials with actual knowledge of the investigation have said that there are no charges, they don't expect there will be charges, and many officials question the wisdom of charging him even if they DID have evidence;

      -- No evidence to support the notion that Sweden can "easily" extradite him to the US - espionage is a political/military crime, also often a capital crime, and Sweden has specific prohibitions against extradition for both of those; temporary surrender can ONLY happen in the context of an extradition request, it is not some magical rabbit hole through which he can be whisked away to Guantanamo Bay; the UK, who you've boldly stated "couldn't" extradite Assange even if they wanted to, would STILL have to approve the extradition from Sweden, even under a temporary surrender order, and the same people in the UK would have to approve it as if the extradition request was received by the UK;

      -- No evidence to suggest that Sweden and the UK are going to collude in some sort of illegal rendition, or that there is any benefit for them in doing so; And if the US was going to strong-arm the Swedish & UK governments into breaking the law for no benefit to themselves, it's far more likely that Sweden and the UK would simply turn a blind eye to a "disappearance" orchestrated by the US, giving Sweden & the UK plausible deniability;

      -- No evidence to support the theory that the rape allegations are "just a smear campaign," orchestrated by the US;

      In short - no evidence that ANY of the preconditions required to accept your theory that it's a conspiracy have been offered. Numerous examples, cited from the relevant laws, have been offered, which leads to the conclusion that your conspiracy theory is simply off-its-ass-WRONG, and you're simply eager to whitewash ANYTHING that Mr. Assange does to avoid having to face the cognitive dissonance that comes from learning that your hero might not be a white knight on a horse, but actually might just be a regular guy who's managed to do some good things, and occasionally behaves like an asshole to women.

      "You can't absolutely prove you are right, and so you are wrong.". A phrase that can also be applied to evolution, quantum physics, classical physics and basically any scientific achievement of mankind.

      Yeah, my response to evolution, quantum physics, classical physics, and any scientific achievement of mankind is, not surprisingly, ALSO to say, "show me the evidence, don't just expect me to accept everything you tell me on blind faith." The problem is, the scientists working on all of these problems CAN show me the evidence, and DO have measurable, repeatable data that allows me to both understand, and agree, that their theories are accurate. Your arguments fall FAR short of any standard of scientific proof - definitely in the area I'd call "quackery." If you don't like that, then it's on YOU to provide some evidence that is not created out of biased speculation and denial of reality.

      In short, your arguments boil down to: 1) I'm right; 2) Anybody who disagrees with me and provides counter-evidence to any

    182. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You can't ask from others what you can't offer yourself. By doing that you only show the double standards that are so popular in your country. You offered no evidence that ANY of those points are false. You also didn't offer any evidence refuting the inconsistencies I pointed deciding just to ignore them, because you have no answer to them.

      You keep writing long winded posts repeating the very same things time and again in a desperate attempt to make them become true, maybe to yourself, considering that at this point we are probably the only ones reading these texts.

      Your posture is basically: "I will completely disregard anything that doesn't fit with my theories and call it bullshit without any proof that they are really false.". Sorry, my good sir, but you couldn't recognize rational thought even if it bit you in the face.

    183. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually, I did. I in fact demonstrated with quotes and links directly to the treaty texts that your assertion that "Sweden could temporarily surrender him without an extradition request" was false. The only way a temporary surrender can be made is in the context of an extradition request - no temporary surrender can be made without one. Furthermore, the UK and Sweden are BOTH signatories to the US/EU extradition treaty, which contains a clause which is almost a word-for-word replica of the language in the US-Sweden treaty. Go read Article 9, and try to explain to me again how Sweden's the only country who can do this?

      I also demonstrated that the UK could extradite him just as easily as Sweden, in direct contradiction to your assertion that they "could not" extradite him legally. All it requires is a valid extradition request.

      Click "Parent" a few times - see those points you ignored when I cited text from the treaties? Yeah, that was me, giving you evidence, which you deliberately ignored because it clashed with your pathetically juvenile world view.

      Have fun telling yourself you've made some good points here. I'm getting a great big laugh out of your attempts to paint yourself as some sort of rational thinker.

    184. Re:WWAD by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You quoted laws that can and have already been bent to extradite people at will. All that is needed is political will and basically anyone can be extradited by such agreements. All you need is an accusation of anything that fits (and accusations are very easy to make) and the good will of the countries involved which is easy enough for US to get.

      At this point nobody can extradite him to US legally, as I said, but it can change at any point as long as they can accuse him of the right things, They do not wish to do so now, though, because it is much better for them to smear him the most they can before doing that, and sending him to Sweden to be tried by these ridiculous charges is a good start.

      So basically you've shown no evidence at all that my "conspiracy theories" cannot come to happen. You still feel in the right of saying he is "my hero" despite the fact that I haven't even once given him any kind of value judgment. You, on the other hand, are perfectly fine with referring to him as guilty of the crimes he has not even he has been charged of .

      You are the laugh stock here, Mr. Americano, but keep telling yourself otherwise and maybe you will believe it. It will be good for your wounded self-esteem.

    185. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the charges is that he penetrated a sleeping woman without prior consent to do that.
      That's rape in almost any jurisdiction.

      Probably (well, at least western), though the way is reported it almost looks as if it is meant to look as if he attacked someone, or at least just started to have sex with some random sleeping woman. I actually think that there is a difference between doing something wrong like this and doing something violent, but this colored by that the Swedish word for rape means "violence taken" (i.e. "taken by violence"). Maybe it feels different in English.

      And it is not clear to me if she was sleeping. I also have a problem with the following from the leaked police interview: She states she asked him: "Wait, are you wearing something" and when he say (something indicating) that he wasn't, she didn't want to nag more about it and they continued having sex. In the other girls case the condom broke while having sex. I'm afraid it the police should be called in each time something like these things happens, we would need a lot more police.

      It is also worth noticing that both girls originally said they did not want to get him prosecuted, but to force him to get a test for STD. He just said that he didn't have time and that he didn't have any such (had tested himself three months ago). Apart from showing that he is an inconsiderate asshole with women, it also shows that he easily could have avoided the situation he now is in.

      However, if UK is basing a possible attack on an embassy on this, when they did not want to extradite Pinochet....?
      I'm not surprised that people are questioning if there is something else behind it.

    186. Re:WWAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.

      This seems to not be the case.

      This article

      http://www.friatider.se/swedish-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-explains-why-assange-is-not-questioned-in-london-you-do-not-dictate-the-terms-if-you-are-a-suspect-get-it

      says

      As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery.

    187. Re:WWAD by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can learn to reason. There is no concept here to be understood but your inability to understand that you used an analogy that basically proved you were wrong, which just accomplished to show how feeble is your mind.

      Stop pretending to be stupid. I made a logical fallacy to illustrate the absurdity of your claim that the government can do anything it wants " In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something". Even after pointing to the absurdness in the same post and paragraph you claim the analogy proved me wrong when it in fact, made you backtrack on your statement.

      Man, you are slow, it is tedious to explain things to you. He has not been charged of anything, the prosecutors used an international agreement to request his extradition to be interrogated without consulting a Swedish judge, there is no process open in Sweden, there is nothing a Swedish judge can do until the charges are brought against him. The lawyers and the embassy offered the alternatives to the prosecutors. The prosecutors declined them.

      Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Can't you even fucking read. Damn this is getting old. The judicial rules I posted specifically allows someone subject to the mandatory ""shall be there in person" part for question by arguing to a judge for relief. No charges have to be filed, Fuck man, it is right there in front of you for you to read and you appear to be too fucking intellectually lazy to bother doing so while insisting your mental fallacies are correct regardless of the text of any laws.

      The prosecutor declined because the law says he Shall be there in person. It doesn't say he can be there, or he might be there, or if someone other country doesn't object to him being there. It says he has to be there for the inquiry to continue. The suspect or defendant can object for relief by convincing a judge that his presence and answers are not substantially material to the investigation or that the offense doesn't carry 1 year in prison or more.

      Furthermore the Swedish prosecutors could interrogate him with him present in the embassy, or previously in UK custody, at any moment they wished. They chose not to. They don't want to interrogate him. They don't want to ascertain the truth. They want to crucify him. Period. This case would never even go to court in any country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence against him. It is just his word against the word of two people in two different cases.

      Really? Where is this privilege for the Swedish prosecution to leave their jurisdiction and perform their duties as officers of the court in a land in which they have no legal authority? They cannot just make something up like you seem insistent on doing to maintain your view then impose it is as legal and proper to do. This is not the soviet era USSR where they make something up on the fly and if you disagree, you find out what the bottom of a 6 foot deep hole in the ground looks like. Government needs to be granted permission to do things. This permission is shown in law passed by the government.

      You have yet to show any law, or any case in which the government has acted in the way you insist it can. This complete failure of yours would tell any intellectually honest person given that the laws say he shall be present, that your demands simply are not realisticly real or accurate in the situation. You have essentially insisted that "what I say is true because I said it" and that you will ignore any judicial rule, law, or evidence to the contrary while insisting the lack of evidence supporting what you said as proof of your correctness.

      Now, in case you cannot understand what I had just said there, I will spell it out really simple like. You are ignoring what is real in order to maintain what you make up. You are pretending your ignorance is an authority when it is nothing but your lack of information and perhaps purposeful manipulation of the facts in order to maintain a fictional reality. You are essentially the lieing kid who grabbed something from the stand in front of their parents, broke it, then insisted it didn't happen.

    188. Re:WWAD by Americano · · Score: 1

      You quoted laws that can and have already been bent to extradite people at will.

      Really? When have they been bent? Can you give any examples?

    189. Re:WWAD by shentino · · Score: 1

      You assume that the US is going to abide by the terms of a treaty. Their conduct against their own citizens proves that they have no intention of playing by the book, and if the only thing protecting assange is legal procedures written on a piece of paper then he has plenty of reason to fear.

      The honor of playing it straight is rather hollow when the other side can cheat and get away with it.

  10. First off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'd click my heels together, and say to myself "There's no place like home...there's no place like home..." For those of us in the real world, however - these kinds of situations don't happen to normal people. One of the only reasons you disappear is because you did something REALLY wrong, or you witnessed a horrible organized crime... and then you go to the POLICE! They make you disappear...in a way that doesn't involve erasing YOU. It's called Witness Protection - and it's not as bad as Law and Order OR Dick Wolfe show it to be. The Russian mob don't always make everyone you ever knew or those who met you dead - including the pool guy.

    1. Re:First off... by tqk · · Score: 1

      The Russian mob don't always make everyone you ever knew or those who met you dead - including the pool guy.

      Perhaps not, but these guys might, just for shits and giggles.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:First off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on being too dense to understand the point of a thought experiment.

    3. Re:First off... by Finite9 · · Score: 1

      bah. what kind of serious drug cartel doesn't have a website. -1 for them!

      --
      "Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
  11. Simple enough by log0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Withdraw enough cash to feed yourself for a week, then leave. Go camping. Get out into nature. If technology is your concern, get away from the technology.

    1. Re:Simple enough by log0n · · Score: 1

      As a followup, you don't have the resources to circumvent big brother if he's after you. And actively trying to do so will splash you with a bigger target.

    2. Re:Simple enough by fermion · · Score: 2
      Off the grid is a good idea. The camping thing can work if you have conspirators. For instance Eric Rudolph was able to evade authorities for 5 years, presuably because his murders were supported by the christian group Army of God and others who publicly supported his actions. It was a fluke he was arrested, so probably could have stayed under cover for a longer time.

      When I was young and ridiculous, I had a jump bag, a passport and credit card to get out of the country and up into a remote area if anything were to happen. Of course anything involving travel across borders is much more difficult now. Two languages might provide a means of support, but always assumed I would depend on the help of others to survive.

      Of course if no crime then a good lawyer and a place no one would look for you would be in order.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Simple enough by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which of my identities are you suggesting should go camping?

      Can the othes carry on as usual?

      Really... disinformation is the name of the game. I'd rather stay where I am and let the guys following me go camping.

      (of course, this could be disinformation itself....)

    4. Re:Simple enough by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Had a friend who, for reasons not entirely clear, felt the need to change his identity. I do not know why, he wasn't wanted for anything that I'm aware of, but who knows. Anyway, he obtained the birth cert and ssn of a man who was born about the same time he was, and had been dead for 20 years. Using only the cert and the ssn he was able to create a whole new life for himself. He lived using this identity for 8 years, including got married, and was only caught when his mother in law found out he was 'dead' putting together a family chart. Seems like this is the way to go to throw off the feds, unless you have a nosy mother in law.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    5. Re:Simple enough by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Withdraw enough cash to feed yourself for a week, then leave. Go camping. Get out into nature.

      How would you feed yourself and keep a steady supply of clean water? It's not as easy as it sounds.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    6. Re:Simple enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This probably wouldn't work if you're in a huge city like the summary stipulates, but that only applies to 8% of the US population. If you're being pursued by the government you have two options, assume a fake identity or stay in a remote location off the grid.

      The former is becoming less and less practical as data is collected about each individual. Heck, for all I know I'm the only person who buys bulk isopropyl alcohol, Barq's rootbeer, and liver cheese when I go to the grocery store. An entity with vast data collection and processing capabilities should statistically be able to identify me by my habits alone. This obviously isn't done for common criminals, but I doubt the government uses all of its resources to catch them either.

      Therefore, living in a remote location off the grid is one's best option. Personally, I'd just see how long I could live off the land in the vast amounts of dense forest in my state. There, the only authority to watch out for is the game warden (who's unlikely to care if you're not poaching). One's quality of life would suck, but it's not like you could access your bank account or hold a job in the situation, so I'd rather live in the woods than be homeless in the city. Come to think of it, I bet there are a surprising number of people who do this, because how would we know?

      Of course, that's my instinct because I grew up in a heavily forested region. Other people might go to the caves, small islands, or even know places to hide in a large city.

    7. Re:Simple enough by Hentes · · Score: 1

      If you are being followed you want to be between as many witnesses as possible. The moment you are alone, they will get you.

    8. Re:Simple enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you feed yourself and keep a steady supply of clean water? It's not as easy as it sounds.

      It's pretty easy with practice. I drink streamwater all the time, keeps the guts tough and leathery.

    9. Re:Simple enough by gmueckl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Literature recommendation: Ghost in the Wires. Kevin Mitnick describes some his thoughts behind his fake identities. He even provides a reference to the book that told him most of the tricks he mentions (and probably many more he didn't dare to write down).

      --
      http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
    10. Re:Simple enough by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It used to be pretty easy to do this. Not sure how easy any more. Probably still easy if you steal a dead person's identity around the age of 15-16, when they would start getting jobs, getting driver's license, etc. Teenagers, take note! Strike now! Even if you're caught you'll be tried as a juvenile for a nonviolent crime, and if you succeed (and if you're smart about it) you'll have a well-established second identity for the rest of your life.

    11. Re:Simple enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work with your friend in Bakersfield, CA

    12. Re:Simple enough by vlm · · Score: 2

      Withdraw enough cash to feed yourself for a week, then leave. Go camping. Get out into nature. If technology is your concern, get away from the technology.

      If you've an avid sailor, and I've been sailing since I was a teen, a cruising sailboat is way better. Helps if you're near a coast or at least a great lake. I believe you're pretty much screwed as a sailor if you're in Utah, then again you don't have to be fleeing the MIB to be screwed if you're stuck in Utah.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    13. Re:Simple enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that suddenly increased withdrawals may cause all sorts of red flags, starting with fraud/card theft protection.

      So you'd really have to already have some cash on hand, so that with a comparatively small withdrawal you're good to go. Or no withdrawal at all, as such a thing records a time and a place next to your account number, possibly with a fully automated mugshot (again for fraud protection). You'll also want to have small change (large enough to be convenient, small enough to fit in vending machines) in quantity. Anything with your identity attached (CCs, ATM cards, mobile phones on contract, loyalty cards, and a lot of other things) is out. You may want to try and keep a prepaid debit card around, paid for only with cash, but plain cash will probably do better.

      And, of course, this isn't the time to learn how to go camping. You'd have to have had some prior practice, or you end up in the emergency ward or worse. Nevermind that some countries have little "nature" left (here it's all essentially parkland), you can't go out by PT (tracking by vending machines, CCTVs in busses and on stations) and with the rise of ANPR you can't go out by car either. When's the last time you had a good brisk walk or biked for more than a couple kilometres? Anything habit breaking could already rat you out, too, especially if you happen to have nosy or scaredy neighbours that call the police for any reason at all, so think about that carefully also.

      Turn off the phone, or better yet, ditch it altogether. Consider a pager (essentially a coded radio receiver, only) to let loved ones keep a channel to let you know to contact them. A PAYG phone, paid for in cash, only turned on when making calls, may work but sticking to public phones (hello small change) would be safer, if more involved.

      It really isn't just the technology, but few of the currently mainstream financial and other "mass" technologies help. Au contraire.

    14. Re:Simple enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Withdraw enough cash to feed yourself for a week, then leave. Go camping. Get out into nature."

      When I was young and paranoid enough, with time to fantasize about such things, this was one of my plans. Heck, since then I've actually done it a few times... except for telling my friend and family where I was disappearing to, because I was just on vacation.

      In another scenario, if I needed to disappear quickly for a little while, I planned to hide out with one my "enemies". This was way back before Facebook and MySpace and even web forums, so the idea that I knew people with whom I had no offline connection such as work or school or church or mutual friends wasn't something your typical law-enforcement office would immediately think of. And just in case they knew of the BBSes I used, I chose someone on one of them whom I didn't get along with. Not someone who'd want to harm me, but someone I routinely fought with about politics, religion, operating systems, Kirk vs. Picard, etc. I happened to know where he lived: close enough to walk under cover of darkness. I figured he'd be flattered by my trust in him, and impressed by the gravity of the situation that I would swallow my pride to ask for his help, that he'd shelter me for a few days, while I figured out what to do next.

      If the situation called for me to get out of the country, I'd "steal" my "enemy"'s car and head via county roads to one of a few spots on the US/Canada border. If you live anywhere from Washington to Minnesota, and you're physically fit, crossing the border is almost trivially easy: there's no wall, and guards are few and far between. I happen to live in Michigan, which means that instead I would have my choice of three rivers to swim, none of which are especially wide or hazardous (except for periodic freighters). To avoid detection, I'd simply swim it at night.

    15. Re:Simple enough by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Take a bike to the next-nearest store every few days. Nobody said you'd have to camp in the exact center of Yellowstone.

      --
      What?
    16. Re:Simple enough by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Potable water is easy. I've lived in the wilderness for a week and a half, hand-pumping water from streams and lakes through a filter. Maybe not practical if you're hiding out in Aridzona, but in fertile parts of the country it's not difficult at all.

      Food is a little more difficult, but unless you're talking about long-term... it's really not that important. The typical American beer belly or large caboose can keep you alive and reasonably healthy for a few weeks, and much longer if you're getting some food along the way.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    17. Re:Simple enough by BMIComp · · Score: 1

      You hear stories about this all the time. And I'm sure they were true. With the computerization of vital records, this is now nearly impossible. Back in the day, each state used to keep its own birth and death records in sepearte files and did not cross-reference them. However, today, it is easy for the government to verify if a death certificate has been issued for a birth certificate before issuing you new credentials.

    18. Re:Simple enough by shugah · · Score: 1

      Unless the isopropyl alcohol, Barq's root beer and liver cheese are the key ingredients in a some kind of terrorist weapon, you're probably not in anyone's database on that basis alone.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    19. Re:Simple enough by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm thinking a remote location on the grid if the best option. Join a migrant worker's camp. Preferably one in a west coast state. No real identity needed, cops routinely overlook them and probably warn them of impending raids unless you are wanted for a crime. The draw back is that you will need to do back breaking labor for less money then you can imaging it being worth. Plus side, food and clean water, something to occupy your time with, and you don't go insane from no one to talk with for weeks on end (yes, long periods of isolation can cause mental problems).

    20. Re:Simple enough by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Witnesses won't matter too much if who is following you is working for the government or a well organized crime syndicate. In either case, your abduction will either look official or part of something no one wants to get involved with.

      Most criminal enterprises will have people willing to go to prison to further their goals. In prison, they will automatically have an elevated status in their clique and plenty of previous members already there to welcome them. You even have groups that will band together out of necessity to protect themselves from the other prison gangs.

    21. Re:Simple enough by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Upload a video of it to youtube and a few pirate sites (it makes the backups or it gets the hose), stopping to leave a few links on reddit and other social media sites, and the world will come looking for your mystery men in under an hour.

      However mysterious they might be, by the end of 24 hours, they'll be international celebrities. Won't be able to go into a bar for a drink without someone siddling up next to them, and having a friend take a picture of the two of you together.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    22. Re:Simple enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well aren't you a riddle wrapped in an enigma...

    23. Re:Simple enough by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Step 1: notice these guys are following you
      Step 2: ensure they continue to follow you as you go purchase camping equipment and foodstuffs on your credit card
      Step 3: ensure they're still following you as you go withdraw enough cash to feed you for a week
      Step 4: purchase a disposable phone (on your credit card) and mail it to somewhere out in the boondocks, with the return address somewhere else in the boondocks. Prior to mailing it, call it with Google Voice and leave it in a connected state. Drop it in the mail right before pickup.
      Step 5: Log into facebook and change your status to "going camping"
      Step 6: In the middle of the night following all this, turn on all your lights in your house, make a bunch of noise on the back porch
      Step 7: turn off all lights and retire to the basement with your camping equipment.
      Step 8: if the phone you bought was a smartphone, remote-connect into it and release status updates and tweets from it. Make the connection look like you're trying to connect to your home computer, not the other way around.
      Step 9: see who turns up and tosses your house :)
      Step 10: Sell story (to movie producers, tabloids, government agents, etc.)
      Step 11: Profit!

    24. Re:Simple enough by outlander · · Score: 1

      (can not log in. dislike this computer intensely)

      Uh-huh. **Nods vigorously**

      I've done some long-distance bike touring and sometimes I, um, didn't plan as well as I should have - which is to say I ran out of food (though, fortunately, I only ran out of water once). But I got through it, and wound up losing weight in the bargain. Humans can survive in some very deprived situations, and I've been through a few very minor examples, and I have to say I was surprised at how much privation can be borne without serious long-term effects. I also learned that fish by itself, no matter how well-grilled, just doesn't do after a couple of days - something was missing (don't know what, I'm not a nutritionist) but when I got back to a place where I could buy food, I ate about two whole pizzas in an hour.

      I also drowned a smartphone in a desolate area, which meant I couldn't call for a couple of days (until I got it replaced in the next city of any size I got to), and hence wouldn't have been particularly trackable if someone had been of a mind to track me (as if....I was a boring keg-shaped fifty-ish guy on a beat-up bicycle). The roads where I was travelling (western US, desert/mountain) weren't heavily trafficked, and I wild-camped (which is to say, slept off the roads hidden behind trees or rocks). I suppose a concerted attempt to find me would have been possible, but not without using way more resources than would have been reasonable in terms of people and vehicles. It's amazing how invisible you are when you're a hairy, vaguely stinky guy travelling on a bike with heavily patched bags - people assume you're homeless, if they even notice you. And when you're in the real boonies, unless you do stupid stuff to make lots of noise, no one will bother - you're a needle in a haystack.

      In urban areas, the 'being-taken-for-homeless' thing is just weird - you're invisible (e.g., you just don't exist for some people), so I don't think anyone would have remarked on me any more than the 'real' homeless. It means that I can sleep under a bridge on a rainy night; because it's so common for the homeless, it doesn't occasion particular notice. Of course, one well-meaning guy who saw my unshaven self on a street walked up with a fifty-dollar bill, handed it to me, and said "Go do something to help yourself - don't waste it....." so I stayed in a cheap hotel and took a bath on his dime ;-)

      I think that the whole disappearing thing is blown out of proportion. There are a lot of middle-class coders here, and lots of people in that way of life can't really see disappearing because they've got a routine. Just go for a hike or ride from a more urban area towards a less urban area, and don't shave or take anything more than perfunctory baths for a week or two, and you slide into a category of human that middle-class Americans just gloss over. Even with a security apparatus hunting for you, chances are good that if you're perceived as local homeless and don't call attention to yourself, no one will ever notice you unless there's way more scrutiny than the PTB want to engage in - I think the implied goal of the bad guys in the hypothetical example is to disappear the protagonist without a whole lot of publicity.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    25. Re:Simple enough by outlander · · Score: 1

      I like the idea, but in practice, sailboats are pretty identifiable. Boat people tend to know who belongs and who doesn't, so you'll get called out more quickly because you're a break in routine.

      Humans: built to notice anomalies and complain about them :-)

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  12. sucide by kiep · · Score: 0

    would be found hanged

  13. Hide? Why? by Blade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd get a good lawyer, let the press know what I'd seen and then go to the police and give them a statement.

    1. Re:Hide? Why? by escay · · Score: 1
      submitter mentioned that the police/government could be complicit so going to the police may not be a smart idea but lawyer and press are good ideas though.

      In general, making use of media and putting it all out there is the best chance you have; first, record and reveal, to as wide a public forum as possible, all that you have witnessed and your potential risks as a result. then, start filming your own life as much as you can, at home, at work and in between; broadcast it, put it on youtube, let people watch you and let them watch the people watching you.

      it's a really radical step to go the Bourne way, especially with family, but if you really have to do that then your best bet would be actually the Assange way; seek asylum in an embassy that does not have an extradition treaty with any of the G8 countries.

    2. Re:Hide? Why? by Blade · · Score: 2

      Bradley Manning committed a crime. I thought the original post said that in this case, the theoretical person had not. I sympathise with Bradley, and I think his treatment at the hands of the US is despicable, but it's hard to argue he wasn't committing a crime and equally, didn't know it.

    3. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might be at least partially due to the fact that when he purposefully downloaded and transmitted all those classified documents he didn't accidentally download and transmit all those classified documents.

    4. Re:Hide? Why? by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

      Bradley Manning didn't just see something happen. He actively took sensitive data and released it knowing full well what the consequences could be.

    5. Re:Hide? Why? by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your lawyer would then suffer a nasty accident, your press contact would be murdered, and the police would discover evidence implicating you in the crime. Also, psychiatric records demonstrating your delusional personality would turn up. Jeez, don't you get cable?

