Slashdot Mirror
Secret Chat Between Julian Assange and Eric Schmidt Published By WikiLeaks
New submitter milkasing writes "The Verge reports, 'Google chairman Eric Schmidt and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange secretly met in 2011 and held a lengthy interview, according to a transcript published on the whistleblowing site. The leak is surprisingly timely — Schmidt was apparently conducting research with Jared Cohen for the pair's book The New Digital Age, which is set to be released on Tuesday. Assange was under house arrest in England at the time the five-hour conversation took place. The conversation is a fascinating look into the minds of the two men, both of whom have had immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology over recent years."
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" - Eric Schmidt
What a great guy!
It's a publication. Assange reserved the right to view/review/approve the transcript and presumably is doing this for the benefit of both sides. It benefits Assange that he gets to publish the precise transcript to rebut any criticism that they talked about anything else. Schmidt gains the same protection (ZOMG Google Chief Talks To Known Criminal About... What?) and also some pre-launch publicity. This interview is presumably not the underpinning of his entire book, nor featured in entirety as an excerpt, so it's not a leak of the content of the book either.
When Lee Iacocca built Chrysler into a powerhouse, he said he didn't know anything about how to build a car.
You may be shocked to discover that CEOs specialize in running companies. They don't have to be expert engineers. And given Schmidt's previous statements (that people with nothing to hide shouldn't be so worried about privacy) I can understand why he'd never have an interest in TOR.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I think Eric Schmidt just doesn't get anonymity or privacy as applied to individuals (except when it applies to himself — then he's an expert lobbyist).
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
If he was guilty, which is probably not the case, they wouldn't need him to prove his guilty. This is just a smear campaign and nothing else.
Completed the first half of TFA. It is indeed fascinating.
Fascinating to know Julian Assange...his technical know how and philosophical underpinnings make him one of the foremost thinkers of our world. The way Assange connects geo-political issues, the ideas behind publishing, instant publishing to the basic design of Wikileaks is brilliant. (We have to put aside his issues in Sweden.)
Erich Schmidt comes across as a better version of Steve Ballmer. It would have been interesting if Larry Page / Sergey Brin had a conversation with Assange...they would be more interesting and the conversation would not be completely one sided.
Tat Tvam Asi
I would flee if I was in his position as would anyone with a brain. Especially considering the ridiculous nature of such accusations and the horrible track record of injustice from Swedish justice in the last years (check the piratebay trials for reference). Sweden justice system has been consistently proved to be subservient to US interests.
Your second "accusations" is basically hearsay, and your third accusation is ridiculous and completely false.
Governments feel entitled to secrecy. They are not, and it is past time for them to be accountable for their acts. Assange is not a hero or a saint, just a man who likely did both good and bad things throughout his life as all men, but one of those things happened to be something very useful for mankind.
"The Law" is not an objective measure of morality. If it were incorruptable, that may be arguable. But considering the nature of the charges, how the case was prosecuted, and the fact that one of his two accusers was kicked out of Cuba for being a CIA asset, the likelihood of his prosecution representing actual justice is very small. The government of Ecuador seems to concur.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This attitude assumes that the law and those who create it and enforce it are always on the right side of it and completely above board and beyond any sort of mischief, or worse. An attitude I do not share. I mistrust my government greatly.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Dude, you're not the only one who can post as AC!! They're not trying to impersonate you. That's just how the system works. Everybody can be AC.
...how long it would take before Eric Schmidt said something that made me facepalm. Accidentally referring to TOR as "Thor" in the very first topic he brought up was bad, but not bad enough. Admitting right after that that he doesn't really understand what it is or how it works? In 2011? Just two months after stepping down as the CEO of Google? Facepalm.
The other simple explanation is that Eric, as an investigator, wants Assange to share as much information as possible. The best way to do that is to make your audience feel knowledgeable, as if he was an authority on the topic at hand. People do this all the time--not just investigators, but anyone who wants to have their audience participate in the fullest. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is an excellent read and may give you a different perspective as to why Eric behaved the way he did during the interview. It is very possible he does not know much about TOR, etc. Or, it may very well be the case that he is deferring authority to the person he wants to have speak freely in the interview.
There is a motive for hearsay be unusable in court. That is because it means absolutely nothing. It is irrelevant.
The third accusation isn't bullshit. It was widely reported.
It was reported that the data leaked had the names. Nowhere there it is said that he asked for money to take the names of it, as you falsely accuse him of. He only asked help from the Amnesty to edit the names.
His partner outlined how the entire purpose of Wikileaks was to funnel money to Assange
Again hearsay. You seem to like it a lot.