    6. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately these kind of things happen routinely not too far away. :-/ Seriously.

    7. Re:Hide? Why? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      And then two weeks later you commit "suicide" or die of heart failure while doing 80 on the freeway...

    8. Re:Hide? Why? by tftp · · Score: 1

      your best bet would be actually the Assange way; seek asylum in an embassy that does not have an extradition treaty with any of the G8 countries.

      You can get beaten up real good whether you are in G8 or in Equador. The cost of the service is very affordable if you are a nation state. The police will not even look for your assailants if all you can say is "there were five of them, all big and all inebriated." Assange can be easily placed into a wheelchair for life if a powerful country wants it so. Living under 24/7 police protection is, for most people, a punishment on its own - and Assange will not get police protection anyway. Equador is using him for a political statement; but once the statement is spelled out and recorded in the archives of the United Nations Assange becomes a liability. It would be then quite convenient for Assange to disappear.

    9. Re:Hide? Why? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Your comment reads as if you're the kind of person to equate Italians with mafiosos. Your concept of Ecuador might be a bit too dramatic.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    10. Re:Hide? Why? by tftp · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid I'm not cynical enough. Hard to believe in purely humanitarian motivation. Asylums these days are granted only if there is a benefit to the receiving country. Equador already had its fifteen minutes of infamy and it is working on more, now that the UK successfully put itself into a corner. Rafael Correa is a close friend of Hugo Chavez, and both are known for using the weapon of speech as a lethal weapon :-) Anyway, political leanings of those guys are best left to their voters - but as things are, they may be a factor in these tensions. In essence, Equador got a fresh hot potato and is juggling it fiercely - to the considerable benefit to the country's image. Assange would be wrong if he considers himself anything but a pawn on the global chess board. His pawn may be even taken before it makes the next move, since he can't leave the UK and he can't stay in the embassy for the rest of his life.

    11. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment reads as if you believe Ecuador is in or near Italy, rather than bordering on Colombia.

    12. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I read the book .... The Girl with the dragon Tattoo and sequels.

    13. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more than that. If Bradley Manning were a foreigner operating remotely when he stole that government data, you could say *maybe* "this treatment at the hands of the US is despicable" if they had caught him and the punishment worked out otherwise like reality did. It's still kinda hard to sell that angle, because that would make him a spy, and throughout history (including modern times) execution is pretty much the norm for spies.

      Oh, but he was a US Citizen, so that at least makes him a traitor-spy, which is worse.

      Oh, and he was also in the US Military? That thing you sign up for voluntarily to serve the government, knowingly giving up your normal civilian civil liberties for the duration? Where you're given access to sensitive information as part of the job?

      Fuck him.

    14. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revealing that you witnessed mystery incident X could also be criminal.

    15. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crimes are not "sensitive or illegal data"

      Keyword: approval

    16. Re:Hide? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To bad he didn't limit his release to just crimes, you might have a valid point.

    17. Re:Hide? Why? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      That's why you hire a lawyer from a large firm. One of their own gets whacked, they'll take apart the government to find the guilty individual, and quietly dispose of them. A large firm is usually stocked with the kind of players who can be taken down only after a fair portion of the ruling party suddenly decides career suicide is a viable, must-have option on their group's career paths.

      And if there's one thing LEOs hate, it's walking into the lion's den (a large firm's offices) to get someone. The whole time they're in there, they know the attorneys are quietly thinking, in unison, about a single question "Am I in the mood for loins today? Perhaps a different cut? Hey, that guy with the buzzed head looks really stupid...I wonder if I can get him to harass someone, as I need a new Mercedes...maybe something in blue." God help them if a secretary breaks a nail by accident when they're there, let alone if they step on one of the senior partner's size 12s. What more, if the firm says they can't come in there, they probably can't, and would be greatly punished for attempting to do so.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    18. Re:Hide? Why? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      If you go to a large firm, it will inevitably turn out that they're part of the conspiracy.

    19. Re:Hide? Why? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      In your other comment you were predicting JA's demise as a natural consequence of the evil South American gangster/politician. I dispute your interpretation as overly dramatic.

      Rafael Correa is a close friend of Hugo Chavez, and both are known for using the weapon of speech as a lethal weapon

      And so does every demagogic politician out there. Chavez is friends with many Latin American presidents despite USA's insistence of isolating him. Diplomacy, interests, whatever it is that connects presidents, trying to push some guilt by association of the portrayed evil dictator (not aligned with USA's interests, of course) is too naive.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    20. Re:Hide? Why? by tftp · · Score: 1

      In your other comment you were predicting JA's demise as a natural consequence of the evil South American gangster/politician. I dispute your interpretation as overly dramatic.

      It fits this thread on Slashdot, unless it is also overly dramatic :-)

      But seriously, Assange threw himself into the fight of titans. Even the government of Equador is much more powerful than any single man - not even mentioning the CIA and other TLAs of Europe and the USA. Sure, they can do Assange's bidding, for a while - but Assange will also do the same for them. Equador is not a very democratic country; people there get in trouble for criticizing the government. Perhaps Equador wants to get a few brownie points among the leftists and anarchists of the world by protecting one of them in exchange for the awkward silence when someone sends evidence of Equador's own wrongdoing to Wikileaks.

      Governments are not people, at least because any government, especially a good one, has to act for the benefit of the people of their country. It may not go as far as to invite Assange and then have him terminated out of convenience. But another accusation of rape wouldn't be too difficult to manufacture. Or Equador may overlook a certain airplane that briefly landed in the country (the USA used this method before.) I already mentioned looking the other way when a street brawl occurs. The black mark has been issued, and all Assange is currently doing is an attempt to never meet the issuers. His actions in this regard are amateurish, and IMO they will be insufficient. The USA is currently applying pressure by doing exactly nothing - the target is victimizing himself. It's quite smart. Give Assange a few more months under his self-inflicted house arrest and you can be sure he will do something else that will sully his image even more. For example, Assange can always leave the embassy by wearing a face mask and clothes and makeup to look like someone else. But escaping the country this way would solidly make him a fugitive from justice, and he will be sought by Interpol. He may be safe in Equador, for a while, but his friends at Wikileaks will get a very clear message - "if you mess with us we will have your lives destroyed forever."

  14. Regret... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that I posted my plan to /.

  15. First, hire a good lawyer by neminem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then, after I had succeeded in hiring a good lawyer, and maybe a bodyguard, depending on who I thought was after me... start posting whatever it was I saw to every communal blog and forum I could think of, then start spamming newspapers with it, too. If I've done nothing wrong, why hide?

    1. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, after I had succeeded in hiring a good lawyer, and maybe a bodyguard, depending on who I thought was after me... start posting whatever it was I saw to every communal blog and forum I could think of, then start spamming newspapers with it, too. If I've done nothing wrong, why hide?

      Because you don't have any money? For the most of us, mere subjects of the corporate warlords, shutting our mouth and look down is the best option. Which is of no good for justice and democracy, but i suspect that harassment and intimidation are done for this exact purpose. If you done nothing wrong, can I poke around your house and data for 'interesting' anecdote? I thought so, what do you have to hide?

    2. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by nabsltd · · Score: 2

      Then, after I had succeeded in hiring a good lawyer, and maybe a bodyguard, depending on who I thought was after me... start posting whatever it was I saw to every communal blog and forum I could think of, then start spamming newspapers with it, too.

      This is the plot hole in every one of these "hunted by the corrupt government" stories.

      If you aren't the "only one that knows", you are much safer. If millions of people know or suspect, rational bad guys won't compound the original crime by killing you...they would instead spend all their time coming up with ways to show that although what you saw really happened, it wasn't them that did it. You still might get killed just for spite, but at least there's a chance that somebody would answer for the crimes.

    3. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the plot hole in every one of these "hunted by the corrupt government" stories.

      If you aren't the "only one that knows", you are much safer. If millions of people know or suspect, rational bad guys won't compound the original crime by killing you...they would instead spend all their time coming up with ways to show that although what you saw really happened, it wasn't them that did it. You still might get killed just for spite, but at least there's a chance that somebody would answer for the crimes.

      "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the press, we are aware of Mr. Doe's allegations. While we cannot go into extensive details at this time, due to the fact that it is an ongoing investigation, I can tell you that the man Mr. Doe alleged government agents murdered was, in fact, someone known to Mr. Doe and his wife, Jane, and that infidelity with Mrs Joe might have played a role in Mr. Smith's death. As well as the death of Mrs. Doe. We are looking into Mr. Doe's medical and psychiatric history, but privacy laws prevent us from revealing that information. In conclusion, there is no story here except for one of domestic violence brought about by a delusional man. Thank you. Sorry, no questions will be taken at this time. You can submit them in writing and we'll address them at this evening's press conference."

      Plot hole filled!

    4. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by tftp · · Score: 2

      Just don't be surprised when social accounts are created under your name and identity and then are quickly used to threaten harm to various people (which is a crime.) Good luck proving that it was not you who posted a certain message. There was a news story a week ago about an ex-Marine taken and placed into a psychiatric hospital for something he (supposedly) wrote on Facebook.

      If the government is after you (for whatever reason) the only sane and effective thing you can do is to leave the country as soon as you can. Within the country you will be hunted down, framed or simply disappeared - it's just a matter of time. It's much harder to do in China, for example - and if you are not an evil mastermind on par with OBL then the costs of locating you in India, China or Africa will be too high. Even CIA has a budget - and most importantly they have only a limited number of agents. Within the country the police will do their job for them.

    5. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is -hilarious- that you say that, given that I am, at this very moment, talking to a lawyer in an attempt to prove that I'm not a person with my name who's being summoned to court. A civil case rather than criminal, but a similar crazy messed up legal issue. Granted, I do expect it would be harder to prove that I didn't post something on an anonymous message board with my name than that I didn't own an entire company that ripped some dude I've never heard of off for 50 grant, but still.

    6. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure everything you post is digitally signed and say that everything that isn't signed isn't you.

    7. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by tftp · · Score: 1

      Like that would work in court. With the same result you can say that you rob banks only in a red baseball cap, and if it isn't red then it couldn't be you who did the job. The prosecutor uses different evidence, one that is based not on your words but on external, verifiable facts.

      Not only that. Imagine that someone is after you (well, we are discussing such a scenario here, don't we?) That "someone" is either the government or another powerful force. How hard would it be for them to pick the lock of your apartment when you are at work and do the usual things to steal your keyring and your passphrase? Once that is done your goose is thoroughly cooked. By claiming that you always sign your messages you dig a pretty deep hole for yourself - you abandon the simple and straightforward defense of "my account was hacked." You would have to erect a far more complex cardhouse - that an unknown villain stole your digital ID to impersonate you. That is not going to fly unless you have evidence - and you will not have any.

    8. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I've done nothing wrong, why hide?

      That's what the Jews said as they stood naked in line for the "showers."

    9. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Yes, the psych attack is the new in-thing these days. Get the person (who is always, for some strange reason, rabidly against their government / or have some problem with their actions) committed, and the judge will automatically believe any lie they tell him / her, and disbelieve any truth you tell him / her (he's crazy, man!). Because, it's what they want to believe. To be a judge, you must implicitly agree with the majority of the laws you administer, and you must have faith in your government, that if there ever is a conspiracy, it would only be a small one. Bias built right into the system.

      Surprising the number of psychs who are in on this these days, but then, the quality of healthcare has been dropping for quite some time in this country. Think about it. I could go on for some length about this problem, but having seen it first-hand, as well as the various dissemblances of both parties, I no longer believe we live in anything but a dark society. This generation, and the one after it...are royally screwed.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    10. Re:First, hire a good lawyer by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      The main problem with trying to get to India, Russia, China, Africa or some parts of South America if you're from certain countries is that you will need a visa in advance. This will take time (which you will not have) and create a record of your intention to exit the country (and if you do manage to actually board a plane without being caught, then entry in to another country), so to achieve this easily you would need more than one passport from more than one nation, preferably one that is on friendly diplomatic terms with the country in which you intend to disappear (so Ukrainian passport for Russia, US/CA/UK/AU/NZ/JP passport for EU/US/CA, NZ/AU/EU/JP passport for South America, NZ/SG/FI/JP passports for India etc).

      Disappearing in China easier said that done simply for want of getting in and out undetected unless you want to try/risk getting through some pretty dodgy territory and over a land border from India through somewhere like Arunachal Pradesh (assuming you hold one of the 5 passports that you can get in to India with on a tourist visa)... Russia's a little difficult but probably easier than China, and potentially could allow you to get in to some super interesting places (ending in 'stan) or in to Mongolia which is a largely nomadic nation.

      I don't know enough about Africa but you're potentially at as much risk by virtue of being in many parts of Africa as you would be in your country of origin under the circumstances, so most of it might be a region to avoid. I'd also never go to an island unless it's part of an archipelago because while it might be fun for a while and it might feel safe, you run the risk of 1. severe boredom and 2. getting wasted when you can't get out if (when) they manage to track you down.

      But, if that's not your cup of tea, then perhaps despite what it may seem like with the density and all, Europe is a reasonably good choice: the schengen visa covers a number of states through which you can traverse without too much checking. Road and Rail travel is possible (both on and off the grid: you could either buy a cheap car under a secondary identity in Germany, hitchhike, take advantage of things like EURAIL passes and so forth) to get where you need to go. You can move frequently and you can move often.

      There are a few "interesting" countries which are now part of the EU and not as backwards as you might imagine - Romania and Bulgaria, for example, but there are others as well - you could even venture in to Turkey and Georgia without too much difficulty. Even though this would create a record of your movement (land borders), the countries themselves are just disorganized enough that unless you did anything to bring attention to yourself, hanging about in a city like Istanbul or Tbilisi isn't too shabby - or you could head over to the Black Sea at Samsun or Poti respectively.

      All in all, my choice would probably be determined by how much money I have and for how long I can expect that to last in the event that I can't get some under-the-table temp work.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  16. How to disappear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you wanna be disappeared, just turn yourself in.

  17. Dear Slashdot, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please write my book for me.

  18. Disappear? by Antipater · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any G-8 country, you say? I pick Russia.

    First step: Start preaching revolution.

    Second step: Unneeded. I've already disappeared.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
    1. Re:Disappear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Russia you don't disappear. You are disappeared.

    2. Re:Disappear? by That+was+the+joke · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is the joke.

    3. Re:Disappear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Russia you don't disappear. You are disappeared.

      Yeah.. That's coming to America in the near future.. Thanks to NDAA/PATRIOT Act.... Enjoy whats left of your "free country" while it lasts...

    4. Re:Disappear? by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      What do you mean coming to?

    5. Re:Disappear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the other way around:
      In America you are disappeared. In Soviet Russia they disappear you.

    6. Re:Disappear? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      "Coming to America" is a movie.
      Look it up.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    7. Re:Disappear? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Second step: Unneeded. I've already disappeared.

      You wouldn't have disappeared. You would have been disappeared. The distinction between active and passive voice is an important one here.

    8. Re:Disappear? by shentino · · Score: 1

      In soviet russia, peers dis you.

  19. Take whatever you can out of the closest ATM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...And then login at the closest place and transfer the remaining cash to bitcoins. After that, leave the city and forget you ever had a bank account. If you ever use that card again (or any other credit card again) you will be traced. Your life is cash only now.

    Along with that take your cell phone, leave it on, and tape it underneath the nearest moving truck.

    Tell your family "Thanks for all the good times" in a letter. Give them the hashes to whatever number of bitcoins is appropriate in the letter. Your family no longer exists, they are a liability.

    Now you move, maybe even move countries if you think you can. Wherever you move, it's going to have to be big enough to not be known, but also small enough the cops haven't installed their own CCTV. Consider not driving anymore, either, that's a strong liability you'll be pulled over. If you must, ensure your car doesn't violate any laws, especially for burned out bulbs, tint, etc. And by "your" car I mean your rental car, because owning a car puts you back on the radar. Have fun! The rest I don't know about. You'll probably want to make sure you live in a room and don't rent proper and DEFINITELY don't own a house.

  20. Go for the simple solution by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Record yourself recounting everything you saw, then post the video to as many sites as you can. The more you can say about the event the better, don't make it short and look like you know more then you're saying. Start babbling if you can manage it.

    That way, there is not much of a point silencing you, since you've already done the worst you could.

    1. Re:Go for the simple solution by mapsjanhere · · Score: 3, Funny

      Asange tried that, didn't help him. The man hates to be shown off.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    2. Re:Go for the simple solution by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's why you should try to babble. If you look crazy enough, they won't have much of a reason to either arrest you or make you disappear. Just another conspiracy nut on the internet. If they do something to you, it would just give your words some weight.

    3. Re:Go for the simple solution by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      If you seem like you are crazy then they get to put you in the REALLY "fun" prisons and apply far more "medications" to you. Enjoy!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Go for the simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange is actually wanted for a crime he did commit. I don't understand the stupidity of people that pretend otherwise.

    5. Re:Go for the simple solution by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      The trick is being just crazy enough to appear harmless. No threats or anything like that, but enough to utterly discredit yourself. Once you've done that, there is no reason to try to 'silence' you further. Anything they do against you will only draw attention, and they don't have to fear you 'revealing' whatever it was that you saw - you've already done that in the worst way possible.

    6. Re:Go for the simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arkham?

    7. Re:Go for the simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why? You are no longer a threat, and you haven't caused any large damage.

    8. Re:Go for the simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now, some 'psychiatric hospitals' aren't at all bad, once you get past the druggings & bondage. My evil organisation, for example, runs a very nice one on Vancouver island, where we send Those Who Know Too Much. Everyone gets kept medicated & restrained for the first few months, doted on and cared for by attractive & compassionate staff (the staff/patient ratio is excellent) until they get over the whole cause-trouble-and-attempt-escape phase. Once they settle in and relax a little bit (e.g., stockholm syndrome sets in) they have very comfortable lives.

      Sometimes we even let them go. You know, once they're feeling better. But of course we drop in on them unannounced every now and then- just to check up on their well-being, you understand- for the rest of their lives.

    9. Re:Go for the simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're the stupid one who thinks he committed a crime. Then again, I can see how that would be difficult for you to understand.

  21. Change my name by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Change name to Julian Assange.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Change my name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you'd be gone before the next daylight.

  22. I'll Become...Presidential Green Party Candidate. by jaskelling · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nobody will ever hear from me again or know who I am that way.

  23. "99% of your money is in a bank account." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ya blew it.
    That's really all there is too it. You need cash to disappear. "They" would've already frozen or started watching your assets.
    You're already dead.

    1. Re:"99% of your money is in a bank account." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Haha suckers. They can have my bank account. Its just full of debt.

    2. Re:"99% of your money is in a bank account." by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Depends on how much 1 percent of your total wealth actually amounts to. If you have 10 million dollars in the bank then you have 100,000 dollars in the clear. I could go a long ways on that much.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    3. Re:"99% of your money is in a bank account." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. But because I do need cash to disappear more effectively, I'd be tempted at the end of that first hour to take my chances and withdraw slightly less than $1000 from an ATM somewhere, and accept that they'd have that information as a starting data point. Knowing that, I'd pick an ATM at a location having nothing to do with where I was going, somewhere that had easy transportation in innumerable directions, or preferably from as misleading a location as possible (make it look like I'm going somewhere else), and change my clothing immediately after (cameras routinely near the ATM). Trying to do the whole thing with little or no cash would probably be almost as risky as getting some working money.

      As some other people have suggested, the solution to knowing something dangerous and unique is to make it your goal to distribute that information as widely as possible as soon as possible to as many people as possible, at which point it wouldn't matter much that you know it. Disappearing permanently takes *a*lot* of money, and that's too difficult to mess with unless you've prepared long before. It's better as a goal to figure out a way to negate the reason for targeting you. The specification of the scenario doesn't say you've committed a crime, just witnessed something that presumably people don't want out there. Spread that information around. If it were due to actually committing a crime, then the goal and strategy would probably be rather different.

      One aspect not mentioned in the scenario is the environmental conditions, which are left open to choice. It would make a huge difference if it was where I currently live and the event happened in the winter time. As in, I'd be dead due to hypothermia within hours outdoors without proper clothing. It could be a similar situation in a desert area. I could live for quite a while if I managed to get some groceries, but how hospitable the climate was could be a serious problem, because I might not be able to shelter easily in a remote wilderness location even if I did.

    4. Re:"99% of your money is in a bank account." by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you've seen too many movies.

      We're talking about *ACTUAL* governments here.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    5. Re:"99% of your money is in a bank account." by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      Depends on how much 1 percent of your total wealth actually amounts to. If you have 10 million dollars in the bank then you have 100,000 dollars in the clear. I could go a long ways on that much.

      If you have that much money, you are already above the law and wont have to run.

  24. id wake up dead in a ditch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because if you see something big enough that the government wants you dead, guess what? you are fucking dead!

  25. Remove myself as single point of failure by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not interested in running for the rest of my life, so my goal would be to solve the problem permanently. If the problem is that I witnessed something, then I'd get my testimony and any relevant information in my possession as widely distributed as I could. Once the information is beyond containing, stopping me will no longer solve my opponent's problem. They'll have bigger problems to worry about than me. You can distribute your materials from anywhere these days - record a video on your phone, upload it to as many websites as possible, stick it on Wikileaks, email the press...

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      I'm not interested in running for the rest of my life, so my goal would be to solve the problem permanently. If the problem is that I witnessed something, then I'd get my testimony and any relevant information in my possession as widely distributed as I could. Once the information is beyond containing, stopping me will no longer solve my opponent's problem. They'll have bigger problems to worry about than me. You can distribute your materials from anywhere these days - record a video on your phone, upload it to as many websites as possible, stick it on Wikileaks, email the press...

      At that point, their best bet is to discredit you, using the same ease of spreading information. And once you are discredited, you are once again "solvable".

    2. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by subreality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd get my testimony and any relevant information in my possession as widely distributed as I could. Once the information is beyond containing, stopping me will no longer solve my opponent's problem. They'll have bigger problems to worry about than me.

      How's that working out for Julian Assange? Once you spread the information, their priority changes from containment to revenge.

    3. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and the police will find a large cache of child porn or marijuana or bomb-making material (or all of the above) in your house/car.

    4. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by V-similitude · · Score: 1

      Problem is, if you're the sole witness, there are still things that you can do no matter how wide-spread the knowledge is. You can a) debunk it, or b) stand witness to it in a trial. Sure, if you happened to record it in action, then the video stands on its own. But if you didn't, all you can distribute is your own testimony, which ultimately is only as verifiable as you are. The govt would still have a vested interest in pursuing you to either force a retraction, or prevent official testimony.

      Your best bet is probably to give the information to a lawyer with instructions to release if you can't be contacted in some period of time. Then you just have to convince whomever is interrogating you that you're not bluffing about that arrangement. Of course, you have to find a way to get the info to said lawyer without them seeing, otherwise they'll just take him/her too. If you're good enough with computers that you think you can outmaneuver the govt, you could do the equivalent with some self-releasing mechanism, but you need to be sure they couldn't track and stop it. Though of course, they can threaten you/your family if you don't shut it down, at which point it's a matter of will (insert encryption-xkcd).

      Ultimately, you're screwed. Glad I don't live in conspiracy theory land.

    5. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Bogtha · · Score: 2

      How's that working out for Julian Assange? Once you spread the information, their priority changes from containment to revenge. /i>

      What makes you think the way Assange is being treated is motivated by revenge? Even if you believe there is a conspiracy against him, the most likely explanation would be to stop him from continuing his work.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      At that point, their best bet is to discredit you, using the same ease of spreading information. And once you are discredited, you are once again "solvable".

      If me being discredited works, then I wouldn't need to be "solved". If it doesn't work, then I succeeded in my goal. Either way, I'm no longer a threat to them.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    7. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by lowieken · · Score: 1

      Hah, the wikileaks "insurance" file!

    8. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      If I'm discredited then from their perspective I'm "solved." Any further action against me risks them to no gain.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    9. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you are now nationwide know as a paedophile, if not murdered by a SWAT raid searching for bomb making material in your house. Justice is dead, deal with it. Shut your mouth and look the other way.

    10. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you are not a threat. But your life is still potentially ruined, and you may be imprisoned or dead anyway.

    11. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Either way, I'm no longer a threat to them.

      Godfather types work on a different worldview with different logic - the risk of you opening your mouth makes you a threat, actually opening it makes you the enemy. Either way, you're screwed.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      This is what I don't get about the whole hire a lawyer/go to the mass media answers. If we're really taking a step into the whole Borne style of disappearance then I wouldn't say it was beyond reason the opposing forces would do anything they could to discredit you. So while you're talking about [possibly unbelivable witnessed event], they will be talking about your poor psychiatric past and the child porn den you've got stashed in your house. As sad as it may be, people generally trust the government over one nut job talking about a massive conspiracy. You had better hope you have video evidence of the event taking place rather than just your word.

    13. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that working out for Julian Assange? Once you spread the information, their priority changes from containment to revenge.

      Assange's problem is that after he spread the information, he went and gathered more. It's not revenge; it's preventive maintenance. They would like to contain future leaks.

    14. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      But you can still be an example to be made of. Destroying/controlling you might offer some peace of mind to affected & powerful people.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    15. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want to contain Assange to contain the distribution of his "retirement package". If it was as simple as a revenge they'd just shot or did something else to make an example of him.

      C'tcha: hunted

    16. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by joocemann · · Score: 1

      You are both wrong, and wikileaks continues without him.

      the point is to strike fear into onlookers... to prevent people from agreeing or doing the same.

    17. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd still be a loose end to be tidied up one day.

    18. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by evilviper · · Score: 1

      How's that working out for Julian Assange? Once you spread the information, their priority changes from containment to revenge.

      When being harassed or threatened by authorities, rule #2 is to make damn sure you NEVER break the most trivial of laws. Rape is right-out... And it's just as easy to believe that Assange is an egocentric ass who did, in-fact commit the crime he's accused of.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    19. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by G-forze · · Score: 1

      And to discourage anyone else thinging of starting a leak site.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    20. Re:Remove myself as single point of failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that point, their best bet is to discredit you, using the same ease of spreading information. And once you are discredited, you are once again "solvable".

      No. Once you are discredited, you are "solved", period. Killing you would only restore some of your credibility. It's Taoism 101 for you: if you are worthless alive and worthless dead, you are completely safe.

  26. Mwahahaha! by ChasmCoder · · Score: 1

    If I told you, then SkyNet would know! So ... "I'llll Neeevvveerrr Teeeelllllll..." (head rotates 360 degrees)

    1. Re:Mwahahaha! by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      Skynet is brilliant at capturing data. Not so good at mining it. I'm really not all that worried.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
  27. hide out in a unabomber stile shack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hide out in a unabomber stile shack

  28. Jamaica, mahn! by gatesstillborg · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you could use it your self.

    I smoke two joints in time of peace and two in time of war.
    I smoke two joints before I smoke to joints and then I smoke two more!

    1. Re:Jamaica, mahn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that a song about Two's Complement?

  29. How to Steal an Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hour 1.5, go to local soup kitchen
    Hour 2, trade half of your 1% of your money not in a bank account for a bum's SIN and dirty ratty clothes.
    Hour 3, attempt to submit forms for a birth certificate for said bum
    Hour 4, use remainder of 1% to buy copious USB devices
    Hour 5, spend an hour creating USB devices that "phone home" when plugged in (you want at least 20-100 USB's here)
    Hour 6, pretend to lose these near where the government agents might be (also why you need many)
    Hour 7, hopefully get a hit - start enumeration and finger printing on FBI (or what ever agency is after you)
    Hour 8, check into a motel under a fake name
    Hour 9, pull a Kevin Mitnick and setup a pager/cellphone to notify you when they are going to setup the Sting
    Hour 9.5, put on dirty ratty bum's clothes and GTFO coz they've set up the sting and are on their way to the motel, if you're lucky no one will see you
    Hour 10, sit in busy area of city pan handling in the bums clothes
    Hour 24, no one will notice you for 14 hours or more because no one cares about homeless people :( ...
    6-8 weeks later: obtain your fresh new birth certificate
    day after: apply for a new passport, say you're traveling soon and get it rushed, use the money you pan handled to pay for it
    week later: have your new passport, leave the country under your new identity

    Enjoy!

    1. Re:How to Steal an Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hour 2.5 - wake up dead in a ditch cuz the bum was one of the agents after you.

    2. Re:How to Steal an Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      day after: apply for a new passport, say you're traveling soon and get it rushed

      Unfortunately, you need evidence of travel (airline ticket, etc) to get an appointment for the rush passport service. You're also going to need a mailing address if you want to get your passport while you're in the US and you'll have to actually go into the office, which increases the chances that you'll say something that will trip you up. Trying to obtain a passport while outside of the country might be quicker, but might also be more scrutinized.

      In the end, I'd probably get the regular expedited service (which can take up to 2 weeks instead of 3-4) and use the address of someone who works a 9-5 and has an unlocked mailbox. You can check your passport application status online to see when it might arrive and then stake out the house for when it gets delivered and snag it from the mailbox. Takes longer, but probably more reliable.

    3. Re:How to Steal an Identity by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Hour 2, trade half of your 1% of your money not in a bank account for a bum's SIN and dirty ratty clothes.

      While most of what you say is good, I'm going to suggest NOT taking the dirty ratty clothes. They are really bad. Get some clothes at Goodwill, that's where homeless people get them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:How to Steal an Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you called it a SIN makes me smile. Shadowrun!

    5. Re:How to Steal an Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to guess you don't live in the UK, or are prepared to pan handle for more than 14 hours to get the money for a passport!

    6. Re:How to Steal an Identity by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      Hour 2.5 - wake up dead in a ditch cuz the bum was one of the agents after you.

      Hour 3 - Start eating delicious braiiinns?

  30. Depends on your ethnicity by jaymzter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you're not a caucasian you should be able to ditch your cell phone and any identifying papers and disappear into the background. In the US at least, if you're Hispanic you can probably run all over the country and no one will seriously stop or detain you, regardless of documentation. Even if local enforcement does, claim to be illegal and the Feds will likely release you. At best the government will even send you out of the country "back" to Mexico. From there it's to any country you want.

    There's no easy answer for family though, but keep in mind that they can't be stopped from leaving US soil, only prevented from entering.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
    1. Re:Depends on your ethnicity by fuzzywig · · Score: 0

      erm

    2. Re:Depends on your ethnicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would only work once (which is okay in this situation), and not even if you've previously been finger printed (or biometricized (is that word?))....

  31. just tell everyone you're gay for THEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just go around telling everyone you know that you're gay for them and you want to date them exclusively and so on and so forth....

    the whole world will do all the legwork of cutting ties and vanish.

    then its just a matter of changing emails and your phone number.

  32. Where's my cut? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    I don't work for free. If we're going to crowd source this spy novel, what's my take?

  33. My escape plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strip naked and go running down the highway screaming yankee doodle with a sparkler up my rear. After that, everyone would think I am too insane to be worth catching. Sure I'd get arrested, but I would likely be set free.

  34. Realistically... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
    This would mean giving up all connections to friends and family and all the comforts of civiliation. You couldn't buy anything, including transportation. Hitchhiking would probably be out of the question, too, if they put your face on the news. Hiding in the woods would not work -- at least not anywhere "they" would conceive of looking for you. Between dogs and infrared cameras, there'd be nowhere to hide.

    Your best bet would probably be to get as far away as you can, as quickly as you can, from everything you've ever had a connection to, by some means that requires no interaction with any other person. Look to the homeless for a glimpse of your new life.

  35. The standard by AG+the+other · · Score: 1

    I could tell you but...

    --
    Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    1. Re:The standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could tell you but...

      ..but you'd have to kill me? That's what the other guy said too, and that's why I have to disappear now.

  36. "Enemy of the State" by Vexler · · Score: 1

    That's pretty much what I have to do, except maybe the part where I disrobe in front of a Chinese couple. As Brell said so eloquently, if I live another 24 hours that would be very impressive.

  37. I think the challenge is how would you disappear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wear a hat.
    Tell your wife you went to visit family.
    Use a friends basement to hide out in for a bit.
    Only use cash.

  38. declare for Congress and hold a news conference by swschrad · · Score: 1

    tell all, make the media circuit, and when the 15 minutes of fame is over, they won't care about me any more. lose the election, go home, it's over.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:declare for Congress and hold a news conference by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They have to kill you to prove to the next guy that shit won't work.

      really. its quite obvious.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Doesn't always work... by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Funny

    I only let in celebrities - or at least internet celebrities.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Doesn't always work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or whistleblowers? But then, you probably think whistleblowers only exist in communist world to expose how terrible they are to the western world, don't you?

    2. Re:Doesn't always work... by IAmR007 · · Score: 1

      So, then, show up in a convoy of cat-filled trucks. That should do the trick.

    3. Re:Doesn't always work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, you've been waiting how many years to use that line?

    4. Re:Doesn't always work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or whistleblowers? But then, you probably think whistleblowers only exist in communist world to expose how terrible they are to the western world, don't you?

      A whistleblower is someone who exposes criminal activity and/or wrongdoing. If your information doesn't reveal such things, then you're not a whistleblower you're simply publishing secrets. Most of the cables Assange got from Manning were just routine business and didn't show evidence of anything, much less wrongdoing, and had no business being published on a whistelblower's site. Which raises the question of what the purpose of the place really was- and Assange already answered that with his statement that he was going to use them to damage the US in any way possible. That's not whistleblowing, that's a personal vendetta. If you've got some kind of evidence of a wrong being committed, then I'm all for seeing it go public.

    5. Re:Doesn't always work... by Ecuador · · Score: 2

      More years than what the quality of the comment would imply.
      From the excitement I could not think of anything really clever to say, so I under-delivered...
      Oh, well, I'll get a REALLY funny in sometime in the next decade! I'll be waiting!

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  40. Find an agent ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a lawyer to represent my interests and sell the information to the highest (governmental) bidder. If a politician can buy the information (or the silence) then you can pad that number in your bank account with a few zeros and continue on like nothing happened. In fact, given the disorganization of most governments you may even be able to make the deal more than once for extra padding!

  41. Remain anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you wouldn't have these problems.

  42. Ditch Cellphone, Create insurance and dissapear by cynop · · Score: 1

    first things first: For how long would i have to stay off the grid? For argument's sake, i'll assume i'll have to be out of sight for 6 months.

    So the first thing to do is off course ditch any cell, or anything i have that can be traced. That includes cameras with gps sensors, gps devices and other similar gadgets that are location aware. I'd try to withdraw as much money as i can using ATMs in the first 3 hours, after that burn all debit/credit cards.
    I'd probably try to set up an "insurance" against my dissapearance. Something like the encrypted torrent wikileaks published. Whatever i witnessed is probably importand enough, and interesting enough that members of the press, or wikileaks would be interested for. So i'd send them an encrypted copy of the story of what i witnessed. Then i'd set up a deathswitch account http://www.deathswitch.com/ were in case i was unable to enter the password the password would be sent to all those interested. Final thing would be to let those that are after me know that they should make sure i don't die or get caught if they want the event to stay private.

    After that? Leave a note for your family letting them know that you're ok, but that you have to leave, and that they have to trust you. You'll communicate in a couple of days. Then get the hell out. Get on a bus, and try to get as far as possible from where you could be found. Stay out of major cities and try to stay low. If the search for you goes public, then change appeareances as much as you can. Different dress styles, shave your beard, color your hair etc etc. And keep running.

    1. Re:Ditch Cellphone, Create insurance and dissapear by Esteanil · · Score: 1

      I'd try to withdraw as much money as i can using ATMs in the first 3 hours, after that burn all debit/credit cards.

      I'd give the cards and the PIN to some random teenager about to head on a bus to elsewhere, preferably on a journey lasting several hours. Causes much more confusion than the electronic traces just vanishing.

      --
      I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
    2. Re:Ditch Cellphone, Create insurance and dissapear by cynop · · Score: 1

      That's an even better idea.... (i was just thinking that i'd like to keep the rest of my funds)

    3. Re:Ditch Cellphone, Create insurance and dissapear by menno_h · · Score: 1

      You would probably go to a place that you are reasonably familiar with (nothing worse than being caught because you took the wrong turn) and if you are familiar with the place, you might still have some information about it lingering on your computer (browser history, photo's) and on other people's computers (Picasa, Facebook). You'll have to have a tcp/ip server daemon running at all times on your home computer that will activate a destruction script when it receives a certain data packet.
      This script will wipe your and your family members' Google, Facebook and Twitter accounts and then modify /boot/grub.conf so that upon reboot dban is booted. The script should then activate an arduino board that sends a signal to your other computers so that they will also boot into dban by default. Then all the computers reboot and their disks are nuked.
      Send this packet with your iFoo or other electronic device and you should be a little bit safer.

      --
      AccountKiller
  43. Simple? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    I do not speak another language besides English, though I can get by in French.

    - ATM, get cash.

    - Drive to airport, ditch car in cell lot.

    - Bus into town, taxi to real bus station, bus anywhere.

    - Disposable phone. Use my wife's Google Voice account to leave her a message. Thrown in the trash at any bus stop.

    - Another bus ticket. Different direction.

    - No McDonalds. Taco Bell, or worse, for food. I'm known for my fast food habits, let's not make it too easy.

    - I'm inclined to cross the border at a place I know they are perpetually lax in one direction. I won;t be coming back for a while.

    - Find work in a kitchen. Cliché, but hey. Or landscaping. You can do this easier than you think, and I can pretty much make up Social Security numbers, easy when you know the formula. I will, of course appear to be very old. And my favored employer won't care. They still exist in North America

    Maybe this keeps me alive for a month. I obviously will not be very happy.

    - Slither into the library/etc. and create a Slashdot indentity.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Simple? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I'm not 25-45, which is fine. My biggest problem will be cash, of course. I would need a co-conspirator to solv ethat, and I might get lucky and conscript an acquaintance from way, way back in my past, someone too hard to find quickly. One I'm pretty sure would help me, the other slightly less likely. I have more if I think of them. Not a very inventive plan, but adequate. You have to pick the city carefully, since facial recognition systems are springing up everywhere. Something like Markham or York PEI. Not that I would go there, of course, Happy Valley or Cartwright would make more sense.

      If I could somehow get across the Pond, then it gets a lot easier.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - ATM, get cash.

      And they already got you. Thanks for playing.

    3. Re:Simple? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      - Bus into town, taxi to real bus station, bus anywhere.

      I would imagine they would expect you to take public transportation.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    4. Re:Simple? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Hitting the ATM has to be done within minutes. Driving to the airport is the dangerous part, they can get my plate. After that, the bus trip into town is a problem, but changing to a taxi is just vanity. I'm hoping they linger at the airport and don't catch me at the bus terminal - I'll be swapping buses before my first trip is completed. From then on the radius is pretty big.

      I need about 6 hours. In America, that's maybe 300 miles. After that it gets hard enough they will have to exert themselves. In 24 hours I should be able to get anywhere in the U.S., and then it's a bug hunt I can win if I stay anon. It's choosing the border crossing that is tough, but that is manageable.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:Simple? by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 5, Funny

      - Bus into town, taxi to real bus station, bus anywhere.

      I would imagine they would expect you to take public transportation.

      Moreover, if I have to travel by bus, just shoot me here.

    6. Re:Simple? by tooyoung · · Score: 1

      - No McDonalds. Taco Bell, or worse, for food. I'm known for my fast food habits, let's not make it too easy.

      -Waddle to the bus stop

      -Wheeze my way up the bus stairs

      -Cram myself into seat

    7. Re:Simple? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      In 24 hours I should be able to get anywhere in the U.S.

      Yeah, for that you're going to need another identity to be able to get on a plane. By ground it's going to take a while.

    8. Re:Simple? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      In the UK I'd cycle to a railway station. I could take the bike with me on the train, which would increase the possibilities for onward travel but keep it difficult to be tracked.

      Crossing the border is more difficult, but probably more necessary than in the US. One option would be to try and stowaway in a lorry heading to France on the train or ferry, I don't think the checks for entering France are that thorough -- but it's still a pretty high risk.

      In continental Europe I'd do the same, except it's much easier to find somewhere to disappear (so many more options, easy to go somewhere and seem like a migrant worker), and/or to leave the EU completely.

    9. Re:Simple? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "I do not speak another language besides English"

      The summary said "you are able to speak one language apart from good English."

      Are you sure you don't speak C or some other programming language? This is /., so that has to count!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    10. Re:Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's choosing the border crossing that is tough, but that is manageable."

      The only tough part is deciding which longitude you want to cross the 49th parallel at. Longest unguarded border in the world.

    11. Re:Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flaws in your plan are the ATM trip and contacting that Google Voice account. Both will get you nailed.

    12. Re:Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine they would expect you to take public transportation.

      Why? It's less flexible? I think most people instinctively would take their car.

  44. Took this long? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    To come up with Ecuador?

  45. You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Luckily enough, this will not cause any change in your plans...

    TBH, one other poster has a good idea. If you disappear for a couple of months you're likely to drop away and be lost until they look again for you for some reason. Go camping for a while.

    Whilst you're "offline", work out what evidence you have and figure out a dissemination policy. If you have none, work out who is "after you" and what that means to them, attack being a good defence. Failing that, ignore the problem.

    Back to civilisation, disseminate as widely as possible all the data you have before getting back to your life. Investigate and procure information on those you need protection from and if you thereafter think you're being brought in, don't bother playing by the rules. If they're thinking "the rules don't apply to me" then show them what it means when the rules of civilised conduct REALLY don't apply.

    And if you have to preemt an attack, don't worry about getting big people, nor even the involved.

    If Hollywood action movies have taught me anything, it's that the Big Bad ALWAYS thinks their family is out of harms way. If you're going to be boned, show them how wrong they are. Civilised actions preclude it, but like I said, they think those rules don't apply to them.

    Make it so.

    1. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've seen the justice4assange web site.

      now perhaps you could point us to "evidence," instead of incredibly biased speculation?

    2. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Luckily enough, this will not cause any change in your plans...

      TBH, one other poster has a good idea. If you disappear for a couple of months you're likely to drop away and be lost until they look again for you for some reason. Go camping for a while.

      Whilst you're "offline", work out what evidence you have and figure out a dissemination policy. If you have none, work out who is "after you" and what that means to them, attack being a good defence. Failing that, ignore the problem.

      Back to civilisation, disseminate as widely as possible all the data you have before getting back to your life. Investigate and procure information on those you need protection from and if you thereafter think you're being brought in, don't bother playing by the rules. If they're thinking "the rules don't apply to me" then show them what it means when the rules of civilised conduct REALLY don't apply.

      And if you have to preemt an attack, don't worry about getting big people, nor even the involved.

      If Hollywood action movies have taught me anything, it's that the Big Bad ALWAYS thinks their family is out of harms way. If you're going to be boned, show them how wrong they are. Civilised actions preclude it, but like I said, they think those rules don't apply to them.

      Make it so.

      Pretty much this. The AC parent has a good grasp on the only long shot way to survive something like that. All bets are off when something like that goes down. Rules do not apply.

    3. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Rix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Welcome to every watch list, ever.

    4. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Welcome to every watch list, ever."

      Kind of along that line:

      If you're "rationally paranoid" at all, you don't keep most of your money in the bank anymore anyway. And why should you? It doesn't earn enough interest to be worth it.

    5. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, "most of your money" for many people is whatever amount happens to be left over from your last paycheck that you hope you can stretch to the next one.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    6. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      way to survive something like that. All bets are off when something like that goes down.

      Uh, something like what, exactly? I'm sorry, but without knowing what this "strange event" that I supposedly witnessed was, there's not really any way to hatch a good plan to clear your name. Such plans would also vary drastically by country and more importantly, the specific crime (which again, we don't know). If we accept the requirement that we MUST disappear, then we should probably assume the question is assuming we have to disappear forever.

    7. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Make it so.

      Picard? Is it you?

    8. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself (or, for your country). I'm getting a solid 12% a year, in a country where inflation is 5-6%. Even after the government takes its toll (27.5% of all interest collected) I still get 2-3% above inflation.

    9. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If you're "rationally paranoid" at all, you don't keep most of your money in the bank anymore anyway.

      And keep it...where, exactly? Under your mattress? That's not precisely a high-security solution. In this world of toil and sin, an FDIC-guaranteed savings account is about as safe as it gets.

    10. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      show them what it means when the rules of civilised conduct REALLY don't apply

      This assumes a LOT of things. It assumes you have no "soft spots" like family, it assumes you really know how deep the rabbit hole goes, and it assumes you don't mind giving them a really good, and provable justification for putting you away.

      If Hollywood action movies have taught me anything

      I am amazed that you think they can teach you anything beyond the psychological tricks and the intentions of the moviemakers and the like. Hopefully they didn't also teach you stuff like calling someone and hanging up in less than one minute means they cannot track you.

      Looking at your suggestion as a whole it seems the action movies actually taught you that the Rambo approach really works. When did you ever see it working in real life ? What you see in the TV news is "terrorists" who probably often are someone having been pushed too far just like the scenario we are discussing. Most people just see these as criminals, and it is not uncommon that media gives them an undeservedly bad image.

      In short I would suggest your approach in many situations is "what they want you to do" rather than the best solution.

    11. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by cs668 · · Score: 1

      Tell me where, I'll open an account!

    12. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

      Also called: you really need to keep at least 3months expenses in savings.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the OP just wanted to get away from being on-call for a few months...

    14. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that so true? I hate how the american economy has been set up.

    15. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Assuming you have not been made the aforementioned enemy of the state.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    16. Re:You're a slashdotter all right. by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      TBH, one other poster has a good idea. If you disappear for a couple of months you're likely to drop away and be lost until they look again for you for some reason. Go camping for a while.

      Great, idea.
      So they follow you into the woods, and knock you off miles from civilization. Nobody finds your body, and even if they do, it looks like you were eaten by a grue...err..bear.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  46. Can't tell all but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    involves a shrink ray.

  47. could be worse by kc600 · · Score: 1

    So the cell phone still works, the computer isn't hacked, the car hasn't exploded yet?

  48. First thing you'd need: a time machine by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    It takes a lot of time, preparation and MONEY to disappear permanently and effectively. You need a separate identity that already has a well-established "legend" and has no links of any sort to anyone in your "old" life. You can't just do that at the snap of a finger. It would take years to build up your "other you": credit rating, job history, you'd need to be running 2 homes some distance apart and in this day of FB tagging you'd need to make sure you weren't involved with anyone who owned a smartphone.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  49. Straightforward answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a lot of going against the spirit of the question, but to be more straightforward, you want to do a couple of things:

    1) Get rid of your identity and get some cash - wipe and sell your phone, jewellery and anything else valuable on your person.
    2) Get a backpack and clothes from a secondhand shop
    3) Go to the library and find obituaries for kids in rural areas of different locales who died young and were born around when you were - steal their identities and open bank and credit accounts in their names
    4) Get out of town by bus and find a DMV to issue you a license with one of your new identities - use it as identification for a low profile job

    (Some of these steps are probably illegal. I don't recommend doing any of it.)

  50. I can tell you what I WOULDN'T do. by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 1

    ...and that's post about the precise details of my plan on the internet.

    OPSEC, motherfuckers.

  51. Step 1 by Zadaz · · Score: 3, Informative

    I doubt it's hard, technically to truly disappear. The hard part is that you have to be willing to leave absolutely everything behind.

    Step 1: Phone off, battery out. If battery can't come out it gets destroyed.

    Step 2: Wipe and leave behind anything that connects to the Internet.

    Step 3: Turn everything into cash immediately.

    You won't be able to hide that you're doing a runner, but you can make it harder to get your trail after you do run.

    Get a hair cut, color hair (just 2 shades different, not drastic), add/remove facial hair, buy some cheap glasses frames with 0 correction glass in them. Buy entirely different wardrobe, half from Wal-mart, half from thrift stores.

    A trip to Kinko's to print a temp set of fraudulent license plates for my car. Or better yet, swap plates with someone with the same model and color as mine. Or best give a buddy who looks like you $500 to drive the car to city X and fly back. You take the train/bus to city Y, in a different time zone from X and forget about the car.

    After that it would depend on how much cash I had and how well connected the people after me wanted me. A good fake ID would be in the loop somewhere, but I honestly don't know anywhere to do that in person any more. Some time at cafés or public libraries with computers (and some attentive browser washing) would probably turn up something. Drive to a city chosen completely at random that I don't have any previous contact with. (No visits, family, friends, etc.) Population of at least 50K.

    I'm not sure if I'd leave the country or not. (In this case I'm in the US.) It would require a better fake ID and borders are choke points of surveillance. Also fingerprints.

    If I felt the need to send "I'm okay" information to my friends or family I'd do it through the post at least a 3 hour drive from where I've set up camp. No return address.

    1. Re:Step 1 by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Seriously, No one is going to watch your random youtube video with conspiratorial claims in it.
      No one.

      Of those 0 people who do watch it. -5 of them will believe you. Yes the disbelief is so powerful that it actually causes people who have not watched it to beleive the opposite of your view.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Step 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually your cell phone bit gave me a far better idea: Hit a truck stop, plant phone on a truck as it's leaving.

      Benefit: If they can already track your phone/contacts, then destroying the phone is moot. (Since they either already have the information, or can spoof calls to/from your number.) However if the phone is placed on vehicle with limited stops but long travel distances, it could get them chasing their tail while gaining you a few minutes or hours to truly disappear.

    3. Re:Step 1 by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Take the cab to a tourist location that is at least an hour's drive away, but is within a twenty minute walking distance from the nearest Amtrak station

      You know, that's a tall order if you don't live in a pretty big city already.

    4. Re:Step 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice job all of those plays are going to be watched for now

      thanks a bunch.

    5. Re:Step 1 by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      nice job all of those plays are going to be watched for now

      *shrugs*

      You really can't fault me for following my own step one....

      Some other helpful tips:

      • Dress in layers and discard them often. Wear many hats.
      • If you're ever being tailed by spooks on foot, walk to the red light district and pay a few hookers a hundred bucks each to hit on the agents. It might not be enough to get them off your tail, but it'll sure piss them off, and an angry spook is more likely to make mistakes.
      • Although carpet tacks could ostensibly disable spooks' cars, they're dangerous to other drivers, and thus should be avoided. If you happen to own an EMP/HERF gun, on the other hand....
      • It helps if you own a fast motorcycle. Remember that the spooks probably are in cars and helicopters. Either way, you can probably outrun them on a Ducati, assuming you live long enough to get out on the open road.
      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Step 1 by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Seriously, No one is going to watch your random youtube video with conspiratorial claims in it.

      You'll notice that I said you should post the video on YouTube, not a video. By the statement's wording, it should be clear that what I meant was if you have video evidence, e.g. a cell phone recording of what went down, post it to YouTube.

      Not a video of you, the video of the event.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Step 1 by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You know, that's a tall order if you don't live in a pretty big city already.

      From the original question: "You are native to and live in a big city (> 1M pop)...". You're changing the question....

      That said, if you want my "I've got to disappear" plan for a small town, that's actually a bit easier. Just call up a few of your friends and tell them a bunch of creepy dudes in suits are chasing you. Ten minutes later, half the town is standing out there with shotguns saying, "We don't like your kind around here, and we'd like you to leave." And if they don't... well, let's just say that you've never seen an butt-whoopin' 'til you've seen a southern-style butt-whoopin'. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Step 1 by Asgerix · · Score: 1

      Or best give a buddy who looks like you $500 to drive the car to city X and fly back.

      Make that a buddy you don't care too much about, just in case.

      --
      Life is wet, then you dry.
    9. Re:Step 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buy some cheap glasses frames with 0 correction glass in them

      But then how will I see?! You insensitive clod!

    10. Re:Step 1 by chefmonkey · · Score: 1

      San Antonio? You're going to take a cab 160 miles to the border? I doubt you're talking any cab driver into doing that. Perhaps you meant El Paso? (But crossing from El Paso to Juarez has its own set of problems: I'd take capture by the feds over decapitation by the Zetas.)

    11. Re:Step 1 by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I didn't see El Paso when I did a quick skim of stations in the area, so I figured you'd have to bus it from somewhere else. But yeah, if there's an Amtrak station at El Paso, that would probably work better.

      As for whether Mexico is safe, I believe I did suggest immediately grabbing a cab and going to the nearest airport.... :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Step 1 by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      You've recently seen "The next 3 days" haven't you?

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    13. Re:Step 1 by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      How about just leaving the car in a not so great part of town with the keys in it while procuring a "new" car from a resident.

  52. You're screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was anything serious, you would be on a radio based neural interface within minutes.

    There is no vanishing anymore, this is not the 50's or 60's.

  53. Sans Cell Phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any plan has to include turning all of your family's cell phones off.

  54. Step 1 by dgatwood · · Score: 2

    Step 1: Post the video on YouTube. After that, too many people have seen it, and other than revenge, there's no good reason to come after me.

    If that isn't an option, step one would be to publicly post my escape plan, then do something completely different.

    The best overall solution is probably to try to get lost in a crowd:

    1. Head for a busy shopping mall, exit through a nonstandard door, setting off the fire alarm as you do so.
    2. In the resulting confusion, slip into a subway station and grab the first train.
    3. Go exactly one station, leave your cell phone on the train (concealed), and then without exiting the station, change trains to go back in the opposite direction. Stay in the middle of a group of people on the train while you're passing the original station to avoid being seen by any spooks on the platform.
    4. Go several stations, get off, and hail a cab.
    5. Take the cab to an ATM (they're more than willing to stop and wait) and get as much cash as you can in a single day.
    6. Take the cab to a tourist location that is at least an hour's drive away, but is within a twenty minute walking distance from the nearest Amtrak station. Pay for the cab fare in cash.
    7. Walk to the Amtrak station and buy a train ticket with cash.
    8. Travel to your nearest border or near-border train stop (San Diego, Seattle, Niagara Falls, San Antonio, etc.), paying only in cash.
    9. Hail a cab for the border. Cross.
    10. Hail a cab and travel to the nearest airport in another country.
    11. Fly somewhere else.

    If you're lucky, by the time they follow the trail of security camera breadcrumbs to your final subway stop, contact all the cab companies to find out if they picked up anybody near there, figure out where they took you, and check all the security cameras for all the transit hubs near there, you'll be across the border. If you're really feeling insane, buy an Amtrak ticket to a different destination on a different route (using a credit card with your real name) just before you head a different direction. As long as the platform is outdoors, it is unlikely that they'll be able to determine whether you did or did not get on that particular train, which might provide an additional delay.

    Oh, yes, and as you're getting out of the cab, give a homeless person one of your credit cards. Make them chase a ghost.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  55. sell everything by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    sell my house, my car, all the rest of my possessions, keep and spend ONLY cash, (no credit cards, no bank accounts) buy a dual sport motorcycle and some camping gear and leave civilization, camp out in remote wilderness areas, (not state or federal camp grounds) and you can forget a cellphone, forget a smart phone, the only electronics you should even have would be a portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio receiver if you just got to have one for news & weather, music, general talk and bullshit to listen to.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:sell everything by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      sell my house, my car, all the rest of my possessions, keep and spend ONLY cash, (no credit cards, no bank accounts) buy a dual sport motorcycle and some camping gear and leave civilization, camp out in remote wilderness areas, (not state or federal camp grounds) and you can forget a cellphone, forget a smart phone, the only electronics you should even have would be a portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio receiver if you just got to have one for news & weather, music, general talk and bullshit to listen to.

      Selling your house could take well over a month, possibly several.

    2. Re:sell everything by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Ok, you're going to really try to sell a house in this market in less than 24 hours?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:sell everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAIL.

      Selling a house in Phoenix metro area can take up to a year with how shitty the market is. If you undercut the price by a huge margin you might get some cash in a week at the soonest. By that time you're already dead.

    4. Re:sell everything by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      In today's housing market, you could finish your prison sentence before the house sells.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:sell everything by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Sure. If the price is right.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    6. Re:sell everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, in fact, impossible to turn American real estate into cash in 24 hours. The paperwork alone takes longer than that.

    7. Re:sell everything by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Under normal circumstances it might not be but if the price is right there are people that will give you money before paperwork is completed. Nothing is impossible when it comes to money.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    8. Re:sell everything by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      Sell your house? So you're working on the premise that the people after you aren't in any real rush to nail you then...

      --

      jh

    9. Re:sell everything by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      You'd have to be a real chump to pay for a house before the paperwork goes through. You'd have to be an even bigger chump to pay for a house without paperwork from a guy who contacted you the same day. Regardless of price, you'd have to find a real idiot to make it work.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  56. Go to Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Go to Mexico, buy a Fast and Furious gun, bring it back to America and kill somebody with it. You'll be completely invisible to Obama's administration and to major news media.

    1. Re:Go to Mexico by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      shit, the weapons sold during the fast & furious fiasco are about the same as what I have already... only thing I need is ammo and I'm good.
      The rest just pops out of the people I shoot. Like in video game.... right?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  57. To dissappear... by Smivs · · Score: 1

    I'd just delete my facebook account...

    1. Re:To dissappear... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      So you are fictional entity residing only in Facebook and posting on slashdot. Oh my god, skynet is live!

  58. Texas to Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Living in Texas this sort of scenario has occurred to me before. First things first:

    Grab the backpack of clothes, jacket, cash, a heavy knife, and burner netbook (aquired second hand a couple of years ago) all wrapped in plastic. Pull out as much cash from the nearest ATM as possible as quickly as possible, and get in contact with the most trusted friend possible in the shortest amount of time. Leave my cell phone with him, ask to borrow car or if he/she will rent a car for me with the intent of avoiding license plate scanners. Make it to the nearest Rio Grande Crossing (ideally I would already be near El Paso, though no one in their right mind lives there).

    Once in Mexico I would change my appearance and acquire a false identity as quickly and efficiently as possible. From there it's a matter of finding shelter and income while remaining anonymous. Probably I would teach English and tutor in math/computer stuff until I could afford to open a small bar on the beach and live happily ever after in a country that does not extradite to the United States.

  59. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody misses him either.

  60. Ignore it... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... and continue as normal.
    Give them enough time to leave the USB stick with the case notes in a pub, and forget all about it.

  61. French Foreign Legion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pretty much it.

  62. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I'd do whatever jon katz did. I mean, nobody has heard of him lately.

    Write books about dogs and their experiences in this post-columbine hellmouth world?

  63. Easy by hawguy · · Score: 1

    I'd just delete my Facebook account and then send regular Tweets about how the cops can't find me.

    1. Re:Easy by tftp · · Score: 1

      First, nobody ever expects you to lay low in a nice place.

      For a good reason. A nice place will not ask for cash -- they use credit cards and they ask for one before you get the key. If you walk in and pay in cash it will be a huge red flag already. Expensive hotels protect their guests, so they don't want any weirdo to stay in the room next to a Wall Street banker. Those hotels have security personnel and they are often close with police, and the hallways are packed with cameras.

      lay low for a week or so

      Doesn't make any sense. You are transitioning from "legal, under observation" to "illegal, fugitive." Why in the world would you give them time to realize that you escaped? Laying low helps only if you expect that the manhunt will be called off after a few days. Do you have such an expectation - and if yes, why? It does not cost anything to have your photos uploaded into cameras and posted on all police bulletin boards. Your best bet would be to move fast, one step ahead of your admirers.

    2. Re:Easy by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      Sure they do. I've stayed in five star hotels without a card before. Worst case, you use a pre-paid mall card. Those are anonymous, and easy to come by.

      I don't know why the outline said you wanted to hide out for a short period of time. I assumed a week would suffice. Like I said though: If I was going to hide out for a longer period of time, I would get myself on a slow boat to Ecuador. Nobody really expects you to be on a cargo ship. By the time anyone figured it out, you would be long gone.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    3. Re:Easy by tftp · · Score: 1

      I've stayed in five star hotels without a card before.

      But you don't know how closely the security looked at you because they did that quietly. They found no reason to suspect you since you were not on a list of wanted persons.

      I would get myself on a slow boat to Ecuador

      It's dangerous to confine yourself to a boat from which there is no escape. You cannot be taken aboard before the captain checks your visa and records your name into the ship's books. Perhaps one can become a stowaway, but for that to work you have to know how ships operate. Most people have no clue where one can hide on a ship or even how to get onto one. You may be better off crossing into Mexico on land, especially because the US government does not even pretend to guard the border. Crossing into Canada would be also easy enough. You can take the next step from there.

    4. Re:Easy by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      Good point on the first one. But in both cases, that's why I have the alternate passport in another name. It happens to be an Israeli passport, which has a couple of advantages:

      1. My name won't be on a list of wanted persons, because nobody knows I have it.
      2. Visa free travel to almost all South American countries.

      :)

      Hypothetically, assuming the scenario was actually true and I had these resources, that is.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
  64. Not Bourne but Grisham by Megahard · · Score: 2
    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  65. Ecuadorian embassy by yoldapirate · · Score: 0

    Search Google maps for the nearest Ecuadorian embassy.

  66. What hide? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Go up to the guy following you, "Hi. My IQ is about eight billion. I couldn't help but notice someone used a raygun back there. Whether you have invented this or are trying to reverse alien technology, I want in. Go tell your bosses. Off you go now. I'll wait."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  67. How "disappear" do you want? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you are going to disappear for a short period, get cash, live in a cash-only motel and contact nobody. A one-time cash withdrawl near home will not tip anyone off as to your location.

    If you wanted off the grid completely, you are screwed. You have to have previous long-term plans in place to disappear (and 99% of your cash in the bank is not indicative of such planning). For medium term, take a trip to a country that speaks your second language, but not much English and go some place small, where another person from your country would stand out. Don't hide, go out, make friends. Let them know you think others are after you, they'll warn you if the time comes.

    If the question is "how do I live indefinately looking over my shoulder",
    Step 1. Drop all routine. Change your route to work daily. Vary your time of any activity by 10 minutes or more every day. Get a gun permit (gun optional, the permit will be found by those after you and cause them extra caution, but if you are comfortable, get the gun to go with it). If you get a gun, get 10. Check them daily. Get them all the same caliber. Keep 100 rounds on you at all times, and magazines stashed around with and separate from the guns.
    Buy lots of the WiFi webcams and stream them to a local computer, as well as a cloud storage you have someone else buy on your behalf. Make sure to do both. Everyone stops when they find what they are looking for, except in the movies. If they find the local storage, they won't look for the cloud. If they track the cloud first, they won't look for the local. If you are overly worried about it, buy an old laptop and set it up, then tear down some sheetrock and put the laptop inside your wall, patch it up good, and they won't find it. Ever. Bodies were being found 50 years after mob murders in building sites so concealed. Get a UPS for the local computer and Internet so if your power is cut, you get recording.
    Document what you saw, send it to your lawyer. And your family. Figure out why they are after you, and either work with them or against them until they have no more worries about what you know/saw.

    1. Re:How "disappear" do you want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the flip side: "Hmm target has a gun license. i guess we better shoot first, ask questions later"

      Fail.

    2. Re:How "disappear" do you want? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If they were willing to kill you, they'd do it regardless. If the goal was to eliminate you from afar, a sniper will kill you, and there's nothing you can really do about it. But if they wanted to make it look like an accident, you bought yourself time. They'd expect you to be armed, and someone with a gun in their hand that fired 4 shots didn't voluntarily jump from the roof. So they'd have to take more time and planning if they wanted you to meet a "natural" death under a bus or in the shower.

    3. Re:How "disappear" do you want? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      if your with cash only, they don't know who you are.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:How "disappear" do you want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "gun permit" (we don't even have those in my state...) is a bad idea, you're going to get caught a thousand times over in the process of doing that, with all the government contact required. It's also not going to make them more cautious. It's going to make them more likely to shoot first and ask question later. You've made it easier for them to tell the press "He was armed and dangerous, we had to".

    5. Re:How "disappear" do you want? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If they wanted to catch you, the 1 hr time when you are starting to think they are following you is when they'll drag you in. Hauling you away in a public manner with a paper trail while registering for a license isn't going to be their second choice.

      What state are you in that doesn't have a carry-concealed permit?

  68. Help! by fm6 · · Score: 1

    I'm stuck in a bad movie and I can't get out!

  69. seriously though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    goal - non-extradition country which is pretty, cash is king, sell fish tacos on beach. Probably Belize... internet seems to think you can pay $25k to government donation which will get you legal citizenship and a family that will vouch you were born and raised with them.

    stay public, grab spouse, pull cash, max credit cards on prepaid gift cards (these can be sold for 90% face value cash out in a few months), dispose of all electronics, buy goodwill clothes to keep low profile including hat. Greyhound ticket with cash to border town, cross border into Mexico, get to private flight instructor with only plane (no GPS, transponder), pay cash as tourist for a landing in Belize...kill instructor (only witness to know your location), sink plane - start new life in favela factory selling soda.

  70. Go to Cambodia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...Or any third world country.
    It's very hard to get "off the grid" in a modernized country.
    Most things take documents and ID, and people generally don't accept bribes.

    If you were able to get to a third world country, disappearing would be a easy. Money goes a long way and people are more relaxed about needing passports and ID. There's lots of under-the-table dealings for work, so it's not like you need a social security card. There's good transportation and Cambodia shares an extremely porous border with Vietnam, Thailand and Lao. Tell people you're canadian. Blend in with the backpackers and disappear. You could spend the rest of your days on the beach with beautiful asian chicks...or sweaty backpackers.

    1. Re:Go to Cambodia by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      Although its just a good idea generally to tell people you're Canadian.

  71. Simples by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Create a holding company.

    Have it buy a cabin in the woods.

    Me move into cabin in the woods.

    Have holding company pay taxes, utilities, etc.

    If I really wanted to hide, set up a network of holding companies to hide the holding company with the cabin.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Simples by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you hadn't thought of that ahead of time, it's not going to do you any good the first day, unless you have the time to file the paperwork in belize or the cook islands, unless you want a passthrough LLC in your state; which isn't really going to do you much good. Even then, to do the whole thing in a day would still be a bitch. You would need a lot of cash, because there's no way you would be able to establish a bank account for your new holding company anywhere.And then there's real estate: closing is going to be a problem in that time frame. Not saying it can't be done... but you're pushing it.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
  72. Nope, not kidding, you just didn't read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll say it again in ickle words for the hard-of-thinking.

    Disappear a bit.
    They will lose track of you.
    Disseminate your stuff before you get back on the radar.
    If the delay between you doing this and them spotting you, then the damage is done. After that, the ONLY reason they will continue is if you embarrased some shitkicker. In which case, they obviously do not believe the rules apply.

    In which case, go wild, do whatever you want. Because they will.

    Read up on what "Total War" means and then apply it.

  73. Easy by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

    If the first 24 hours are all I care about, I go to my safe and pull out the alternate passport, which happens to be in a different name and a couple of bucks from the stash. Then I go to another city to rent a five star hotel room and lay low for a week or so. First, nobody ever expects you to lay low in a nice place. Secondly, the systems that track you aren't especially bright, or tied together in the ways you would think they might be from watching tv and movies. If I cared about a larger span of time, I would probably pull a larger chunk of money out, and head to Ecuador with the family. I might do that anyway, though.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
  74. Ahem by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know who's really asking this question, don't you? The cops are looking for somebody, and the trail went cold. So now, they're crowd sourcing "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego"

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea. But you know where they won't look: San Diego

    2. Re:Ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check near monuments and stuff...

  75. Homework problems? by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    Crap, the school year's started. Now how many stupid questions are we going to get?

    (and doesn't everyone keep a bug out bag in their car, next to the emergency preparedness kit? I've hit mine up a few times over the years, even just for simple things like 'had to work all night, I could use a fresh change of clothes')

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  76. For research purposes... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    This man knows how to run from even the most well-connected foes.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  77. Moon Prism Power, Make Up by bidule · · Score: 3, Funny

    Once in my magical girl outfit, I'd fight those evil men. I'd prolly scare them to death too.

    That may not be the kind of fantasy you were looking for, though.

    --
    ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    1. Re:Moon Prism Power, Make Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this Moon prism?

    2. Re:Moon Prism Power, Make Up by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      What are you doing, Usagi-chan? You don't know how to use computers.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    3. Re:Moon Prism Power, Make Up by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I know you ... you're that 300 pound guy from the last Comic-con.

      --
      Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
      "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
    4. Re:Moon Prism Power, Make Up by bidule · · Score: 1

      Hey, I know you ... you're that 300 pound guy from the last Comic-con.

      If that floats your boat, sure. But please, I don't wanna know how I look like.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    5. Re:Moon Prism Power, Make Up by bidule · · Score: 1

      What are you doing, Usagi-chan? You don't know how to use computers.

      That was only true in the Beta world line.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  78. Write your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude! Write your own fucking book. Don't ask the collective wisdom of slashdot to write the main plot elements for you. You could at least have tried to disguise why you were asking. Duh! If you've got writer's block and a deadline (or just no imagination) tough luck. We, here, won't write your novel for you...

  79. The plan by Pontiac · · Score: 1

    You think I'm going to just post my plan so you can use it against me later on?? Nice try..

    --
    If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
  80. Do I love/trust my government? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Whether I'm a blindly loyal North Korean citizen who never questions his government or a happy Westerner who happens to live in a (hypothetical?) country with an honest government with only honest government officials, I'd probably go to the nearest police station and tell them I was being followed and let them deal with it.

    On the other extreme, if I were paranoid I'm not sure what I would do. If I realistically thought "they" were bound to get me sooner or later and I would face a fate worse than death, I might save them the trouble.

    As for the "in the middle" situations, I tend not to worry about it. I mean, what are the odds[NO CARRIER]

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Do I love/trust my government? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      FWIW at least they had the common courtesy to hit the Submit button before dragging you off!

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  81. turn myself in and become part of the conspiracy by ThorGod · · Score: 1

    There's a reason this option is never illustrated in film/story lines...it's boring. But, between a bullet in the head and cooperating, I'd cooperate.

    It's like in TNG when Trelane threatens to destroy the Enterprise. The Captain orders everyone to go about their business as usual. He's not a quitter, but what chance does his crew stand against a Q, aka god? None. So either go about your business or find a way to survive in the situation.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  82. Traffic Stops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avoiding law enforcement officer contact is your main problem as it's a well known fact that a large fraction of fugitives are caught during a traffic stop.

    In the scenario above you're already being followed and if that's by government agents then you're probably done no matter what. The fact that they're following you and haven't actually arrested you yet means you have a little bit of flexibility. I'd probably go for broke and calmly head to the most crowded place I could think of like maybe a popular mall. Gotta ditch the cell phone somehow though so either slip it onto a cleaning cart or somebody's bag when they aren't looking. Just keep it moving and preferably away from you. If all else fails just accidentally "lose" it in a trafficked area. If I thought I'd given them the slip, I'd probably go into the bathroom and assuming it has droptile ceilings, I'd crawl up into it and wait. Hopefully they'd assume I was gone and just slipped away from them somehow.

    The summary says I have 99 percent of my money in the bank so I'll choose the convenient figure of 1,000,000 dollars meaning I have roughly 9,000 buried in an undisclosed location known only to myself and 1,000 dollars cash in my pocket. When I drop down out of the ceiling the next day around late evening, I quickly go to the JC Penny and get some different color clothes with the money I have in my pocket. Then I go to Spencer's and pick out one of the hats with the funny hair sewn in to put on and some faux hipster glasses. Lastly before I leave, I'll find somewhere that sells razors and work on the scruff in the bathroom stall.

    Now I look reasonably different so won't be immediately spotted on sight. Fortunately for me, the aforementioned "undisclosed location" is just adjacent to the mall so I head over there and retrieve my money. Next, just like Jason Bourne, I find some young broke person who'll trade me a ride for a good sum of money. Public transportation and taxis are out of the question for obvious reasons. Now, sadly, the person that gave me the ride knows my face and if I show up on the news he will probably know it is me. Since he knows where he took me, he'll be able to tip the authorities off. One way to mitigate that is to get him to get you close enough that you can make it either by walking or biking, say 100 miles away. So if I wanted to go to Tampa, I'd get him to drop me off in Orlando. When I finally make it to Tampa under my own steam, I've already by this time substantially changed my appearance with hair dye, unevenly soled shoes to force a different gait, accessories that I wouldn't ordinarily wear, and so on.

    Now I need to find a place to hole up without needing an id as while I still have it on me, I can't use it anywhere it will be recorded. That's easy. I get the weekly free rag and find a "rooming house". Basically a house where you have your own room but share the shower and the common area with a few other guys living there. I've still got over 7500 dollars so I can stay there a while with that.

    At this point, you need to work on 2 main things. 1) put together a story and some documentation and 2) find a romantic interest and make them fall madly in love with you. The second part is relatively easy but the first part is a little tricky. Obviously government issued id ain't happening so you'll just have to resort to stuff like fake college id, ymca id, etc. If you put it all together in your wallet and make it look right you can even walk away from an LEO with it.

    And that's the holy grail to feel "safe" on the run. Do you have a legitimate chance of walking away from an encounter with a cop. Obviously you don't want to push your luck so no law breaking and stay out of public as much as you can. With your newfound love interest, figure out a way that you can work from home. Maybe start an ebay business or whatever. Write iPhone apps whatever it takes just do it all in her name.

    What you really need is government issued identification. In our

  83. Have Lots of Bribing Cash On Hand by reallocate · · Score: 1

    Computer savvy or not, you almost certainly would not be able to erase all traces of you on the net, in any amount of time.

    So, your focus ought to be on keeping people from locating you, the physical being.

    So, change your appearance, dramatically. Shave the head. Shave the beard. Wear lifts in the shoes. Color the hair. Wear a dress. Or a suit. Or a keffiyeh. Slouch. Or straighten up.

    Don't use credit. If you're lucky, you had $500,000 or so in cash and a box of diamonds on hand before you decided to vanish. If not, find an untraceable way to get it.

    Go somewhere awful with miserable infrastructure and officials who can be bribed. Bribe them. Continue to bribe them. Hope no one bribes them more to turn you over.

    Disappearing is very, very difficult.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Have Lots of Bribing Cash On Hand by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Disappearing is very, very difficult."
      no, it's trivially easy.
      Disappear and still participating in everyday society? less so.

      I like how you plan require 500,000 dollars. THAT"S practical. Oh, and if the country is so corrupt you can bribe officials, then someone is just going to kill you for your cash.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Have Lots of Bribing Cash On Hand by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Well, I did say disappearing is very, very difficult.

      The post was a tinge sarcastic, We leave so many traces of ourselves behind that actually disappearing and not being found would be almost impossible for anyone who had not been planning it for some time, if a serious and sustained effort was made to find them. To do it on the spur of the moment, with our credit and online histories intact and pointing to us, seems almost impossible to me. You wouldn't be disappearing so much as hiding.

      As for the money, well, if you don't have cash, then you have to use credit, which means you send up a red flare. Using credit means getting found. Cash can be used for illegal bribes or legal bribes. Any number of countries will give you residence status on payment of a substantial fee. The illegal bribing part could be useful in acquiring a passport under a new name from your new country.

      And, yes, you're right about the risks of holding all that cash.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  84. Would you trust the answers you got from Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you accidentally witnessed something "strange" and believed that you were being followed in the real world, your actions should not and would not resemble what your character would do in a movie, and neither would "the government".

    So posing the question to a bunch of nerds on the internet wouldn't make sense.

    If you're a novelist looking to write some movie, however, and you run out of good ideas, you might ask Slashdot for a bunch of ideas for your story, posing your question in the way that was done in this story. That would certainly result in lots of ideas being generated by random strangers to fix your writer's block.

  85. Criss-Cross by rbrander · · Score: 1

    Remember the movie (or remember the references to it in "Throw Momma From the Train") where two strangers agree to kill each other's targets? No connection between victim and killer.

    If you can have ONE buddy that NOBODY else knows about, you just go stay at his house. You agree to do the same for him. Since both your odds of needing the service are about a zillion to one, it's a cheap promise to make. You just have to pick the right guy who will actually come through for you - and not squeal when doing so.

    This creates the problem of making that good a friend without ever corresponding with each other over any electronic network, now that it seems prudent to assume that "Total Information Awareness" has actually been implemented and that giant NSA data centre is hoovering up all e-mail. It would be better to never even phone each other.

    For the true paranoid, add the problem that just joking about it over beers with another soccer dad during the kids practice and exchanging addresses and promises might not be distant enough.

    I'm reverting to fiction here, but it's conceivable that the "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" scenario could happen to you, since you're being very paranoid to start with. In the book (not the Chevy Chase movie), the Invisible Man has a well-funded and relentless secret organization spending months and years trying to find him. He methodically thinks of the least-connected-to-him person possible, whom he can still find. He calls this guy he spent part of a summer working with in high school and hasn't seen in over 10 years - and, yes, that guy had been called by the government. Called upon physically, they poked around a bit while doing a "security check for a sensitive job offer".

    So to find your Paranoia Buddy, you'd want to go through a couple of "degrees of separation" - ask that other soccer dad to recommend a friend *he* knows only a little, and not through electronics - and then maybe ask THAT guy for a recommendation. Or just do your buddy-shopping on the web, through whatever level of anonymizer you imagine trustworthy.

    You can also have "paranoia buddies" that ARE connected to you, but only for resources, not a place to stay. You could trade copies of car keys with a friend and basically steal his car. Yes, by a few days later, your government tormentors would find him and be told that his car did disappear, but he didn't see you and has no idea where you are. That gives you a car for perhaps a day - long enough to be a thousand miles away in some random direction. If your unfindable buddy has a garage, they can't even find the car. Indeed, you could actually see him - he can cheerfully tell police that, yes, he stopped by, borrowed my car, gave me a cheque in return for $1000 cash, because you were a victim of identity theft and lost your keys and cards in the bargain - nothing illegal about him doing that, and he really does know nothing more.

    These scenarios in movies are generally about a Man Alone - much more dramatic - but real spy stories emphasize that building up a network of (quiet) friends is a spy's best set of resources.

    1. Re:Criss-Cross by littlewink · · Score: 1

      "If you can have ONE buddy that NOBODY else knows about, you just go stay at his house. You agree to do the same for him. Since both your odds of needing the service are about a zillion to one, it's a cheap promise to make. You just have to pick the right guy who will actually come through for you - and not squeal when doing so." And what happens if TSHTF for both of you at the same time, not an unlikely possibility if government is the instigator of change? Where's Plan B?

  86. Here's your problem. by faedle · · Score: 1

    "99% of your money is in a bank account. "

    Not knowing what dollar amount this is, that's your problem right there. If you don't have about US$1,000 handy in cash already available, you are more or less going to be traceable by anyone who is going to matter. And if you don't have any experience going "off-grid" for a short period of time when it didn't matter, you're going to screw up.

    1. Re:Here's your problem. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Many homeless people survive on nothing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Here's your problem. by neminem · · Score: 1

      How do you know he -doesn't- have a hundred grand? 99% of someone's money being in the bank, and having a thousand bucks, are not -necessarily- mutually exclusive...

      Regardless, I would imagine if you think someone is after you and they know where you live, but they aren't some crazy giant all-powerful global conspiracy with the power to cancel peoples' bank accounts arbitrarily, you could just drop by the bank, pick up your money and -then- put your whatever disappearing plan into place. If you're worried they're gonna pop you at the bank... if they were going to do that, why didn't they just off you already while you were at home?

      I've never done it, I never have any reason to expect that I'll have to do it, but I would imagine the important part of disappearing is staying gone -once- you're off the grid. Why would a few minutes to use an ATM first matter, generally?

    3. Re:Here's your problem. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Most homeless people are severe schizophrenics who live out their lives in a several-block radius. You will stand out. Severely.

    4. Re:Here's your problem. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Most homeless people are severe schizophrenics who live out their lives in a several-block radius. You will stand out. Severely.

      I dunno. I'd think someone who was babbling about being on the run from a massive conspiracy would fit right in.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Here's your problem. by outlander · · Score: 1

      Or someone who just walks around and sits for a long time and doesn't talk much. Crazy comes in different flavors.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  87. stay local and incognito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy a laptop, hire a live in house keeper, rent the apartment / house across the street from where i actually did live, setup surveillance on the original location, never leave the house, have the house keeper go out for everything needed. assess who what when why, and deal with them proper like......

  88. Get a U.S. Marshal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a U.S. Marshal to follow you around and retrace your steps. He'll inevitably discover what you witnessed and the one-armed man who is ultimately responsible.

  89. This article... by Revotron · · Score: 1

    Is a typical Slashdot reader's wet dream.

    Hell, most of the people reading this probably think they're already being followed anyway.

    1. Re:This article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice pants. Your shirt kinda clashes with it though. Pity about those shoes.

    2. Re:This article... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      You might be true. The thing is most people live a tedious life and they hate it. That has by the way nothing to do with the job or the spouse (or the absence of one), it is a state of mind. Most tech affine people have the chance to get out of the swamp if they really want to do it. However, instead of doing, most whine and dream about heroic fights (where they win in the end). The government is for many of them a mysterious organization (because they didn't follow school on those soft topics: politics, media, etc.) which is evil down to the bone. While the truth is, that people with better contacts can better propagate their wishes while the rest believes bullshit and therefore does not oppose it (or elect someone else).

      Another important truth to the subject is: We are all far too insignificant that anyone would bother to follow us (beside on twitter) if we watch some nasty stuff which is not known by the rest. In most cases the nasty stuff is done in plain site.

  90. Every time you use a doorknob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're potentially infecting someone with an STD.

    Now, when you think you may have had sex with someone with an STD, what is the point of getting THEM checked for it?You still need to know if YOU have it. No amount of testing on somone else will tell you if you have an STD.

    (PS for you others on topic saying "They will just rubbish your information", well, if you're going to figure the worst is going to happen, your best option is to kill the person or persons you think are following you. If you're boned, you're boned. There is a certain amount of freedom in knowing that you are stuffed no matter what happens.)

  91. Report the incident to police by pipedwho · · Score: 1

    You immediately report the incident to the police in such a way as to make it seem like you saw an otherwise unremarkable crime that the event could have been mistaken for assuming you were partially blind and deaf.

    If you don't care about your family, then I suppose you could try to disappear off the grid. But, it's far better to hide in plain site if you don't have the resources to disappear properly.

    1. Re:Report the incident to police by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      You mean mom and dad who pay for the electric for my basement?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  92. Head for the nearest police precinct by Spazmania · · Score: 1

    and seek protection. I don't know why "they" are after me for but conspiracies are necessarily small. Whatever it is, the local police probably aren't involved and if any are they'll be few enough that I can simply insist on avoiding private rooms. The safest place I can be is in a room with a bunch of guys with guns, most or all of them dedicated to the defense of ordinary citizens like me.

    Step 2 would be to find myself at least two lawyers -- one to attend me at the station and a second one to be somewhere I'm not just in case something happens. From there I'd document what I saw, explain my fears and ask counsel for guidance. You want to beat The Man, you need to outplay him and you need help.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Head for the nearest police precinct by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      The safest place I can be is in a room with a bunch of guys with guns, most or all of them dedicated to the defense of ordinary citizens like me.

      Cops dedicated to defending citizens? You must not live in the US... or any other country in this reality. You must have led a very sheltered life in Upper East Whitebreadville to trust police like that.

      You hide out with the cops, the guys in suits come in, flash badges, and tell them you're a terrorist suspect. Off you go.

      The fundamental flaw in your logic is in trusting other people to protect you. Get your own guns.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    2. Re:Head for the nearest police precinct by Spazmania · · Score: 2

      My stepfather was a cop. When you actually know what you're talking about (instead of just casting aspersions) you'd know that transferring a prisoner that a cop doesn't actively want to transfer can easily get tied up in all manner of red tape. For example, if they charge you with jaywalking they can deny extradition until you've had your trial and served your sentence. Even if a competing jurisdiction has charged you with treason. When transfers aren't tied up in red tape, it still takes far more than making a claim and flashing a badge.

      When you're not yet caught, the first guys to catch you own you. Pick well and then convince your choice that something stinks badly enough that they should fight to hold on to you until it can be cleared up.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  93. What NOT to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will recommend one thing someone not do if trying to hide:

    Don't think someplace like Slab City, Quartzsite, or another "money-less" place that people think is a hippie haven will solve all problems. The natives live there not out of choice, but because there is nowhere else to go. In fact, if they knew someone was "desired", they would be more than happy to ensure that the large party in question would have a prize ready to go, wrapped like a Christmas present, in return for a suitable bounty. In fact, if a bunch of "slabbers" see that someone is desired, they also will end up "borrowing" the person's RV and everything else they came with. Trust me, desperate people do desperate things, and even the sturdiest lock on a generator doesn't mean it will be there overnight at a place where "justice" is served with the contents of a gasoline can and a lighter.

    This also applies in any other tent city, as people think they can hide out there, but the residents will be more than happy to turn a person trying to "disappear" over, if there is a ransom involved.

    1. Re:What NOT to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol I love that you mention Quartz(s?)ite, since just in the past 15ish years it's turned from a buncha vagrant-looking rock collectors into a buncha yuppy douchebags with 'upscale' tourist trap crap.

      >. The era of Route 66 and company truly is dead.

  94. Absolutely nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I know with some certainty I'm being followed, then it's safe to assume that whoever is following me is conducting surveillance in order to determine how much I do or do not know. If they knew for sure that I posed some sort of threat, then they mostly likely would have already eliminated me rather than simply following. Thus I would do absolutely nothing. As in, live my life as usual and not deviate one iota from my daily routine. Just keep on behaving normally until I've convinced whoever it is that I pose no threat and they decide to leave me alone.

    1. Re:Absolutely nothing by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Also called the rabbit tactic. ;)

  95. FBI Phishing Expedition? by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FBI Weenie #001: "You know, we are a bunch of wankers after all." Sips Natural Ice from can.
    FBI Weenie #002: "True. And we do suffer a lack of creativity." Sips Natural Ice from can.
    FBI Wennie #001: "I'm bored out of my mind. It's been ten years since we had any real terrorists to deal with." Sips Natural Ice from can.
    FBI Weenie #003: "Hey! Lets go mine slashdot and get some ideas. There's always a good one somewhere in the threads." Sips Natural Ice from can.
    FBI Head Weenie: "Alright, I'll contact Stratfor and get them to whip up an Ask Slashdot title." Sips Budweiser from can
    Moments later: Thousands of Slashdot readers see in their rss feeds: Ask Slashdot: What Would Your 'I've Got To Disappear' Plan Look Like?

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    1. Re:FBI Phishing Expedition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, watch yourself—
      You're liable to offend some actual wankers with talk like that.

    2. Re:FBI Phishing Expedition? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      This is America we're talking about. Land of Not Invented Here.

  96. What the hell? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

    (Lameness filter is lame.)

  97. Go to the Low-Density Grid by IgnacioB · · Score: 1

    I swap the 1% of cash that I do have in a safe, turn off my cell phone and leave it at home powered off but not destroy it, pack and fire up the dual sport motorcycle with license plates, and go camping in the mountains. Not sure if I'd take a piece or leave it....it depends if I think I'm being pursued by that assassin from No Country For Old Men (a shotgun and a flamethrower) or just a disgruntled husband (small caliber Bond-like gun). Bourne always seem to cross borders with ease in the movies, but I know I don't have the chops to pull that off so I would just stay as rural as I could and try not to attract undue attention. Maybe in area of the country that distrusts well-dressed corporate henchmen/government officials with aviator sunglasses....maybe somewhere like Idaho. Idaho English is one foreign language that's pretty easy to learn and I can fake it a slight accent already. Also, the bad guys have a hard time navigating those black suburbans with tinted windows on forest service roads and even harder time pursuing a motorcycle. Or, maybe I'd stage a SCUBA accident where the body can't be found......in a deep, cold lake in the same part of the world.

    1. Re:Go to the Low-Density Grid by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      The different between Joe Bloggs on Slashdot and Bourne is that he had something like 10 passports and large wads of cash and a safe-deposit box - and being an agent the passports would have been "real" (as in, for the explicit purpose of crossing borders and being invisible - I believe a line in the first movie actually alluded to the very fact that "they" had trained him to be invisible, didn't it?)

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  98. I would by geekoid · · Score: 1

    go to a lawyer office. Get some representation.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  99. Re:turn myself in and become part of the conspirac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you meant TOS, not TNG.

  100. get a lawyer by drolli · · Score: 1

    in the EU/US: get a lawyer. Sign over the account to my significant other. Go to the Police. Give a credible, but wrong confession of a crime, in the presence of my lawyer. While waiting for the trial: collect more infromation.

    Yes. That is about it. The most safe place may be inside a prison.

    1. Re:get a lawyer by Jhyrryl · · Score: 1

      Clearly, you haven't been exposed to any statistics about the security of one's life inside a prison.

      --
      Jhyrryl
  101. If I fit your description... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...i'd surrender, as publically as possible after having made arrangements with a lawyer.

    Fortunately, I don't fit your description (and I certainly wouldn't publish my plan on Slashdot in any case).

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  102. gordian not by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ask Slashdot: What Would Your 'I've Got To Disappear' Plan Look Like?

    A handful of barbiturates and a quart of vodka.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  103. Shake em first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First things first, you need to lose whoever is following you. I would get instituted under the Baker Act by acting insane and as a danger in a public area. I would make sure I have someone I know of around, though getting any privacy with them would be dangerous for them as well, so I would just give hints of sanity in my insane ramblings.

    Once I've been instituted, If I eventually got released, I would access my account, withdraw everything I could, sell or abandon everything else, and join a circus or become a vendor at festivals under a different name, never getting a license or registration ever again.

  104. Offline Cash Primitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you move, say "Good-bye". Take all your cash out of the bank; convert it to U.S. Dollars. Ditch the phone. No more Internet - Email, Facebook, all abandoned.

    Go to a primitive region, like Africa. Leaky borders mean that Uncle Sam can't even tell which country you're in.

    Change your habits; statistics show that police catch suspects because of their lifestyle patterns.

  105. ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shrrrriiiiiiieeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!

    Every allegation of a sexual nature ever made against a male by anyone is TRUE!

    Because all men are rapists!

    Think of the children!

    Unfettered emotional hysteria is always justified whenever a male is alleged to have committed anything of a sexual nature, because all men are rapists!

    And all females are saintly princesses perched upon a pedestal.

    All females are tragic victims.

    All men are rapists.

    Assange is a male, therefore he is a rapist.

    Two females have made allegations of a sexual nature against Assange, a male, therefore he is unquestionably guilty, because all men are rapists.

    It just stands to reason.

    Personally, I think he should be sent to Gitmo just for being Australian.

    1. Re:ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS! by ozduo · · Score: 0

      The difference between rape and seduction is salesmanship. I'm a good salesman baby!

      --
      I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
  106. Not too hard, actually by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

    A lot of "professional" advice on how to drop off the grid involves things like tracking down birth certs of dead babies from the year you were born, and get an SS number from them. The problem is that, if you've only got 24 hours to disappear, none of that is possible.

    To do that in such a short time, you have to be willing to potentially let go of *everything* in life, including spouse, kids, house, etc.. That means you don't go back home. You don't call and tell your wife you love her one last time, you just leave.

    For most, it should be a fairly easy thing to just withdraw as much from ATM's as your accounts allow, and leave the country. You should probably avoid air travel, since this "agency" after you could probably put you on a no-fly list, but taking a bus or train would be fine in the short term.

    Once your in the new country, your options are mostly just limited to how much cash you have available. Ideally, you would get a good set of fake identification papers made, and apply for a new passport. Pick a third country, and head there, only to do it all again. Just don't be surprised to invest a bit into bribes and such to grease the wheels. Eventually, you'll be in a country with a fresh passport that doesn't easily trace back to your old life. Just make sure you never contact anyone you ever knew again.

    But yeah, if you literally have feds following you 2 cars back and you are looking to disappear, there's not a whole lot you can do aside from committing a very high profile crime in public while they are following you, essentially jumping out of a burning building hoping to survive the fall. No ideal.

    1. Re:Not too hard, actually by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      the problem is, a huge swath of people would have to go rob a bank on the way out of town in order to fund your little scenario. For the lower middle class and below, options consist of:

      1. Die.
      or,
      2. Become a hermit mountain dweller somewhere in the Rockies. Preferably in northern canada, where no one lives.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  107. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 2

    No, what this looks like is... *I am a student 'scenario writing', do my homework* kind of question.
    I see a lot of those math-students on math forums as well, although this is the first scenario-writing-student-questions I've ever encountered though...
    I hope it wont become a trend. Before you know it you'll have deja-vu's watching TBBT and QI.

    --
    rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
  108. The Raj Blake method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a revolutionary, frame you for child porn.

    If you are a child pornographer in a country where the population doesn't treat such things as the worst of all possible crimes, frame you for terrorism.

  109. This whole question is rooted in HollywoodLand by julian67 · · Score: 1

    "You witness a strange event.... ....What would you do in order to feel safe after those first 24 hours?"

    This whole question is rooted in HollywoodLand. Meanwhile, back in the real world of securely established governments in democratic countries, there is no need to intimidate or eliminate witnesses to exhibitions of their agents' incompetence, dishonesty or malice. Why not? Because they are confident that the free (but not independent) press will set the tone, and that jurors, magistrates, coroners and judges will deliver the verdict or opinion that society prefers. It doesn't matter very much that credible witnesses have the decency, independence and courage to stand in open court and, under oath, deliver truthful, honest and damning testimony: the witnesses decide nothing, deliver no verdict and offer no judgement. They can be heard and then minimised/discredited/discounted/ignored with impunity.

    If you think any of that seems like hyperbole then please examine the cases of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson, both innocent men who were murdered in plain sight in broad daylight by officers of HMG. The sworn testimony of honest, decent and impartial witnesses amounted to nothing, which is why those witnesses are as safe as any random person who wasn't even present.

  110. City? by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "You are native to and live in a big city"

    Well, there's your problem.

    1. Re:City? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Not really. Almost every major city has some form of a waterway that lends itself to easy escape.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  111. First 4 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First 24 hours huh?

    Scenario 1: I am in my car,so I am screwed... they already have my ID and I can only expect a bullet to the temple at their first convenience.
    I would not want to involve my family and friends, so calling any of them is out of the question.
    While driving away slowly, so my tail feels no urgency, I would use that time to use my phone to post my story to Twitter, FB, CNN, as many outlets as I could during a drive to a tavern or nightclub where everyone knows my name. I would then hand the bartender my credit card and announce drinks on the house for one and all, and tell my story loudly and often until the uniforms drag me away to my fate.

    On the other hand, if I am on foot, I might have a chance.
    Obviously, if I drove there, I would not want to go to my car... that would invoke scenario 1.

    So I go to any tavern or nightclub where I have never been before, introduce myself to the bartender as Joe Sixpack, and have a beer while waiting for someone to head to the little boys room, and then I follow them in. While in the restroom I chat up the fellow with a story about my PTSD from Iraq and how the Mossad is following me because I once gave candy to a Muslim child. I then walk slowly to another tavern while 'the man' interviews the bartender and the poor fellow from the restroom, obtaining my fake name and military history.

    My next stop is again the nearest bar where I have never been before, announcing loudly a few minutes after arrival, with an air of disgust, that I am sorry but someone told me this was a gay bar.

    If I still am being tailed, its time to confront the dude... "hey, haven't I seen you at the Blue Oyster bar?'. When he denies it I chide him for still being in the closet and walk to the next bar. If I am still being followed by now, its time to start a fight. Pick the biggest baddest guy in the place, walk over and introduce myself.

    "Hi, I'm Joe Six Pack!"

    "Uh, I don't know you. Should I?'

    "Yeah dude!" (pointing to the tail)
    "My boyfriend said he boffed you in the ass last night, you bitch!"...

    In the ensuing mayhem, I make my escape out the back door...

  112. Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would make an excellent "reality" show. Have a group of individuals take off in different directions, then another group of investigators try to find them. Whoever stays hidden the entire season wins the prize money. They would have to film themselves and somehow send in the film at least once a week. Most people would fuck it up, but a few crafty folks might stay hidden that long.

    1. Re:Idea by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I read an article where someone did this. He posted on the internet a picture of himself, and the challenge that he was dropping off the grid, and whoever 'caught' him got a reward. (I think it was through a newspaper or magazine, he was a writer). He moved around the US a lot, doing odd jobs, paying cash for hotels and rents and everything. His stipulations where that he had to remain in some degree of contact with his editor or something. He lasted like 5 months if i recall, before someone spotted him in a pizza joint and called out the capture phrase they had set up at the beginning. He said it was the most stressful months of his life, and he was not even in a situation where his life depended on staying of grid.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    2. Re:Idea by ezratrumpet · · Score: 1

      He also posted quite a few clues that helped narrow the search area. Lots of people got involved - pretty significant crowdsourcing.

      If you have a backpack and $5000, you have about a six month jump into the void on the Pacific Crest Trail, or the Appalachian Trail if you're from the west.

      Lots of cash labor out there. Get to Key West, dig swimming holes for cash like Jack Reacher. Save money, disappear. It's when you want stability & a career and such that you have issues.

    3. Re:Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  113. simple plan by aapold · · Score: 1

    I would have construction work done on a union site without 100% certified union labor.

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  114. Join the army by eggstasy · · Score: 1

    You get a free gun and a free trip to a remote place? Get a boat and try to live off the sea? North Korea? :)
    There was a corrupt politician here in Portugal who fled to the other end of Brazil, to a small town practically in the Amazon. People all know each other and notice you arriving. Any place hooked up to the global media is essentially the same place where you are right now. Your picture will end up in the newspapers. Buy a farm house in an absurdly isolated place, and you'll still have a paper trail.

    1. Re:Join the army by Misagon · · Score: 1

      Instead of your domestic Army, how about the French Foreign Legion? When you arrive, they don't care about your background - they expect that you have a troubled past that you want to forget. They will also give you a new name. They could ship you out to any of France's colonies and allies countries or wherever they operate. Of course, one of the requirements for entry is that you speak French well.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:Join the army by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Not true. The Legion teach French during basic training. The *only* prerequisite to joining the Legion is some form of identity or birth certificate from your originating State (Question 3), after which you can serve under a declared name (Question 9). It is an excellent option for permanence though, at the end of which, if you serve the full three years, you'll be fluent in French *and* a citizen.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    3. Re:Join the army by louarnkoz · · Score: 2
      Another requirement is to pass physical and medical tests. The Legion won't take you if you have poor eyesight, weight too much, or are otherwise unfit. The mythical slashdot readers who spend their days snacking in front of the computer might have a hard time getting accepted.

      On the other hand, if you are accepted in the Legion, you will have a fun time in places like Afghanistan, Djibouti or the Ivory Coast, to name a few. If you goal was to escape being shot at, you may want to reconsider.

    4. Re:Join the army by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      Actually, to speak French is not a requirement to enter the French Foreign Legion. A lot of the soldiers learn French during their training.

  115. CASH first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a bank is open, I'd empty an account - either a personal or from one of the businesses. That's probably 1-6 months of living expenses.

    I'd tell my wife that there is an emergency business trip to Asia or a "team building" exercise in some national park out west if I needed to take camping supplies. That happens about once a year. Being out of contact for a week overseas is not odd. Internet doesn't always work from everywhere.

    Pick up a pay-as-you go SIM for my cheap GSM phone and swap it in. Pick up a newspaper with used car ads. Take a taxi to the subway and the subway to meet someone selling a used car in the newspaper. Buy the cheap car for cash from a private person in the newspaper.

    After that, I'd disappear across at least 2 state borders and get into a lower-class motel or BnB to figure things out. Different authorities are involved across state lines, so if I can work with them to a resolution, that's possible with disinterested officials.

    If I determine the need to leave the country, I'd enter a nearby nation by driving or ferry, then get on public transit there to an airport and catch a plane to a rural city in a South American country. If the airport seems too dangerous, get back on a bus and keep going from country to country to get to South America.

    1. Re:CASH first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting your cash would signal a last known location and probable intention.

      The car would be problematic. The license and registration needs to take place, or it's not legal. If you go illegal, the car will be under the previous owner's license plate number, and I don't know anybody who would allow that. You'd have to either use a false ID to register or steal the car, which is a risk. If you steal a car, then you'd have to swap the license plate so the red-flagged one reported stolen wouldn't pop up on one of the increasingly common scanners used today.

      Train and bus platforms are also heavily monitored these days, with cameras and TSA agents. That would be risky, especially if you had alerted your pursuers to your location and possible exit route by withdrawing a large sum of cash.

      Also, most people don't realize, but RFID chips, while they need to be within a few feet of a charging device, can be read from orbit and they're in a lot of products today. Like disposable razors.

      The cab might be the only safe method, but I don't know what kind of technology they're required to employ these days.

      Of course, I'm assuming a corporate/government/military level of surveillance, not simple mobsters.

      Basically, vanishing takes a lot more work than people realize.

  116. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ask Slashdot: What would your I just got back from the international spacestation and I want to go back to my wife and friends plan look like?
    You are in Kazakhstan and the bus driving you from the Kosmodrome to Moscow got hijacked by Sart separatists from Tajikistan in a bid to recreate their own sovereign state. You dont speak any Russian, nor any Turkic language, but you master US-style signlanguage. All your money is in the US, and you proved not to be such a good 'survival expert' as you once thought. Your friends nor your wife who you just married can help you and you're in a space-suit. and no normal clothing around...
    Oh, and some jokes on physics are welcome. No McGuiver-is stuff please. :-)

    --
    rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
  117. First of all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd start posting as an AC on /., just in case people try to find me through my account.

    Hmm, actually I never registered... yay! I'm safe!

  118. Join the outcasts by mehshoe · · Score: 1

    Slab city. If you live in the US, you don't need to even leave the country or find a new ID. Just hide out with the people that gave up on society. They live rent free, and off the grid. http://www.vice.com/read/slab-city-884-v16n6

  119. Hole up in an Ecuadorian embassy by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Duh.

  120. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  121. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  122. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  123. the next guy is even goofier. they all are. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    so I'm still in the pink, sitting on my own front step.

    "who's that? are they on the list?"

    "nah, washed up wannabe lost for Congress. ain't worth the bullet in either case, and I don't want to fill out the forms today."

    "how about lunch at the Italian place, then?"

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  124. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need to do is type CandleJack and just wait a few se

  125. are you kidding? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    If you've got a car it's no problem to carry food/water for a week.

    If you're hiking, you can easily carry a week's worth of commercial dehydrated food, and water filters are common (will make most water drinkable). Use chlorine if you don't want to pump the filter, or a gravity-feed filter bag.

    Supplement with fresh-caught fish, or even snared gopher/rabbit/hare if necessary.

    1. Re:are you kidding? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      If you've got a car it's no problem to carry food/water for a week.

      That's true but we're talking about somebody on the run. You're bound to get pulled over eventually in a car and when that happens it's all over.

      If you're hiking, you can easily carry a week's worth of commercial dehydrated food, and water filters are common (will make most water drinkable). Use chlorine if you don't want to pump the filter, or a gravity-feed filter bag.

      Supplement with fresh-caught fish, or even snared gopher/rabbit/hare if necessary.

      All great ideas. I just wonder how sustainable that is in the long term.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  126. My plan by brickmack · · Score: 1

    Drop my cell phone, tablet, etc, anything that can be tracked (or disable the tracking ability if it can be done), withdraw as much money as I can from the bank, encryp or destroy my hard drive, after making a backup of everything of great importance to keep with me (probably not remotely, since I wouldnt want whoever is following me to see what Im backing up/stop the self destruct). Also destroy or take any papers. Tell my family Im going on vacation, and then drive off until Im at least a few states away, ditch the car, and start walking (not on the roads for a few days though). Continue travelling by walking and hitchhiking, and then just hide out for about a month or 2. By then the search should have slowed down, and I wont have to worry as much, so depending on the situation I can either go back home, or go to another country.

  127. Fight or Flight Response by JakFrost · · Score: 1

    * Document what you think you saw and distribute to various non-alterable sources.
    * Inform family and friends of your situation to give them a peace of mind.
    * Inform your employer of an emergency situation and request time off or leave of absence.
    * Inform any utilities and creditors about suspension of service or cancellation.
    * Create a non electronic list of contacts and keep it on your person.
    * Print our copies your passport, identity documents and keep on your person.
    * Assemble your resources, money, water, food, cloths, toiletries, medications, prescriptions, firearms, etc. into a Bug Out Bag.
    * Store a good amount but not all money and copies of documents on your person.
    * Leave your primary residence for a secondary location not forgetting to power off any broadcasting electronics
    * Determine the adversary and their resources and speed of reaction.
    * Decide on the next course of action, fight or flight.

  128. ASDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, this was probably posted by the people who want to get Assange, and you've all helped them!

  129. Homeless shelter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I spent 3 weeks in a homeless shelter where I registered with my ID and apparently police were looking for me the entire time. I saw them on several occasions but didn't know they were looking for me. After 3 weeks they sent an email saying there would be a nationwide search if I didn't contact them. Kind of funny it took them 3 weeks to bother asking.

    I think you are forgetting how incompetent these people are.

    1. Re:Homeless shelter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the question is one of motivation.

      I doubt you were high on the list of priorities and the agencies looking for you were low-level civilian police.

  130. Nice try by lessthan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nice try buddy, but we aren't going to help you find John Connor!

    --
    Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
  131. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by Plekto · · Score: 1

    It also sounds a lot like someone fishing for ideas to put into their next novel or screen play. It's way too specific.

    To the original poster:
    Do your own work and stop bugging us. If you can't cut it, perhaps you need to decide on a different major/job/career.

  132. Seek Asylam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the nearest embassy/consulate of the country I believe which can withstand the pressure tactics of of my mother/father land.

    Disappearing in a G8 country can be very very hard -- don't try this at home!

    Seriously, if all your money is in the bank, the first thing to do is to take traveler checks for as much money as possible and some cash. Then:
    1) buy air ticket for the all the family to a distant country,
    2) buy a bunch of pre-paid phones (and walkie-talkies) for all the family
    3) take the family to nearest amusement park
    4) explain the situation, draw a plan, mingle in the crowd, get out of the park per plan
    5) have the friend pick us up and drop somewhere with enough food and water etc. May be this friend can rent an apartment for month-to-month in some non descript location which is where you could stay for the month

    Now, I got run!

  133. Not such a good idea now by sirwired · · Score: 2

    Getting a birth certificate? No problem. Getting the social for that person? No problem.

    Actually using that SSN? Incredibly risky. Part of the process of dying now is the local vital records office sending a record of your death to the Social Security Administration. The second you do anything to get that SSN reported to the feds, (like open a bank account, attempt to acquire credit, or get a paycheck), you are toast. At best, it'll come back that the SSN is invalid, and a normal life can be annoying. At worst, they'll pop you for ID theft.

    1. Re:Not such a good idea now by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      My friend bought a house, got married, worked as an IT professional for 8 years under that assumed identity. Again, only got caught beucase of his mother in law. I supposed its possible that the feds have amped up their efforts, but I kind of doubt it.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Not such a good idea now by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      The GP said 'dying now'.
      The person you mention with their ID stolen would have died over 28 years ago, or early eighties.
      Information systems were a _hell_ of a lot less advanced back then, and it would not surprise me that the above death notification was not in place at that time.

      Of course, this means that this method becomes less and less useful, and approaches uselessness once you can't fake the age of the youngest person that dies without their death being centrally reported.

      People dying in foreign countries without official notice are of course possible candidates.

    3. Re:Not such a good idea now by Domminir · · Score: 1

      What's the process for obtaining a Tax ID number? SS #'s are not required to be assigned at birth so there has to be a mechanism to get a Tax ID number later in life. That Tax ID number is interchangeable with SS numbers.

    4. Re:Not such a good idea now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worked for Obama so far.

  134. become a cross dresser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you could become a cross dresser, no one could ever find you then and you wouldn't get noticed hahaha

  135. 2009 Wired Magazine Article by CodeInspired · · Score: 1

    I read a wired magazine article on this same topic a few years ago.

    http://www.wired.com/vanish/2009/11/ff_vanish2/

  136. Won't work by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When there was a chance that a child might not have yet acquired an SSN, that could work. Since now a record of every death goes to the SSA, that'll kill the SSN of pretty much every citizen upon death. (In fact, there are news stories every once in a while about how hard it is to convince the SSA that you aren't dead when somebody fat-fingers the wrong number or name into the database.)

    1. Re:Won't work by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I always figured that was the crux. Now you have to find one who disappeared overseas...

    2. Re:Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could also try to take the SSN of a living homeless person with only marginal mental issues (a homeless lifer). The drawbacks would include problems like buying a gun, if the homeless guy decides to return to civilization, or if he/she dies and you're not on top of monitoring that.

  137. Are You Kidding?! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    And miss a chance to be recruited into The Conspiracy? I'm confronting my follower and finding out who Number Two's boss is!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  138. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    42

  139. Three-step disappearing program - that works. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    1. Draw all your money out of the bank. Destroy your cards afterward. You won't need those again.
    2. Get off the grid. Ditch your cellphone. SIM and all. Don't bother to buy disposables. If you are doing a bug out, make sure you have a bug out bag with survival necessities (no, a netbook is not a survival necessity. A bascha is. A first aid kit is. A box of waterproof matches is. A supply of ready-to-eat food is. Water purification tablets and a container is. Maybe one or two changes of clothes as well, and pack for cold (several thin layers rather than one or two thick layers is better)). In fact, I'd say have a bug out bag ready anyway, because if you have to go in a hurry you're not going to have time to pack one.
    3. Change your HABITS. If your usual work is salaried and stuck behind a desk, it's time to learn how to dig a field for cash-in-hand (see #2). You can be found if you stick to habit.

    Importantly, though not one of the steps because this is going to be an ongoing thing, probably for the rest of your life; stay small. Keep yourself to yourself, stay quiet, do not confide anything of your past life to anyone. Do not make noise, do not get noticed. Be a stranger but be part of the crowd of strangers. The second you stick out like a sore thumb you will be found.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  140. Assange reference I assume by KingAlanI · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That seems to be about Assange. You have a point there. If he actually did something wrong, he really messed up. I don't want to let him off the hook for sexual misbehavior just for Wikileaks' sake. If he did nothing wrong, that still provides a pretext for the authorities to go after him.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Assange reference I assume by v1 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about what I would do if I were him. I'd arrange for ~15 people with very similar physical descriptions to come to the embassy and all get hollywooded up to look just like him, then put on very basic disguises like glasses, beards, hats, etc. Then arrange to have them all step out of the embassy at the same time and rapidly split in separate directions. Have several taxis, private cars, bicycles, everything standing by to rapidly scatter the decoys in every direction.

      That would be entertaining to watch as hotdog vendors and bums on the street suddenly jumped up waving badges trying to chase down all the decoys. Then during the chaos, have Assanage saunter out of the embassy in a good disguise of a person that regularly leaves the embassy at that time every day, and simply walk away. Then he could just go to some random safehouse in the city and decide what to do from there, without having any pressure.

      OR he could just stay in the embassy and they could simply say "he left recently" and send the stakeout team combing over the "decoy explosion" footage trying to figure out which one was him and how they missed him. That would also diffuse the pressure on assanage. But espionage being what it is, they likely have at least an informant in the embassy and will "of the record" know he's still in there.

      But I think his going to the embassy was a bad move personally. He's semi-safe, but cornered there. What he should have done is have shook his tail and gotten to a safehouse to begin with.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Assange reference I assume by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      The doubles show up not just once, but on random days and times and in varying numbers for a few months. Many of us couldn't pull that off, but I suspect there are enough would-be volunteers out there to help him out. If it doesn't get him out safely, it sure entertains the rest of us. Start with the bowler hats from the Thomas Crown Affair remake.

  141. OK, where's the evidence he's avoiding the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange is cooperative with the law. The law, however, doesn't say that once the case is dropped he cannot leave town and having left town, that he must come back.

    1. Re:OK, where's the evidence he's avoiding the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, Assange is explicitly not cooperating with the law. There is nothing to say that the investigation cannot be reopened if new information comes to light. let me ask you this: why is it assumed that the case was *reopened* at the behest of the US government, rather than the case being initially *closed* by a prosecutor who had a special fondness for Mr. Assange & Wikileaks' politics?

      I mean, if we're going to speculate without any evidence, the latter is certainly FAR more likely to be the case than the former, simply because the former requires more people to collaborate on framing him.

      Regardless of the reason, the case was reopened, and he has been ordered arrested and held for questioning (and likely formal charges, but those charges cannot be filed until he has been questioned). This is all in accordance with Swedish law. The EAW extradition was upheld through an appeal by the UK's courts, so the extradition process is also in accordance with European law. The only thing that has no "legal" basis is someone seeking Asylum in the embassy of a third world banana republic to avoid extradition to face legitimate legal charges by citing some unspecified, unprovable bogey man.

      The law says that if he is ordered arrested, and an EAW is passed to another EU state which can arrest & extradite him, he must come back. Ecuador is simply interfering with due process here. Which is more than a little curious, honestly - a man who loves the idea of freedom and the rule of law is perverting the rule of law in a self-serving attempt to avoid prosecution. Guess his principles are only good when they're getting him air time and pussy, huh?

  142. How to disappear in America without a trace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vanishing Point: How to disappear in America without a trace

    http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/vanish.htm

    (effectively, be rich or learn to live very, very simply)

  143. A two-year-old can figure that out! by he-sk · · Score: 1

    Just cover your eyes! If you can't see them, they can't see you!

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  144. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do everything possible to make myself an unbelievable witness. Develop a drug habit, visit some hookers, have gambling problems, etc. Then make up stories and get a doctor to make a note saying that I'm schizophrenic.

    I'm no longer a threat.

  145. You need cash. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    For anything close to hiding away from the government's eye, you need cash. The more, the better.

    My wife and I keep some cash in the house. Maybe close to 1% of my annual income, well below 1% of my net worth. (For a while, every month we pulled some cash out of our wallets and put it away -- we never took money out of the bank to do it.)

    We just called it our emergency reserve. Maybe I should keep some more.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:You need cash. by ozduo · · Score: 0

      I'd get cash from people like you who broadcast that they keep it at home and are active on Facebook to tell me when and where to break in.

      --
      I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
  146. Become and illegal alien by na1led · · Score: 0

    It seems the Government can't track down illegal aliens, so throw away your ID, dress like a Mexican and demand you get welfare. Seems to work for 30% of the current population in this country.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    1. Re:Become and illegal alien by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Seriously... seems to almost be a silent acceptance of that, nowadays.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  147. Both of you are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The goal is to set an example and precedent. Assange is just one man. They have their crosshairs set on the entire movement.

    1. Re:Both of you are wrong by roca · · Score: 1

      If "they" want to make an example of Assange, they need to attack him more directly. As it is, a reasonable person might conclude that all that's needed to avoid Assange's fate is to keep one's pants on and generally stay out of trouble.

    2. Re:Both of you are wrong by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      As it is, a reasonable person might conclude that all that's needed to avoid Assange's fate is to keep one's pants on and generally stay out of trouble.

      So what I'm hearing is that their goal is to make other political activists sexually frustrated...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  148. Iranian democracy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    was more or less derailed by Michael Jackson dying. I wouldn't really trust the public eye to keep me safe, they're too easily distracted.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  149. You can't disappear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being sneaky isn't an option. Total Information Awareness works and if you are a high value target, you'll get found fast.

    The best protection is total openness.

    Tell lots of people quickly. Use internet forums. Use your real name. Make it so that if you do vanish, people will notice and start thinking. Crowd source your survival. Get a lawyer if that will help your situation.

    There are enough honest people in the world to make open murders and abductions tricky. The more people who know and are watching, the more hoops they'll have to jump through. There's a reason bullies and child abusers make it a high priority to threaten their victim with the worst if they dare tell what is happening to them.

    Of course, the internet is full of creeps and agents, but real people outnumber them. Be loud, be public. Once the secret is out, getting rid of you only confirms what you have claimed.

    The next step for the dark side is to smear you through the media. Julian Assange is an example of this. But in that area, you at least have a chance.

  150. People are pettier than you think by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and vengeance is a popular pastime for the idle rich. Besides, if anyone notices you getting taken out you're an example of what not to do. That's why we have the death penalty.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:People are pettier than you think by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      When they allegedly discredited guy suffers a suspicious death or disappearance, he's no longer discredited. If you stay out of the news, leaving you alone serves their purpose.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  151. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by vlm · · Score: 2

    Then I'd do whatever jon katz did. I mean, nobody has heard of him lately.

    Thats a remarkably tasteful answer. I was expecting a worse comparison, like Roland...

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  152. First get a job in IT by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    At that point, you're almost invisible to anybody until their computer breaks. 10 seconds after you leave, they probably couldn't spot you in a police line-up. Then I'd pick out a wardrobe. Gray T-shirt, jeans. After that, I'd goof off a lot. Do enough to keep those good performance reviews coming, but not enough to threaten anybody by being too creative or innovative. Get a credit card and buy completely ordinary things. Put up a facebook page with equally ordinary things.

    No wait.....

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  153. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  154. No, he IS cooperating with the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing saying that he has to go back to sweden if he's given clearance to leave.

    And you're the one bringing up the USA being behind this, but maybe the fact that the new prosecutor is being talked to by Rove who has no experience in the Swedish judicial system nor their electoral issues. So what, exactly, is he there for?

    And what does the USA's involvement or not do to the FACT that given clearance to leave the country, there is no requirement for Assange to return to Sweden?

    And now you're turning to a "He's resisting arrest is the law he's broken!". Well done. You cannot show what law he broke and is avoiding SWEDEN'S justice system so you go ahead and make one up for the UNITED KINGDOM'S justice system instead.

    I know you're a USian now: you don't realise they're different countries.

    1. Re:No, he IS cooperating with the law by swalve · · Score: 1

      That is a specious argument. Just because they said he can leave does not mean that they might not want him back. Letting a suspect leave is not a get out of jail forever card for that suspect.

    2. Re:No, he IS cooperating with the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing saying that he has to go back to sweden if he's given clearance to leave.

      Actually there is. Since Sweden wants him for further questioning and likely prosecution on 4 counts of sexual molestation and rape, and they have issued a valid arrest warrant for him, then as long as he's within the jurisdiction of the EU, or any other country with which Sweden has an extradition treaty, the thing that says he has to go back to Sweden even though he was given clearance a couple years ago to leave is known as the European Arrest Warrant. This is a perfectly valid and legal way of compelling him to return to Sweden from any European country that is both a member of the EU and a signatory to the EAW framework.

      "Yes, we have no further questions for you at this time, you may leave the country if you wish," does not mean "you're immune to any possible prosecution or further questioning in this matter." It means "You can leave, but if we have other questions or decide to move ahead with prosecution, we may ask you to return, and if you fail to return, we will issue a warrant for your arrest and seek to extradite you." Law enforcement is not in the business of handing out blanket immunity, and any attempt by you - or any other supporter of Mr. Assange - to characterize it as such is both foolish, and disingenuous.

      I'm really not sure why you seem to think that any of this is somehow in question - he can be compelled to return to Sweden, and Ecuador's self-serving involvement in the issue will only last as long as they feel it gives them some sort of political leverage with Sweden, the UK, Australia, or whoever else they feel they'll gain something from as a result of this. If Mr. Assange wanted immunity from prosecution forever, he probably should have fled to a country with no extradition agreements with Sweden, and preferably, an antagonistic relationship so that the country would be unlikely to ever sign or agree to any sort of extradition process with Sweden.

      Staying in the EU was a bad move for him if he wanted to evade prosecution. You don't find it at all curious that, prior to his issues with the law in sweden, he was applauding Sweden as the final bastion of security and freedom for an independent journalist, and as soon as he got in trouble with the law there, it became nothing more than a simpering toady of the United States, eager to abuse human rights, journalistic freedom, and its own good standing in the international community just to please some imagined master in the CIA or NSA or other US gov't position who was issuing orders to conduct human rights abuses to the Swedish government that the Swedish government literally could not agree to or complete fast enough? That entire reversal happened in a matter of what, 2 weeks?

      Try examining the matter with a critical mind, rather than your uncritical, uninformed, and entirely sycophantic devotion to Mr. Assange. His entire story is full of holes, full of self-serving speculation, and full of his narcissistic insistence that the entire world revolves around him, and so the only possible reason your golden-haired boy could ever be in trouble is at the hands of a sinister conspiracy constructed by the US government.

  155. Contact Michael Westin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contact Michael Westin, Chuck Finley, Fiona, and Jessie. I'm sure they'd help me and my family.

    1. Re:Contact Michael Westin by neminem · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they might blow up a lot of innocent peoples' property in the process... I love that show, but you have to admit in real life it wouldn't have taken getting framed to land one of them in jail, they would have been in jail by the end of the first season for all the totally-illegal stuff they pulled. (Mostly involving explosives.)

  156. Simple plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lose them in a crowd then just walk away. Get some basic survival supplies and take a bus or something far away and disappear in to the remaining wilderness areas of the US. If I survive then great, if not then at least I have the best view in the world to pass away at since there won't be any light pollution for how far I'd head out. Assuming a bear or mountain lion didn't eat me.

  157. I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have actually done this before, to get away from my abusive mother.

    Basically I got some cash, and did a combination of busing and hitchhiking until I got to a place where no one knew me. Then I got jobs that required no or little background checks, mostly with immigrants that I fit in with (because I look enough like that race to blend in). and basically just started a new life.

    My plan was to use new internet names. For awhile I had very little access to the internet so it wasn't an issue... but as soon as I was able to get an apartment and the internet I was back to sites I use to frequent, and people recognized my personality and way of writing, and some people told my family where I was.

    So eventually I gave it up, and went back to my old internet name. This wasn't a life or death situation, not even a jail or freedom situation... maybe if it was I could stay away from the internet and it would work.

  158. What NOT to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Don't use your vehicle or one directly traced to you.
    * Don't use a credit card.
    * Don't carry your smartphone. The EMEI-eieio number can be traced even if you swap the SIM.
    * Don't login to to any online accounts that you have.
    * Don't phone anyone that you've spoke with in the last 15 yrs.
    * Don't stay in mainstream hotels or motels. You want a family run B-n-B in a small town.
    * Don't go to stores that have a video system.
    * Use cash for everything.
    * Stay off large roads that have cameras - interstates, US hwys and large state roads.

    If your face is in the media, you are screwed unless you can get deep into back country or have an old, trusted friend who will hide and support you so you don't need to be in public. With software devel skills, you might be able to create a thriving company with this person and never need to meet clients.

    Getting a 5+ states away to a small town might avoid attention, if your story doesn't become national news. Avoid states with lots of criminals already. You want to end up where Barney Feif works.

  159. Some ideas here are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but they involve breaking the law. I assume that you are innocent at T0, you MUST remain innocent at all times. If you break the law in this process you are now a legitimate target for arrest and imprisonment. So, I think no plan should involve you or your accomplice breaking any law.

    If law breaking is allowed it becomes a whole different ball game and actually suggesting such plans would be really bad idea.

  160. Re:it would look like a frosty piss by baegucb · · Score: 1

    I did that sorta, for a few years about 25 years ago, avoiding an ex-wife (no kids). Move a thousand miles away. Change career (I did Dirty Jobs type stuff for a few years). Accidently give a wrong SSN when opening a bank account, or have a good friend cash paychecks like I did.
    Then got back to my career. Real easy back then actually. My ex is now an RN and MD far away, and I don't have suddenly have money out of my bank accounts.

  161. Its the parameters stupid. by SuperCharlie · · Score: 1

    Everyone is missing a critical point here.. you have family. You cant just bug out. If you are a 1/2 decent person you think about your family first, you turn the F around and find out who is following you, why, and do whatever it is they want to keep your family safe..regardless of the personal consequences.

  162. How to vanish 101 - The "hard" parts. by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of you failed to read the FP, and even if you did, seem to have skipped the obvious first step.

    * You have someone following you. You haven't yet manage to elude your potential captors.
    * You don't know that your pursuers have government ties, just suspect it.
    * You don't know that "they" actually know your identity yet - Even the MiBs don't really know everything instantly.
    * You have almost no money on you (or if 1% counts as "enough", you have enough money to get a damned good lawyer).

    You can test two of these and potentially fix one with one simple move - Go into the nearest branch of your local bank and take out a modest, odd-sized sum of cash well under $10k... Perhaps $3450 (no need to go crazy with precision, virtually all legit debts in the four-digit range will round to the dollar, and often enough to the 50s - And keep in mind that 35 bills will cause a very sizable bulge in your pocket). If the bank gives it to you, then "they" either don't know your identity, or don't belong to the government (note that the latter doesn't make you any safer - Plenty of NGOs pose as much, if not more, of a threat to you than the government-proper). If the bank tries to make you stick around for more than two minutes, time to vanish into the woods, penniless or not (and if "they" can get to the bank and nab you in under two minutes, sorry dude, you had no shot from the moment you saw A Strange Event, so might as well get it over with).

    So, assuming you have a decent wad of cash (if you have either died at this point or know you can look forward to a life of hermitage in a mud hut in the Great North Woods, not much more advice matters, so turn to page 99, "the end")... Task #0a: Leave a message with your lawyer describing your situation and asking him to look into it, and say that you'll contact him in a week for an update. Task #0b: Leave a goodbye message (you can do that directly with most cell phones, without actually ringing the line) for anyone you care about - This will both protect them and make you less likely to do something stupid like try to go home three months from now. Take this chance to wipe your phone (not that they can't recover it, but might as well make it a bit of a challenge)

    Task #1, lose your tail. Easier said than done, but we've all seen plenty of trick in movies you could try. Personally, I'd favor large crowds with lots of cover, ie, a shopping mall (outdoor market, all the better, but we don't have a whole lot of those in the US). Wander around for a while, always heading for the largest crowd you can see, and try to leave by an unusual route. At some point early in this step, "accidentally" leave your phone in a conspicuous place, preferably with lots of teens around. Someone will kindly pocket it for you and provide a new non-you moving target.

    So you've lost your tail. Task #2, get the hell out of Dodge. "They" will watch most forms of public transit, so a series of hailed cabs or hitchhiking will give you the best chances. If you can get to a bus depot in an outlying suburb, you have a chance. Go to a different state.

    On your first stop, buy an activate a pair of Tracphones. Mail one to your lawyer, and one to your wife (or mother). Now Pretend you still have a tail and repeat steps 1 & 2. Do it again. Bonus points for finding alternate means of transportation than buses and taxis (commuter trains don't ID you, long-haul ones sometimes do, airports always do).

    So... Now you consider yourself more-or-less safe to stop and think for a while. Get a good night's rest, get a complete makeover (hair/beard style and modest color change), get some new clothes. Get another Tracphone, activate it, but don't call anyone yet.

    Have your next bus ticket ready, and take a taxi/T to the opposite side of the city. Call your lawyer's shiny new Tracphone and see if he has anything useful to tell you. Don't automatically believe

    1. Re:How to vanish 101 - The "hard" parts. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, you've thought about that a LOT. Good job.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:How to vanish 101 - The "hard" parts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, you need to insure your safety. Nobody keeps ALL their money or valuables in the bank. Grab cash or something small but valuable you can pawn later in a small bag. Grab clothing. Make sure you have something very stridently coloured, and something in bland colors underneath. Depending on the time of day, go to where the crowds are. Wear the strident colors, going in remove before going out. Repeat several times. Then go to a place you loath and dislike, where you never traveled before.

      Wait a few days, then call your family. Make the call from a location that would make it easy for them to track you. Videocameras in stores come to mind. Get some distance and wait.

      If they're government, then there's little point in doing anything yet. It's a long battle, so you need to setup a life elsewhere first. As long as you limit yourself to food, clothing and lodgings, minimum wage will be fine, and you'll be able to find work illegally. After that, start consulting lawyers, start working on the insurances and stuff like that. Oh, and make sure you keep up your life insurance too.

      If they're not the government, find out who they are, setup another call or go to the police. Depending on how things turn out, I suggest, getting a few cans of gas and oil, a gun and a ski mask. Torch entire buildings, this isn't the punisher where you need to shoot point blank everyone. Though I'd go for poisons myself, setting things on fire is much easier to accomplish.

    3. Re:How to vanish 101 - The "hard" parts. by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      You lost me at the lawyer / credit card part.

      You are doing all this cloak-and-dagger, then you expect to log into your credit card account online to check the balance?

      Also, if you do have credit cards - they are some of the fastest ways to get large sums of cash. Skip the bank, consider that money gone - if they want you they know it is the first place you will visit. Visit a series of ATMs instead and take out large cash advances, most cards let you take out $500 / transaction and a max of thousands / day, and most people have many credit cards.

    4. Re:How to vanish 101 - The "hard" parts. by pla · · Score: 1

      You are doing all this cloak-and-dagger, then you expect to log into your credit card account online to check the balance?

      No. The point of the credit card (and half the point of the bank in the first place) lets you know if "they" have frozen your assets. The government can (and does) do that; the Mafia, not so much.


      That said, for a small amount of money, you have a good point about using your credit cards. I don't know about all cards, but mine have a much lower cash limit (total, not per transaction) than my overall credit line - Like 1k, IIRC.

  163. I'd go Ron Swanson by ffflala · · Score: 1

    First off, I'd have already prepared for this moment long ago. So I would then immediately break open the nearby hiding place that holds my loaded escape pack. This pack holds, among other things, at least rudimentary facial masking equipment, a fully charged burn phone (never used), a compact firearm, multiple rounds of ammo, and a lot of peppered turkey jerky.

    I'd then call a car service, schedule pickup for 30 minutes, and give the airport as my destination. Then I'd grab a cab (not car service), leave my "real" cell phone conspicuously on and hidden in the back seat. I'd pay the driver $100 not to stop, only to slow, as I roll out of the cab into a weed-covered ditch.

    From here I would hike deep into the wilderness, and as long as I had at least a canvas sack and a blade (any type), I'd be able to make or procure anything else I would need, including prescription medication. From that point on, it would simply be an extended vacation.

  164. "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...The shit has hit the fan ..."

  165. Re:Would you trust the answers you got from Slashd by swalve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, I mean if you witnessed something like that and there were people after you, wouldn't they just shoot you on the spot? "Oh no, a witness to my heinous crime! I think I'll conspicuously follow him around and menace him while he empties his bank account and gathers his guns, and then mysteriously stop following him while he secrets himself to an undisclosed location. I can't lose!"

  166. This is an easy one .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would cross over the boarder to Mexico and then come in around Arizona. Im now an illegal immigrant. Im going to live in caly for awhile. I get food stamps. My medical is paid. I get living allowance also. Im set. !

  167. Camping by Tempestas · · Score: 1

    Easy go camping in a State or Federal Park. You could stay in a Primitive Campsite free but still have access to showers and toilets. Plus most campgrounds have onsite hosts and forest rangers that offer a bit of protection. Just Remember to hide the plate on the car by backing in or putting it behind the tent.

  168. Well: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would remove all my money from the bank account, grab all of the guns, casual clothes, and portable electronics I own, as well as a nice suit, and stuff them in a suitcase or two, then go towards a small airport where my personal plane is parked. After that, I would fly to a far-away airport at random and settle down in a cheap apartment. I would then buy a racing airplane in case I get chased by the police. I would also stick strictly to bikes and public transportation to get from point A to point B. If things start heating up, I'll start using my hacking skills to siphon money into an overseas bank account and take up a policy of shooting out the engines of any police officers who try to stop me. With this policy, I will also take up a policy of stealing cars from dealerships and license plates from suburban areas and ditch any one whenever I have a run-in with the law. I would also go into public only if I'm wearing a surgical mask, a baseball cap, and sunglasses. Of course, this is all assuming that the conspirators can turn me into a wanted man.

  169. lawyers, guns and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the above posts confirm that Warren Zevon got it right... send lawyers, guns and money, dad, get me out of this!

  170. Re:WWAD - Assange isn't hiding, ass hat by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assange isn't hiding. Why do you keep saying he is? The whole world knows exactly where he is. The two girls who accused him traveled off to who knows where. All this over Sweden wanting to "question" him? Get friggin' real. If Sweden wasn't in cahoots with the US in an extradition agreement of some sort, the ass hats in Sweden could travel to the UK and question him. The two girls were *groupies*. They wanted his penis in them. Nothing more, nothing less. If they gave a damn they would have stayed in Sweden to press charges. Serious sex crime? Give me a break. Two groupies became pissed off when they talked and found out he was fucking both of them. Cry me a river...

  171. Ahh, what about... by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

    Act normal, go home, post a detailed description of what you saw (preferably with phone camera evidence) publically to Facebook (and possibly elsewhere), under a title something to the effect of "Man, check out this weird thing that happened to me today!" Then carry on as if nothing happened. At this point, I would no longer be a threat any more than any one of several hundred other people who saw what I posted. (And "erasing" me would no longer benefit them any, apart from pointless retribution = cost without return).

    But, perhaps because I live in New Zealand where the government is a little toothless* and there aren't any significant organised crime syndicates, I'm a little more casual than some.

    (However, I would probably then quietly take my family camping, along with getting some advice from some "Apocalypse ready" buddies of mine (their words) and one or two choice others. If I had any reason to really be that paranoid - though I can't think of any reason why I would be).

    * Yeah, yeah, Kim Dotcom, I know...

  172. Sigh... Been there. Done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was both the government and the mob, and the mob had a contract out on me. I managed to get into the hills/mountains, and then flat-footed it in a random direction for 3 days, caught a bus for Mexico, and disappeared. My friends, with no prompting on my part, started passing around rumors that I had been kidnapped by guerrilla fighters in Central America, and would likely not be seen or heard from again. I then changed my name and appearance, and managed to stay incognito for over 40 years. At this point, I doubt that the bums who wanted me offed are still alive, or if they are, they aren't likely to still want to do me... :-)

    My family managed to get my $$ out of my bank account, and that helped me in my "relocation". I lived under an assumed name for those 40 years, got married, had kids/grandkids (and now a great grandson), and a career. Finally last year I had to peek back into real life. The new laws about travel and work meant that I had to do a legal name change from my original family name to the one I assumed all those years ago in order to get current ID and passport and take a very good position with a major international company. Fortunately I have a great attorney/friend who helped me work through all that cruft (especially verifying that I no longer had any wants or warrants from Uncle Sam) so my assumed name is now my legal one. So far, no unfriendly types have come knocking on my door...

  173. Julian Assange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that you?

  174. e-file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd immediately e-file a fraudulent tax return, claiming an enormous illegal refund. As the IRS is proving every day, there's no way in the universe the government would be able to find you.

  175. Don't disappear. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Don't disappear, go public. If you fear people want to silence you, make silencing you pointless. Post the strange event on your Facebook, call and tell your friends, tell the police you fear for your safety, call the city paper, park your ass on a very public park bench with a sign saying "I saw X and now they want to kill me." Yes, you will look like a paranoid lunatic, but that's okay. Make it so that kidnapping or killing you won't gain the conspirators anything, and will make your crazy paranoid ravings ring true.

    If the group out to get you is so big that they can silence every one of these communications, or so powerful that they don't care if your death attracts attention, you were screwed regardless. But if your enemy needs to lurk in the shadows, your best chance is to stand in the light.

  176. simple solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming you can get a reasonable amount of cash ~$5000 from the bank quickly..

    pull the battery on your cell, get a cheap motorcycle off craigslist that runs, borrow a strangers phone for this part. Get the title, keep the license plates

    Get helmet and gloves, a dark visor will thwart identification. And you have a much better amount of mobility.

    Heavy Traffic is now your ally, as police have other concerns, and can't follow you with a cruiser.

    You can now get fast-food through a drive up.

    Find a room for let from someone who has poor vision, consider having something distracting on your face, like a bright green band aid on your nose.

    Take some time to change your look, then go make some friends. Let them know that your hiding from some massive debt, leave hints that organized crime/ crazy redneck militia/ LEO might want you too (depending on the crowd), With some planning you now have some under the table work. Keep the "information" pretty tight, just enough that they know you can't show up on the radar. Choose the friends well, by being under the radar your chances of being mistreated go up substantially.

  177. Once you find you've been followed, it's too late by alexmin · · Score: 1

    It means that they do not even bother hiding.

  178. Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go South. Mexico borders have no checkpoints. Tijuana and surrounding areas has a zone that doesn't require you to have a visa. Going further south requires you to have one, but you are rarely checked for it.

    You can wait it out in MX, live off savings, and play it by ear. If all your inclinations were true, you will need to dupe a passport for long-term.

    Once obtaining a passport, I'd recommend heading further south, sticking to the west side of the peninsula. Head to Chile that doesn't require an exit for customs.

    Always wear bleach white shirts and expensive shades to hide your paranoia and present an air of confidence.

    If you're heading to the EU, you might want to fly into a country with weak customs like Italy.

    Damn, would I be a great criminal or what?

    All in all, you'll be fine 7 years if you have $50K stashed and living low-key in the south.

  179. Become a Homeless Person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one pays attention to the homeless. Oh wait... Nowadays, they turn homeless people into little green crackers. Nevermind.

  180. Find a rock and hide under it by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Enough said..

  181. Put on rumpled clothes... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

    And go to a homeless shelter.

    Seriously. Who is going to check there? You'll be living with some crazy people and drug addicts... and it will be embarrassing. But it will be cheap/free and there will be no record of you anywhere. You can wait that out for weeks. Keep a pre paid cell phone powered off. You can make phone calls occasionally to make sure certain people know you're okay. Then take the battery out/turn it off... and wait.

    When you feel safe, just get on a bus and go home.

    If you need to take other people with you... camping might be your best bet.

    If you have a friend, borrow their car and leave them yours. If you don't have a friend or no "good" friends then just risk your own car. Once you're out of the city no more credit cards. Just cash. Again, possibly you can get a wire transfer of money from a friend as they might not monitor the bank accounts of friends.

    Stay away for a week or so camping and then come back. Do it right and the family might not even know their lives were in danger. That's a good idea for the kids since it might traumatize them. As to the wife/husband... your call.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  182. Re:Crack ain't nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it keeps you busy stealing or whoring, so yeah.. bad example.

  183. Don't run, Go Public by Essellion · · Score: 1

    In this case, stay put, go public. Shadow organizations don't like the light.

    If you run, you are separated from people who can support you. You lose access to your resources. If you run, you can be disappeared and no one will know, because you're on the run, right?

    Since you're a witness - Let people know, tweet, do a blog about it. "Hey Joe, I saw the damnedest thing..." By doing this you have already accomplished the thing they wanted to prevent - your talking about it. Taking you out then is counterproductive. Taking you out would increase scrutiny of whatever you saw.

    At this point you can sit back and wonder if they were really out to get you, or were you just paranoid. Hopefully you'll never know.

  184. I would gather money and lots of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over 9000 of it.

  185. Go to the government. No, not that one. by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

    There's no point in running if you have to lose everything that makes life worth living. Better to fight.

    What you can do depends on what kind of evidence you have. "The government" is not a monolithic entity. If you have anything solid on what you witnessed, start calling congresspeople until you find one that's willing to stage a press conference and start an investigation. Or try your governor -- they love looking tough against the feds. Go with whatever party doesn't control the White House, or look for critics within the dominant party. If you can prove that you're being followed, get in touch with the internal affairs departments of the FBI and your state and local police. Raise as much of a ruckus as you can; all you need is a few people to officially take you seriously.

    If you don't have enough evidence for Congress, go to the media (or maybe try that first if you're super-paranoid). Meet with a right-wing talk show host and convince them to tell the story on the air. Have them introduce you to a congressman, then see above. Entertainers, commentators, and legislators thrive on publicity. Offer it to them. Try everyone from John Boehner to Bernie Sanders, Rush Limbaugh to Oprah. *Somebody's* going to be pissed off by whatever you saw. Once the story breaks, you're probably safe, since the conspirators will be too busy covering their own asses to worry about you.

    If you can't convince anyone, you're not really a threat, are you? Hammer the point home by making a psychiatrist appointment to discuss your "hallucinations". But don't really take your meds or you might forget to keep your tinfoil hat on. :-p

    --
    Visit the
  186. This ain't all that paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The submitter assumed that the surveillance would be done by government/police. But that's not the only reason to have such a plan. You could be someone doing normal work, and suddenly find yourself in the receiving end of a jihad plot for a variety of reasons - from membership in any organization that they've suddenly turned on, to innocuous activities of your own.

    Take the case of Molly Norris. A few years ago, she started an 'Everybody draw Mohammed Day' contest on Facebook, and after receiving actual death threats, she assumed a new identity, and disappeared. I know that the average poster here may not do anything even close, but that assumes that most people in Western societies know what offends Muslims and would set them off. Point is that anybody could be in trouble with Muslims at any time, and for a variety of reasons, some of them really inane. So it's a good idea to have such a plan at least to defend from them: it's not always going to be agents breaking into Elian Gonzales' home to return him to Cuba, or the face-off at Ruby Ridge.

  187. Ask Kevin Mitnick instead by anilg · · Score: 2

    Or rather read his autobiography 'Ghost in the Wires' to get a first hand account of how he managed to successfully change his identity and evade the authorities.

    --
    http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
    1. Re:Ask Kevin Mitnick instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually JUST bought this book a few days ago. Just finishing the current book I'm reading before diving into it.

    2. Re:Ask Kevin Mitnick instead by Mechanik · · Score: 1

      Or rather read his autobiography 'Ghost in the Wires' to get a first hand account of how he managed to successfully change his identity and evade the authorities.

      Given that he was arrested, convicted, and went to prison, can we really say he was successful, ultimately?

    3. Re:Ask Kevin Mitnick instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you give us the short version? Oh, you can't? Why not? Ah. Nice try, Kevin.

  188. Re:convoy of cat-filled trucks by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Or Hogs! Convoy! Let's go!

    Original Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwaygKjs2fI

    Movie on YoutTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XGvNpWXqA&feature=related
    Fan Animation and Movie Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Bl3UYZTZ0&feature=fvsr

    Go Convoy!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  189. Ditch the electronics and lose the tail by guruevi · · Score: 1

    * Ditch the wireless electronics, trade for cash or a small video camera if possible
    * Lose the tail using several methods (it's very easy to do)
    * Talk to a mall cop, security guard or a cop on the street and if necessary ask them to help you out. Even briefly passing by can severely unnerve a follower but on the other hand, the lower levels of law enforcement is usually not involved and they love to have some excitement. You can sometimes verify (if they are being held back by the cop) whether they are lower-level government agents (FBI, Marshals) or not or quietly disappear while they're being held up.
    * Get in touch with your/a lawyer, most likely you did something wrong, you can't even walk across the street without breaking some laws.
    * Publish the stuff on your camera online in a high-visibility place from a public system. Libraries work great, you can even set up connections between multiple machines/levels/buildings in order to subvert any tracking.
    * Always keep your back to a wall, always have an eye on the exits and entrances to places you are
    * Fuck the bombshells you will randomly encounter on these adventures.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  190. swap by pbjones · · Score: 1

    I'd shave off my beard. As much cash as possible from the bank, eat well, then die happy. There is nowhere to run, the Govt does not respect boundaries if they want you band enough.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  191. The very *first* thing I would do by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    is post a detailed description of my elaborate escape plan to slashdot. Some of you guys are pretty sharp and could probably point out a few minor problems and make some suggestions.

  192. Depends by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Are we talking like "Rodney King" strange or "Roswell" strange?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  193. Well played by phagstrom · · Score: 1

    Well played illuminati, but you won't get my plan that easily.

  194. The submitter here has something to say by diacritica · · Score: 1

    Hi, the submitter here.

    Of course, I was expecting some "I would ask Slashdot" (Funny:5) and "I would not tell Slashdot" (Insightful: 5) answers but I think that a good procedure could be exposed to the public much like a public encryption key and still preserve the effectiveness.

    It's quite interesting to read the 440+ comments and see there's a pattern (or antipattern). I gave 5-6 pieces of contextual data but there are two of them that are being neglected in some way. I said "you are able to speak one language apart from good English" but nobody took advantage of that, interesting. I also said "in a G8 country of your choosing" but I might well have just asked for US citizens (there are some honorable exceptions, true). The "computer savvy" clue was either ignored or überused.

    The family ties are the most disturbing (or lets say annoying) to me. Just picture your husband/wife not knowing why you're missing, defaulting to Defcon 1 and going to the police. You want to avoid that at all costs but "they" might be monitoring her. That's why I think this Ask Slashdot should introduce a procedure in your lifes (as we do have at home and, btw, my wife was the one to suggest me to Ask Slashdot) so you have a code, something that sends either one of these two messages to your AAA relative: "I'm OK, just wait and I'll contact you again though it might take time" or "I'm not OK, open the red envelope and follow instructions". Note that those messages can be delivered without saying that as long as you have prearranged them.

    The other thing is the money. I think, because this is RealWorld(tm) and not MatrixWorld(tm), you could try and get some cash from your bank but only in T.LT.2h. It's dangerous but not because of the "there's being a problem with your order, Sir, please wait here a couple of minutes" death sentence but for having entered a difficult to escape place (so you should devise a plan to get safely out of the bank).

    I loved when in a previous Ask Slashdot about migrating to a country someone said Australia could be a good place to be in in the event of a IIIWW, this is geek-style thinking.

    I too remember a guy I was interviewing for a job post in my company that had a plan in case of a zombi apocalypse. It was very detailed (not just the Cardio rule) and I nearly got him on board just for that but, alas, his FOSS knowledge was below par. Well, the main difference between a zombi apocalypse and my setting is that in the latter the world keeps going on as usual and you can't trust other "fellow" humans, but the point is that you can still prepare you way out just in case.

    The core of the problem is that you didn't plan this in advance because, not surprisingly, you weren't expecting it but you're forced to devise a semiprofessional plan in hours time.

    I'll post my own answer in a few hours time so you can be sure I'm not cheating here.

    1. Re:The submitter here has something to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The language isn't useful, if we're running away from the people you are talking about, they know you speak that language and will look out for likely destinations based on it.

      Computers won't help with a physical disappearance except for communication. Communication when you're trying to hide is a bad idea. Even encrypted communication.

      As for the G8 country of your choosing, people will base their ideas on what they know. Most people here are American, and will have perfectly reasonable biases towards that. I mean, I suppose you *could* move to the arctic in Canada if that's the country you're in, but as a Canadian, even I wouldn't think of that, because chances are you'd die.

  195. Re:WWAD - Assange isn't hiding, ass hat by Blade · · Score: 2

    Or, you could let the law determine the truth by following the due legal process.

  196. Slow and steady wins the race.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0. Remove battery and SIM card from cellphone.
    1. Get bicycle out of garage.
    1.1 Install touring panniers.
    1.2 Install long-distance water kit.
    1.3 Add "season appropriate" wear from gear shelf.
    2. Grab "ditch kit" - Cash (Assume $3000 in cash),Credit Cards, ATM cards, passport, identification.
    2.1 Remove batteries from all electronics.
    2.2 Store all documents, currency and electronics in RF shielded bag.
    3. Raid fridge/cupboards. Load panniers.
    4. Get on the road. 20 miles in any direction to a suitable intersection. Turn on cellphone, call work, let them know you are heading 50 miles to north.
    5. Turn off cellphone.
    6. Head south.
    7. Locate a pickup truck at a grocery store.
    8. Turn on cellphone, do not make a call. Put cellphone in truck bed.
    9. Continue traveling.
    10. Congratulations, you are off the grid.

  197. Plan A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hire several private detectives, send them all chasing the people who you think are chasing you, and their general 'interest' in the government plus the way they are omnipresent will most certainly put you, as a chasee, in a better position

  198. Six step program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 Do not contact anybody you knew in your previous life.
    2 Change your appereance. (clothes, hair, glasses, beard, whatever)
    3 Get cash
    4 Get away from all of your previous places you have every stayed for a while.
    5 Work for cash or items or services you require (place to sleep, food, cleanup, new appearance)
    6 Go To 4

  199. Hmmm Can't imagine being such a limited individual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a dual citizen but thanks to a name change in one country and bureaucracy in the other I have 2 passports with different names. I took advantage of the situation once when I had to make a trip outside a 3rd country where I was a resident alien awaiting some paperwork without which I couldn't re-enter the country. I travelled on my alternate passport and had no problems.

    I have a pretty good idea of what I would do to go dark. There are a few people that I trust, and even fewer with some useful information sources. I can speak three languages fluently and have a working knowledge of three more, most of them from exposure at an early age. I am just paranoid enough that I have a good chunk of funds outside of anything directly traceable to me: at least enough to disappear for a good length of time, or even get a "new life" setup elsewhere. I have had a bag packed with "essentials" including my current preferred portable technology packed when I go to bed. It has some cash, a "clean" credit card from a foreign bank from the other country of which I am a citizen, more cash, passports and some personal items. Absolutely worst case scenario I could get somewhere safe enough to figure out the next step to take and remain safe while doing so. Depending who is after you there will always be areas of relative safety where outsiders stick out while you have enough cultural affinity to blend in.

    Realistically this isn't going to happen. Part of controlling paranoia is accepting that most of it is simply unrealistic but that doesn't mean preparations are stupid. What would you do if there was a blackout and you couldn't get cash from an ATM for a couple of days or even a week? Do you have enough food to at least eat something cold? Have you got an emergency stove? How about some cash squirreled away? There is no need to be as paranoid as I am or even more so, but there are good reasons to at least contemplate some dislocation in your life.

  200. Obligatory Biafra reference by apraetor · · Score: 1

    That's easy -- only criminals need to run and hide, duh. If the government is after you, you're a crook and should be thrown in the clink.

  201. Public plan by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    If I witness a crime thingy committed by the government, which they did in some privacy, I would first collect some information /or skip that task) and tell it out loud to a journalist (public TV) and wait for the evening news. This will (in a paranoid scenario) move the hunt from me to the journalist and at the very time the information is in the office of the TV station the government is no longer able to get it removed. They could hack into it and disrupt the services, but that will come out (obviously public TV will go offline) and the aftermath would be disastrous. At least that would be the case in Germany, where I tend to live. On the other hand in Germany, the secret services are mostly harmless, and normally get caught by police or the press. So that would leave the police to do something nasty, which they do occasionally, which comes out every time (maybe with some delay) and has no real consequences. But if the government messes up, then that is in the news by the evening and afterwards the same people are elected. So why hunt anyone?

    In the US. I would go to my embassy and let them do the talking.

  202. No problem. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    They can follow me around as much as they like, I'll just stick close to my motorbike with its nifty sidecar. So far, they're staying out of my way. In fact, they're pretty eager on removing obsticles for me. Sort of like my personal army of servants. Very nice. - Raven

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  203. I surrender. by Havenwar · · Score: 1

    I'm not Bourne, and savvy or not disappearing isn't going to happen for "normal" people if forces of that magnitude is out to get you. Sure, I could take the long shot, just pack my family up and go on "vacation" abroad, but odds are that would just flag me and I wouldn't get out of the country. So, never mind that. Do the right thing. Surrender.

    Now, the problem with that is that I don't trust the government as far as I can throw them. And that's not very far, in case you wondered. So how do I make sure I get treated fairly? I don't. Quite the opposite. I just make sure it's as public as possible. I write down a full account of exactly what I witnessed, and what has happened since, everything I know objectively, everything I observed subjectively, and all my fears and worries. I use tor to post this in a couple of places on the hidden web, I e-mail it to as many journalists as I can dig up in half an hour on google, I e-mail it to blogs, to the EFF, to Amnesty, to the UN, to the Government, to FBI, to the library of congress, to various agencies and so on. The latter ones because here in Sweden a lot of those places have very strict rules to register every incoming communication with a number and all, some places even make those records public, which means it would be all the much harder to censor.

    If any reporters indicate any interest I will spend my time with them after that, lounging around the newspaper offices or whatnot. The "bad guys" are welcome to come and arrest me there, or take me away from there for questioning. It would take a lot of work to silence an entire cadre of reporters efficiently without a leak, so I'd feel reasonably certain that the news of my removal would leak out. With that even if nobody believed my original assertions, suddenly they'd become the front page news all over the world.

    So basically by following those actions I'd make the only good choice for the government to withdraw silently. If there is no further indications of wrong-doing, I'd just come off as a regular nutcase, a conspiracy theorist, and nobody would listen to a word I said. If they come after me, it becomes a big deal and everyone will know I hit a nerve with what I said, which will bring unwanted attention.

    Of course nobody expects them to be rational, but it's still the best bet I've got. It'll at least give me a chance to get released once the media frenzy hits the magic level.

    But I'll probably still get "caught". Then I guess I'll get waterboarded. Fun fun fun, in the sun sun sun.

  204. Write your own damn script! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff said

  205. it loosk absoultly nothing like by juenger1701 · · Score: 1

    anything i would post on a public site that's easily traceable and archived for god knows how long

  206. Mostly wrong advice... by Panaflex · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the most helpful thing to do is... NOTHING. If they're following you then it's to confirm their own suspicions, so if you flip out you'll be arrested ASAP. If you start cashing out your bank account then you are confirming their suspicions.

    As long as they aren't approaching you then don't play the games. Play it safe and keep an eye out for situations which may call attention or suspicion.

    If you're to be arrested they won't follow you - they'll just arrest you on the spot unless you've become part of a long-term investigation. If you're part of a long term investigation then you can get a lawyer and offer full cooperation. It may be that a family member of coworker is under investigation and you can set the record straight for yourself.

    Otherwise if everything goes smoothly then wait a week and write it down on paper and have it notarized with a lawyer present some time later. Or record a video and mail it to your parents/siblings. That way if you're pulled into a court case at a later date you are prepared and already have a lawyer.

    In short, Don't play games and don't go hollywood, unless you are reasonably suspicious that your life is threatened. In that case, get to safety and call a government agency that you can reasonably trust.

    --
    I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    1. Re:Mostly wrong advice... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "... call a government agency that you can reasonably trust."

      I wouldn't trust a government agency to look after my lunch money, let alone my safety.

  207. An ITIN won't work either by sirwired · · Score: 1

    While a ITIN (which is NOT an SSN) can be used in place of one in some situations (such as opening a bank account) they are not interchangeable; the IRS, ICE, and SSA know when you've fed them an ITIN instead of a real SSN. (A credit bureau might be fooled, I suppose...) Any eVerify (which is more and more nowadays, unless you want to work in construction or a meatpacking plant) employer won't hire you. And you'll have to do a bit of forgery work just to convince the IRS to issue the number.

    There are very few people born in the last 20 years or so either in the US or to an American citizen abroad that don't have an SSN. An application to get one is provided to US parents at birth, and most parents promptly fill it out (or file the appropriate "foreign birth" paperwork) because you cannot be claimed as a dependent without a genuine SSN.

    If, for bizarre reason, an American citizen is alive today, has not just been born, and does not have an SSN, the SSA will issue one, but only after a very rigorous process of verifying your identity, confirming that person has not already been issued an SSN, and the SSA obtaining certified birth records and citizenship records direct from the issuing authority. (So any forgery you present in person is worthless.) It makes getting a passport look easy.

  208. I'd start by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not posting my plans on Slashdot.

    BTW: fuck you NSA

  209. Condoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can read Swedish and since the police documents has leaked (of course) and is available on the Internet I have read them. Strange read. What the girls say, what Assange says and what other witnesses say, doesn't really match, but the truth is subjective I guess. Anyway, it seems that Assange has a problem with condoms.

    One girl says that they had sex in the evening with condom; he did not want to use it, but she insisted. Then in the morning he initiated sex. She asked "Are you wearing something?" and he answered "You". Since he already was in her and she didn't want to nag more about using condom, they had been arguing about it all night, she let it happen. Then there is a lot about how she asked him if he had tested himself for HIV (he answered yes), what if she gets pregnant etc etc. She bought "the day after" pills, so she didn't get pregnant.

    Then the punchline: Later, when she spoke to some friends about what had happened, she realized that she had been raped.

    The other girl that he lived with in her flat while in Stockholm actually claims that he damaged the condom, on purpose, and ejaculated inside her.

    1. Re:Condoms by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Ok. That version makes sense if it happened that way. But you see, it's a little more complicated than just 'they agreed on one thing' and he did another'. That explanation begs the question of why she allowed it. This version pretty much explains that.

  210. Re:WWAD - Assange isn't hiding, ass hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what if the legal process is corrupt(ed)? Or used nefariously? Will you personally promise to punish the people who did this if Assange ends up in US custody? Are you willing to die to prevent a miscarriage of justice if this happens? Do you even have a list of names of the people involved? Their connections? And why they are involved?

    You tell Assange that he should stand up and be held accountable, but who is making sure the people charging him are held accountable? Try looking up some of their names, their affiliations, their connections and see if that level of "justice" should be expended on one person? And I mean any one person, even a mass-murderer... the cost per day is almost unimaginable, all for questioning about a possible rape charge that has already once been dropped?

    Legal process may not exist anymore, there are so many laws that trump it now in most first world countries, that I am sad when I see a comment like yours and know you mean well :(

  211. Easy by fadethepolice · · Score: 1

    I would drive back to my hometown immediately. While there I would try to get access to as much cash as possible. The rest I would move to bitcoins and place the wallet on a flash drive in my pocket. As soon as dark came on the second day, I would leave and move through town in the dark. Where I come from there are deserted dead end neighborhoods connected to long dark abandoned railway tunnels. Using a variety of pathways through this abandoned streets / tunnel system I am confident I could lose pursuit and gain access to the rail network. I would then stowaway on trains heading west until I reached california. After that I would hobo it north to the "Gold Coast" and get employment at a marijuana factory, or hide out with a bunch of hippies in the woods protecting the redwoods, hoping to not get arrested. I would be in california. My last transaction would be on the east coast. I am assuming they would believe I was in my hometown somewhere using "home territory advantage".

  212. Two words: Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two words: Bradley Manning

  213. Hello, you're officially nuts. by R.+M.+Dasheff · · Score: 1

    Walk into the nearest hospital emergency room and tell the nice lady at the front desk what you've just told us.

  214. Re:WWAD - Assange isn't hiding, ass hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, you could let the law determine the truth by following the due legal process.

    Which starts.... with charges. Which, haven't appeared yet. He HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED. That means the old "don't talk to the pigs" rights are in play. (And it's never a good idea, make your lawyer do it.)

    Due legal process is not defined by "let foreign governments create a smear campaign to catch someone long enough to disappear them" you anti-constitution faggot.

  215. If you're up for a longish read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.wired.com/vanish/2009/11/ff_vanish2

    Writer tries to vanish, gets the Internet to try to find him. Mind you, he tries to leave red herrings and has to objectives other than merely disappearing, so he takes a lot of risks - but it's an interesting read just the same.

  216. 2 words by dogmod · · Score: 1

    Call Sal

  217. Disappear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd take the blue pill.

  218. Wel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had a good plan, I would definitely NOT share it but massive amounts of people!

  219. I also am struggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to leave my current life to start a new life with a woman I love quite a bit more than my wife. I can't even see what I saw in my wife. Obviously, I never would have got married if I knew that wasn't "as good as it gets." I think there is some true, soul-mate love shit with this other woman. We haven't even kissed or slept together, but I just want AWAY from my damn family. I don't care if it doesn't work out between her and I. I JUST WANT TO FUCKING DISAPPEAR

  220. Ask in /. for a plan to disappear by chelip · · Score: 1

    Ask in /. for a plan to disappear

  221. Withdraw all cash first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dump my phone pronto, since I can be tracked from that.

    Get a taxi. I'm in Brussels at the moment, and I'd have the driver take me to the three largest train stations in sequence (trying to lose the tails that might be following me). At the last station (Midi) I buy several train tickets, one way, all departing in the next 60 minutes. Copenhagan, Paris, Antwerp, Amsterdam, London, Koln. Buy a burner phone.

    Go to get on any one of them. Get off with seconds to go before the doors close. Take the London one.

    Send message to a friend, not a relative. Don't identify myself in the text directly. The wording would have to be carefully chosen.

    Once in London, head to the Ecudorian embassy, I guess.

  222. Rather simply, by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

    Sweden has been proven to have delivered "terrorism suspects" to the CIA, who has then subsequently sent them abroad for torture (see Wikileaks documents themselves or any of the countless news stories about it). I'm not sure the same can be said of the UK. So, regardless of which is easier to obtain extradition from, Sweden has a proven and globally known track record on human rights violations that can be used as an excuse to grant asylum, whereas the UK does not.

  223. Let's see by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    1. You need liquid money. Go to the bank and get some cash. $20 bills are preferable as they are most common. An ATM would be simple, but they usually only allow you to take out $500 per day for security reasons. So, you may want to go to the counter.

    You have more assets than just what's in the bank. Jewelry, TV, Computer, etc. Pawn it. Yes, they will likely want ID, but you haven't lost your tail yet.

    2. Lose your tail. Buy some airline tickets on a credit card. Drive to the airport and park in long term parking. Walk into the airport and through a crowd. However, you probably don't want to go through security. Leave the airport. I used to say, get on a train and catch as many transfers as possible. Most cities don't check your ticket at each station or when you leave the system, so you become very difficult to locate. However, cities such as Washington D.C. aren't like that, be careful. Also note that light rail surveillance systems have become much more complex in the last decade and they may have facial recognition that will ruin this plan.

    I personally like the Borne Identity approach of finding a shitty old car, and giving the owner a wad of cash for it. Yeah, the car may break down, but no one knows it's yours, and it most likely won't be reported stolen. It'll be very hard to track.

    3. Keep on the move, and keep a low profile. Try to travel in a direction other than the one you bought airline tickets for. You've bought yourself some time to come up with a plan from here. Weather permits, you can sleep in the car/camp. Truck stops have showers, etc. to keep you civilized. If it's cold, you may need to hide out in homeless shelters. Traveling on foot in the wilderness has advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage is you won't cover enough ground. It'll give the people after you a very small area to search. If you decide to ditch the car and travel on foot, be sure to hide the car well. Once your car is found abandoned, they will figure you are near by.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  224. Three Days of the Condor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Am I that old? "Three Days of the Condor". CIA analyst played by Robert Redford is on the run. Max Von Sydow plays an amoral "troubleshooter" chasing the Redford character.

    Chris Carters sites this movie as one of the primary inspirations for the X-Files.

    It's aged well, check it out.

  225. The only way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surrender, convert, subvert.

  226. What Would Your 'I've Got To Disappear' Plan Look by Band0r+v0n+0stwick · · Score: 1

    I the case of someone fishing for ideas for a novel, I happen to be a writer myself. I am a great writer, everything I publish is a masterpiece, an instant classic. So am going to give you a couple of pointers, you know, from one writer to another. Lets start off with your current situation, you have a family, well say a pretty extensive and hearty life. You have taken witness to a horrible act, telling by the tails on you who look like they should be stealth but seem blatant enough as though they want you to see them disturbs you even further. This is probably part of something far sinister than some thug and goon thing. Now you want to vaporize yourself, but this is not physically possible, unless, maybe these guys catch you. Okay. Let us begin with your social life. Your Facebook, Email, Twitter, bla-bla-blah accounts Cellphone(contract) Credit Cards Even your work life and job. If you truly feel that you or your family is in danger, and that you want to disappear, consider these things gone. G-O-N-E Kapoof! (More on this in a second) Now, your family, do you think that they just want you? Or do you think that they will use them as some sort of bargaining chip? It is much harder, if not impossible, some someone to disappear their whole family than just themselves. Your kids, are they teenagers? They like Facebook too? This won't end well. First. Obtain as much cash as you can. Liquidate but not conspicuously. Get hold of a private investigator who is willing to help. Will cost you so be prepared. See what he can do for you. In the mean time You are probably going to have to "slip into the night" according to EVERYONE. That means your wife, your kids, your co workers, your entourage etc. Take all of your social network and sort of brick them, in case you get the temptation somewhere down the line. You will want to randomly generate a 75+ character string (special characters included) and a different one for each of your social accounts. Login into and change your passwords for each account, randomly generate a string for each one. Do Not make a record or copy these strings and save them, just go on to the next one. I have to do something so I will just leave some pointers for you to use: 1) Cash is King (or prepaid CC) Leave ALL of your current banking life behind. Kapoof! remember? 2) If cash is King, then Misinformation is Queen: Lookup and apply for information on renting places or moving to somewhere you are NOT going. Apply for apartments in these places. Go to the library and get books on places you are NOT going. etc. etc. 3) Disposable communications are your pawns: Disposable phones, email addresses, dead drops. Mailboxes Etc. These are your new friends. Get to know them in-and-out. Set up a complicated forwarding system within the mailbox stores so you can safely receive parcels etc. 4) Shell Companies are some of your other pawns. If and when you establish a new ID for yourself, you will want to incorporate. Buy things of significance through these companies blah blah blah. I have to get going, but when you have established yourself and you feel it is safe, never really can be. If you are willing to take the risk. Get hold of your private investigator just to check up on your family from time to time. Hope this helps. Not too integral of a piece but I am on limited time.

  227. Frickin Amateurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty straightforward, only talk to people on the phone/post online when drunk.

    99.9% percent of the world drops my packets :P

  228. Re:I'll Become...Presidential Green Party Candidat by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    Alternatively, become the bass player for a band. Seems to have a similar effect.

  229. Camping gear, Boat, Fishing Rod, Fresh Water by obscuro · · Score: 1

    Hour zero pull 100% of your money out. Get family, camping gear, fresh water, fishing gear, walky talkies and books on surviving in the environment's you're heading into. Needless to say, no credit or debit cards. Ditch cell phones. Keep a laptop but never connect that one to internet again.

    Get to the nearest extremely large lake, rent/lease the boat with cash. Fancy is bad. Stay on the water or in the wilderness. Slowly get to know the authorities around the lake. Tell them your story. Wait.

    --
    Every rule has more than one consequence.
  230. Ask for help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I would do is sum up your situation in an "ask slashdot" question and submit it the the internet hordes. Within 24 hours you should have a bunch of good ideas and a TON of snide-but-hilarious comments. Then, pick the best option and implement it.

  231. The rule of law. by madhi19 · · Score: 1

    Assuming I only witness an incident and have done nothing wrong in the sense of the law. And provided that I live in a country that still respect the rule of law, I know that excluding the US but am Canadian anyway. I would contact my lawyers and bring down the wrath of god on whatever agency feel they can investigate or harass me. My statement would likely be charge me with something or back the fuck away! In a more polite form but you get the gist. You have no idea how fast the threats of lawsuits get some peoples to leave you alone. After further consulting with my lawyers we will provide a carefully written statement on the incident to show that we are more than willing to offer any lawful cooperation but that any further communication would be through my lawyer. You do all that and they might hate your guts but they usually leave you alone. Off course expect your tax return to be audited for the next five years and don't ever drive even slightly above the speed limit.

  232. beard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The beard thing is pretty good advice. I've noticed that going from beard to no beard (or the other way) makes me look very different. As in clerks at stores I frequent don't recognize me any more (where they did before). It won't fool people who know you well, but it will make you not match an old photograph at all. It also seems to screw with age estimates. Shaving a beard can make you look over a decade younger.

  233. Not telling anyone about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Including posting it on a public forum

    Even as AC.

  234. Oh I like these games by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    * pull a disappearing act. This would probably involve my house and/or vehicle blowing up. This may or may not coincidentially coincide with me cooking dinner on the gas stove or filling up fuel. The 'escape' part is the secret spy stuff we won't talk about, because that's secret and the hardest part. The secret part is that it's really not that difficult - they just have to be thrown off your trail long enough to think you're still close enough to find or catch. Being presumed dead works well for having them stay still and look for your remains.
    * hit up as many banks and ATMs as possible for cash while they're still looking for you. Ideally, have an accomplice do it for you, contacted in a clandestine fashion.
    * place as many covert monitoring devices on or near the people monitoring me as possible.
    * disappear. Possibly somewhere in the woods, possibly to a cafe in Europe - who knows? That's the point. If I tell anyone, I'm not below the radar. Ideally, give every indication that I have no intention of returning.
    * Wait until they're least expecting it (hopefully you made a thorough disappearing act), and kill them all like in the opening scenes of Commando.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  235. Sit and wait... by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    Firstly, the "contextual details" blew reality in the equation right out the window. Second, doesn't happen. If you witnessed something you shouldn't and the government knows, you got less than 24 hours to escape those you witnessed, especially if they know you saw them. Finally, if the guvment is after you and you have done nothing wrong but witness a crime, wait for them to come or turn yourself in. The Hollywood bullschtein will only get you into real trouble or get you killed. Leave the spy stuff to the professionals. You see, they shake their heads and get flustered when they see what they do dumbed down just like we computer types cringe at movies like Swordfish and Jurassic Park. Some of what they do is depicted but how it really gets done ain't even close.

  236. So this is what retarded submissions look like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Slashdot is once again scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  237. Speaking of credit cards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave one of your real credit cards out at a "rest stop" in the US, or along a major travel route in any other country - where someone may steel it. Or give it to someone and ask them to make some purchases at their destination - on you. This might throw the pursuer off briefly as they see "you" using your card. Also, turn on your cell phone and tape it securely to the underside of a vehicle stopped along a major highway. You'll need to stop using your identifiable credit card and cell phone anyway. Do these in sequence, so they don't see you going 2 directions at once.

  238. First rule for a "I've Got to Disappear Plan" by Mephistophles · · Score: 1

    Is "don't publish the plan on the Internet". Good luck!

  239. The First Rule by Darth+Hubris · · Score: 1

    The first rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is you do not talk about the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan"
    The second rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is you do not talk about the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan"
    The third rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is if someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out, the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is over.
    The fourth rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is only two guys to a "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan"
    The fifth rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is only one "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" at a time
    The sixth rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is no shirt, no shoes
    The seventh rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is "'I've Got To Disappear' Plans" will go on as long as they have to
    The eighth rule of the "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" is if this is your first "'I've Got To Disappear' Plan" you HAVE to disappear

    --
    The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out
  240. They're dead. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    You are engaged/married, you have family living in the same city.

    Let's be just slightly realistic about this, and make the people who are following you credible : they're criminals engaged in something major.
    If your family are very, very lucky, your mobile phone is at home and you are dead. Under torture (footnote), you have told Them (whoever they are) your family's contact details and confirmed the details repeatedly in an unsuccessful attempt to get the pain to stop. If your family are very, very lucky, your absence of phone (or more credibly, having your phone with a battery that went flat several hours before the event of interest ; they re-charge it and check, because they're not idiots) may convince your captors that you haven't told anyone what you saw. You earnestly try to convince them that you really did not have another phone which you disposed of shortly before your capture, because if they think that, then your family and friends are also dead. This becomes your only goal in what remains of your agonising life. But, frankly, you're unlikely to be able to think that far ahead.
    Then you disappear. Into a bridge foundation ; into a pig's stomach ; into a furnace ; whatever. You are no longer even meat. If you're lucky you're killed before you're incinerated/ buried/ eaten.
    Your grieving family / friends eventually settle the probate (it's 7 years in this country), but may well be bankrupted in the process. But they'll be alive. If your ghost (ghosts don't exist) contacts them and persuades them to act on what you saw, then the criminals will kill them. Tragic car crash. Wiring fault burns the house down. Gunman at Batman movie. Whatever. Dead meat.

    Oh, sorry, did you want a warm fuzzy feeling?

    (footnote : torture for answers, not for cinematic effect : gag the victim and restrain. Cut them up - carefully - burn and electrocute at will ; on one side. The meat is a talking corpse, so the meat is not going to bear witness against you. Then remove the gag and ask questions. Re-gag. Repeat the torture, on the OTHER, previously undamaged side of the body. Repeat the questions. Compare the sets of answers. Repeat until meat dies or questions are consistently given the same answers. Not Hollywood torture with feather dusters and no cutting-off of faces and sex organs.)

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  241. For a year, disappearing should be possible by ReginaldBarclay · · Score: 1
    1. invent a reason to withdraw lots a cash, and disseminate widely (like "spotted a really nice car/bike") via your usual channels (preferrably electronic or otherwise easilly accessible for surveillance)
    2. withdraw cash, at least 5-figure amount in $ or â
    3. let your social network (by which I mean real-life family and real-life friends, not F*book) know what's going on, and that you will be incommunicado, and not even watching news (so threats against family/friends are pointless for your adversaries), for at least half a year. Include co-workers/bosses/underlings/HR departments from 3 jobs ago. Physical letters, written in your own hand, not email. Include hand-written letter appointing someone you trust to look after your affairs.
    4. invent an errand as an axcuse to get out of work in the middle of the day, and borrow someone's car/bike/bicycle, whatever your cow-orkers can provide
    5. drive to a different nearby city, leave car where it'll be towed after a day or two. Preferrably crossing a border or two in the process. Leave the US or UK if your starting place is there. Changing continent is probably futile.
    6. walk to someplace nearby. Yes, even you can hike for 10-20km. Preferrably along hiking paths in woods, along a river or somesuch, wherever there's not much chance of CCTV.
    7. don some form of hat or baseball cap or so. Whatever's not too uncommon in your area. And sunglasses Stylish, not obviously for obscuring your face. If usually bearded, lose it. Change hairstyle somehow
    8. use some public transport, as crowded as can be found, that doesn't require ID, and can be paid for in cash.
    9. repeat 7. at least 5 times. Intersperse with walking (like from railway station X to bus station Y) and taxi trips. Get off PT through already-closing doors. Enter somewhere where multiple lines stop, enter throigh already-closing doors.
    10. buy some hiking gear, A backpack here, a tent (not in a singal colour!) there, a camping stove elseplace, canned food etc.
    11. you should now be equipped for a week of the great outdoors, and be someplace where there's really lots of woods around. Go hiking in a fashion it'll take you a week until you meet Big Civilization again, avoid towns and villages and as much human contact as possible.
    12. walk into stores not located in the absolute outskirts of cities or tiny settlements and buy supplies. It's good if said stores are at least 2 days hiking away from your hiding area, and if they're in areas where pedestrians are not completely uncommon (like L.A.).
    13. hike for a week to someplace else after a week of resting - your blisters will thank you for it.
    14. always maintain as good personal hygiene as at all possible - both for medical as for appearances sake. Wash clothes and yourself in a stream (a bar of soap is sufficient. Keep one change of clothes decent, and use it only for trips in urban areas. You want to be taken for a random hiking person, not a trespassing homeless. Do not make use of unattended hiking houses (if such even exist in your area - they're common in mainland Europe), ever.
    15. If caught by park rangers etc. whilst illegally camping, be friendly and just pay the fine

    That 5-figure cash amount is good for a year of living outdoors if you're careful.

  242. Crowd source your safety by dafthero+ · · Score: 1

    Once I was out of immediate danger, I would post all relevant details on 4chan and let the epic trolls begin.

  243. Don't disappear, go offensive by prgrmr · · Score: 1

    Governments outlive people, so there's no way you could take enough cash or resources with you if you don't already have a safe house setup somewhere. So go offensive and immediately get to your attorney who should be well versed in federal criminal law as well as civil law and have some understanding of international law with regard to protecting you from getting extradited. Have your attorney appeal to your state's/province's attorney general office for protection because you witnessed a possible criminal act and you now fear for your safety. (That you are fearing for your safety from the federal government is irrelevant as far as the A.G. should be concerned).

    You will also want to simultaneously arrange for a "leak" to your local newspaper and TV station as well as sending anonymous "leaks" to national newspapers, cable news networks, and the AP in case the A.G's office just turns you over to the feds. Ensure that your attorney has several of his partners or even another law firm in on what's going on, so you have defense in-depth in case someone gets cold feet (genuine or is paid-off to), so there will be someone to file the appropriate papers with the courts. Also let you family and friends know so that if the feds are intent on making your "disappear" it won't happen without considerable notice.

    And above all, don't be naive: if the feds want you, they are going to get you. Don't waste time, money, or effort preventing it, just presume it will happen and deal with it from that point on.

  244. Vanishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an interesting story on Wired about something similar.

    Finding Evan Ratliff and the game RepoMan:

          http://www.wired.com/vanish/

  245. what makes you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you need to ask?

  246. Re:Would you trust the answers you got from Slashd by busybox · · Score: 1

    They wouldn't straight away shoot/kill you. They'd want to know whether you have passed on the information to someone else.

    They might also be interested in knowing the circumstances in which you witnessed it, so as to know whether (a) there was a leak from their group, (b) someone else witnessed it too.

  247. 4th world by chaos_technique · · Score: 1

    I'd buy a case of 8.6 beer and beg for spare change in front of my local superette. Those guys never get a second look.

    --
    Singe capitulard mangeur de fromage
  248. Cloak of Invisibility. by Dabido · · Score: 1

    Lucky for me I invented a cloak of invisibility that I have right here ... er ... wait ... I left it over there I think ... er ... has anyone seen my cloak of invisibility?

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  249. Ah, the moment I have been expecting... by BuFf0k_SPQA · · Score: 1

    Firstly, despite all outwards appearances, I am not crazy... I live in South Africa (a politically charged nation at the best of times) and live in a small mining town (Population 60 000, predominantly coal mining). The nature of my job not only means that I am often placed in threatening situations (Senior Labour Consultant, former head of IT for a national company), but also that I have started keeping a ready bag at my house (A backpack which contains basic toiletries, first aid kit, survival kit and a weeks change of clothes for cold weather and warm weather and about R 2000.00 cash which is aprox $ 260.00). I will admit that the survival kit sounds overkill, but I have paramilitary training which becomes even harder to explain, and have always believed in the old adage that over-preparedness is better than failure. The ready kit is stocked and maintained because I often have to leave town to attend to strikes or other labour matters across the country within minutes. 1. Since I have taken an hour to realize that I am being followed, it is obvious that I have given them sufficient time to tap my iPhone and my internet connection. Lets assume that I am at home at the time of this realization, so I simply run inside, grab my ready bag, my laptop bag and head to the car. 2. I stop at the ATM and draw what cash I can, then I give my cellphone and my atm card to the nearest bum, tell him to do the same every day until my limit is exhausted and provide him with my PIN. (Misdirection is the key). 3. Drive to a mates house who lives just outside of town and has very lax security, change cars (Leaving mine with the keys will ensure that he is not worried). 4. Drive out to one of the local mines I know where the security doesn't check when a valid access card is used at the gate and get inside the premises that way. 5. Park my mates car there and grab one of the LDV's that are always reverse parked with their keys in the ignition (Mine Safety Policy) and head out of the mine again. 6. Go to the airfield where my mates keep their planes (Mostly Cessnas, FAMB is a very quiet airfield) and park my stolen LDV inside one of the hangers, grab one of the ATV's that are kept there and head accross runway 14 into the game farm next door. 7. Disappear into the 'kloof' for about 3 months, camping, roughing it and living off the land while writing up everything that I know and saw. 8. Anonymously mail my report to all media sources, attorneys and other public figures that I know (I do know quite a few due to the nature of my work). 9. Wait for the public outcry and then surface as a revolutionary. 10. Take over the country and retire. The scary thing is, the above plan will work, even scarier, that is only my third backup contingency in such a situation...

  250. ROTFLMAO (you surrendered & had to) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your own errors/misdoings did you in vs. APK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41093025

    1. Re:ROTFLMAO (you surrendered & had to) by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Hey, cool! I'm being stalked with off topic bullshit by APK!!!

      And don't tell me you're not APK, because only APK would know that I'd posted that in response to an AC that claimed to be APK, and only APK would know that it was, in fact, APK that posted the first AC, since APK hasn't got a real account, because any account APK creates gets modded into oblivion because he's such an idiot.

      If you weren't an AC for EVERY SINGLE POST you make, you'd be more worth considering as a human being.
      And you didn't answer my question: Why DO you need to respond twice to virtually every post containing your monogram?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  251. Liberally apply Tinfoil by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Duh, this is slashdot...

    Also ignite the thermite sprinkled all over my electronics...

    Then using my pre-arranged zombie apocolypse kit, move in with some deranged survivalists in the wilderness.

    After that there isn't much left to do by wait, I would recommend lots of booze and recreational drugs.

  252. Why disappear? by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    The OP has the wrong idea. If you didn't do anything wrong, why are you taking it upon yourself to disappear? Instead of that, I would immediately notify as many people in as large a geographic area as possible about the situation. Disseminating this information will make it difficult for the government to vanish you because many people will ask questions.

    OTOH, if you fear for your safety or that of your family, after doing what I recommended above, then you may indeed need to disappear because most countries frown on the practice of citizens using lethal force against police/government officials to protect themselves, even when they are justified in doing so.

  253. Re:Would you trust the answers you got from Slashd by plover · · Score: 1

    So posing the question to a bunch of nerds on the internet wouldn't make sense.

    Actually, if you were a paranoiac, this would be one way to get other people to confirm your ideas without having to share your own secret plans with anyone else. If you see your ideas on the page, you could say "oh, good, someone else thinks this is a good idea too!" Or you could be trying to make yourself feel superior because nobody else proved themselves as clever as you at planning their big escape.

    Or you could be slightly less paranoid, and looking for confirmation that spending of thousands of dollars on survivalist gear wasn't a complete waste. Perhaps this is something to show the Significant Other to say "see, these are normal people who aren't on survivalists'R'us.com and they are also buying two shotguns and 24 boxes of ammo, so I'm not just being crazy." That could backfire, of course, unless there actually are enough crazy survivalists on Slashdot to back him up. (In that case you need more sock puppets and ACs, my mythical protagonist.)

    I have a friend who I don't think is actually crazy, but he has three bug-out packs in his house, ready to go. One is easily carry-able and has the essential small and very light weapons, ammo, money and gold, ID cards, water filter, and assorted camp trinkets. The next pack bulks up the weapons with shotgun, rifle, lots of ammo, and more gear. The last pack includes shelter and food kinds of things. So depending on the circumstances of the exit he is making, he grabs the right gear for the job.

    So far, he's gone camping. Which is good, because he likes camping.

    --
    John
  254. chastity ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it just a coincidence that the chapta code I had to type in when submitting the entry I'm now replying to was "chastity" ? :)