Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Says Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen Are "Witch Doctors"
An anonymous reader writes "The Times publishes Assange's takedown of Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. From the article: 'New Digital Age is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas.'"
Is strong withing this one.
i think he might just be right... the world has already lost its privacy to google
He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.
The "witch doctors" quote is taken completely out of context. All he is saying is that some companies are rushing ahead with new tech like Google Glass and Streetview and telling us everything is fine and its good for us.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.”
Wait, that's in the future? Wasn't that the 2008 election?
He's a freak, and a paranoid treacherous loony
Treacherous? Nothing Assange has done constitutes treason. You're conflating Assange and Manning, shock amazement.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In case it's not clear from the article, it's Assange doing a book review.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1480542288
"“The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings"
Difficult to believe Schmidt put his name to that crap, there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers.
"The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself. "
Yeh CALEA and CALEA II coming soon. American.
He pans the books.
He's a freak, and a paranoid treacherous loony who is desperately overdue for his date with karma. Why are you giving this hand-flapping, self-aggrandizing tosser airtime?
Cheap click bait?
A very elaborate point, i see. Do they pay you to spread hate and discredit at least?
Treacherous. It's not a synonym for treasonous.
For what it's worth, Schmidt has virtually disappeared inside Google (I work there). Once Larry took over Eric's influence - never actually high at the best of times - appears to have dropped to somewhere near absolute zero. He rarely appears in internal events anymore and doesn't seem to have any impact on priorities or staffing decisions. He was always something of a caretaker leader even in the years he was CEO ... the real drive and product direction was always coming from back seat driving by L&S.
Assange's article makes him sound like he's been locked up in that embassy for too long, to be honest. Schmidt and Cohen may well have an unhealthily close relationship with the US Government, but as neither of them are in charge any more it makes little difference. The idea that "Google is trying to position itself as America's geopolitical visionary" is silly. I can't imagine anything that must interest Page less than geopolitics.
As opposed to David Tennent , Matt Smith, and now John Hurt who are Who Doctors...
NO, sorry, you should RTFA. He's quite a lot more, and a lot different from that. Just for starters;
"The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. "
It's an interesting read. Wish I had read the book myself first. Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives. In this way he's like Chomsky, and the problem with this is, he's liable to be right at least every so often (e.g. broken clocks being right twice a day). That is annoying. But it makes every individual argument less convincing as there's no evidence it's actually a nuanced or considered position.
Also, I don't believe the word 'banal' means what he thinks it does.
Assange has an awful lot of very astute writing and work leading up to Wikileaks, technically he's no Jacob Appelbaum, but his philosophical writing nails it.
Wikileaks was based upon that philosophy and changed our world by starting this "leaking culture", certainly leaking existed long before, but social factors preventing it were more powerful. Assange created a framework proving that leaking often works where internal reforms fail.
Assange has obviously been driven a little batty by the U.S. government's pursuit via Sweden, U.K., etc., but historians will continue talking about Assange long after they've forgotten about Bush, Clinton, etc. Anyone who can actually push all the way from new philosophy to real political change is a certified genius.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
He is also trapped in an embassy, and making occasional news outlet is the only thing that keeps him alive and this is not an hyperbole. He did wikileaks, and is now trying to fight for his right to remain free even after that. That is indeed a commendable effort.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
He's paraphrasing "The banality of evil", the title of a report on the Eichmann trials.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The fact the book was endorsed by Kissenger is enough for me. The man is an authoritarian nightmare; he helped craft the concept of the unitary executive, bombed neutral nations into the dirt, and overthrew legally elected governments to name just a few things. If Kissenger likes it it smells like imperialism to me.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Why are you giving this hand-flapping, self-aggrandizing tosser airtime?
Because Batboy retired and John McAfee is on vacation this week.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It takes an excessively paranoid person to dedicate themselves to something like Wikileaks. I didn't think the fact he was crazy was ever in question. That doesn't mean we don't benefit from it.
> Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives.
Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you. For all the talk of "If I someone tried to attack me, I'd shoot them because I'm a hard scary person" in your country you don't have cry like a bunch of pussies each time someone talks bad of you and you don't half seem unable to consider how you might use your own physical form to defend yourselves if your guns were taken away as if the idea of punching someone attempting to attack you is too much for your feeble existences.
There's no doubt his organisation's biggest leak was embarrassing to the US but he leaked things about plenty of other countries prior to that. The only way he's started to focus on the US is in the way that it's been turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy where paranoid Americans like yourself and your government have cried "He's out to get us!" and attacked him in the media and so forth, to which he responds and points out the hypocrisy of your country and your countrymen which you then cry "He's out to get us!" again and so the cycle repeats.
He's not out to get you beyond the fact that your country and it's people have made it an us vs. him thing such that the media always asks about that US complaining against him such that another feedback loop commences about "how he's always on about the US because he just mentioned us! (even though he was asked about us and was just answering the question)" type scenario.
If he has started to pursue the US specifically then that's entirely you're nation's own doing. He only gives a toss about transparency and corruption and if you want him to focus on exposing that in other countries then you know what? Just shut up, and give it up with your attempt at extraordinary rendition via Sweden on trumped up rape charges against him so he can get on with exactly that.
I stopped using slashdot.
D'oh!
Dark Reflection
we can't be surprised when people in power want to attract other people in power. Sadly, it is how it goes, whether it is for the greater good or not.
He specifically said John Hurt NOT Doctor!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"Idiot." Both derived from the common Greek idios (I'd put it in here in Greek, but /. hasn't discovered Unicode yet) meaning "of or pertaining to one's self." Hence the English terms "Idiom" meaning a figure of speech peculiar to a person or group of people and "Idiot" meaning (originally) someone whose behaviour is very peculiar to themselves, since developed to mean, well, idiot. You see? The have very similar etymology, making them etymologically similar. What did you think it meant?
Any more questions?
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
My friend the Google search, it taught me what to say
My friend the Google search, it taught me what to do
It knew what I would buy when said what I liked, by typing:
Ooh, ee, ooh ah ah
Ting tang walla-walla bing bang
Ooh, ee, ooh ah ah
Ting tang walla-walla bing bang
I am officially gone from
While being in UK someone asked Swedish authorities directly: is there a guarantee that he will not be extradited to US upon return to Sweden -- and there was no guarantee. This rape charges theater staged by Swedish authorities means they are completely on the leash with US, so I would not call it "safest place".
While being in UK someone asked Swedish authorities directly: is there a guarantee that he will not be extradited to US upon return to Sweden -- and there was no guarantee. This rape charges theater staged by Swedish authorities means they are completely on the leash with US, so I would not call it "safest place".
Why would anyone be willing to sign "we guarantee there will be no extradition"? It would probably be illegal to do so. The only situation where a guarantee could be made is if the USA asks Sweden for an extradition, and a Swedish court says "no". Unless and until a Swedish court has looked at it, nobody can say there will be no extradition.
Whatever you think about Assange, you pretty much have to admit he does a splendid Emmanuel Goldstein impression! All that's missing is the two-minute government-sponsored Youtube video of hate. You can't even meet him in person anymore, he can only be reached through teles^Hphone and email!
Please, don't forget that Julian became something of a minor hero, when his leaks concerned mostly Arab nations that we disapproved of, or approved of very little. It wasn't until Manning's stuff was published that Julian became "Public Enemy #xx". Congress critters and the White House gave him praise, even if it was faint, as long as he seemed to be focusing on Arab nations. How quickly the tables turned when we became the focus of attention!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Now, now... From a weasel's perspective, they might very well look like witch doctors.
How has Assange committed treachery, exactly?
He may not be on your side -- but he's not exactly betrayed the side he's on. That's treachery, and he's not committed it.
Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you. For all the talk of "If I someone tried to attack me, I'd shoot them because I'm a hard scary person" in your country
I am a hard scary person, but it looks like someone needs a hug
That hardly answers the question. Why does he think he'd be in so much more danger in Sweden? Why is being in the UK, where extradition is easy, better than being in Sweden, where extradition is hard? Why is being in Ecuador, where the CIA doesn't mind sending in assassins, better than being in Sweden? And it's not me that says assassination might happen in Ecuador - it's the president of the country that's just granted him asylum.
Calling the rape charges theatre directed by the US makes no sense. It would have been terribly easy for the USA to extradite him directly from Britain. Going to Sweden makes it much harder. The only way it makes sense is if it is Julian directing the theatre - all this rubbish about US conspiracies is diverting attention from the sex charges against him.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Your 1. has a flaw. What you mean is, you BELIEVE that there is zero chance that Assange would be extradited from Sweden. In fact, the "charges" aren't even charges - he has NOT been charged with any crime involving those women. Sweden has an ulterior motive for dragging Assange back into their jurisdiction. What could that motive be? Well - an arrangement with the US to permit Assange to be extradited or "rendered" seems most likely to me.
Do we need to revisit the two women involved?
1. Both women came on to Julian, and seduced him - not the other way around.
2. Both women, in interviews, have flatly stated that he did NOT rape or assault them.
3. Both women make exactly the same claim - on the "morning after" Julian had a second helping, WITHOUT a condom.
4. Neither woman made any complaint until AFTER they coincidentally met, and discussed their encounters with Julian.
It is important to note, that after one judge dismissed warrants for Assange's arrest, a DIFFERENT judge took over, and issued warrants on greater crimes than anyone had previously considered.
It's political, and if Sweden gets their hands on Assange, he will be sacrificed to the US Justice department.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_political_refugee
If making yourself a political target is a crime, then Assange is most assuredly guilty of a crime. But he's hardly guilty of any gross sexual offense.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.
If you think they are that bad just wait till the people who posted his bail wade in :D
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
> Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives.
Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you.
You turn things around. They have guns because they are scared. The scared-thing doesn't go away if they have the most of the most powerful guns. It's the same with rich people. Once they have all this money they are scared shit that they will lose it once in the future.
Because you read the article and the book.....
You're dismissal of this article out of hand, with no explanation other than the fact that you don't seem to like him, is weak and suggestive of google shilling. Tell me, what exactly is there to like about an alliance between Google and US foreign policy? Anything? How can this be a "good thing"? I'm listening, which you apparently aren't.
And none of what you said has anything to do with his argument. Why not comment on the point and not the person. Or do you prefer to ride Google's dick....
There is likely some truth there. I remember reading about David Chaum and the original attempt at an internet currency "DigiCash".... which was based on a wonderfully anonymity protecting digital cash protocol that had some real possibilities and might have worked.
Why did it fail? Apparently there were multiple moments where they were close to having major deals worked out with early online retailers, but, each time it fell apart partially due to paranoia. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone that becomes such an expert in hiding data and security is...well... a bit paranoid. It kinda goes with the territory: http://cryptome.org/jya/digicrash.htm
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
and trolls post blather in order to protect Google....
Internet access is lagging in the US? What US do you live in?
Granted, access may be missing in rural areas, and it may be slower than other countries, but as far as I can tell, it's perfectly sufficient for anything that a three letter agency would care about. No need for tin foil hats, that's just normal greed, incompetence, and lack of vision.
... to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives. In this way he's like Chomsky...
Have you read any Chomsky? Chomsky explictly refrains from discussing the motives of American foreign policy. This is because, he says, it is impossible to determine what the actual motives behind any particular decision are, to try and do so would just be speculation. Instead, he confines himself to pointing discrepancies between what the govt. and the media say US foreign policy is doing, or trying to do, and what they are actually doing, or trying to do.
He makes this disclaimer prominently in many, if not all of his books (on foreign policy and media hegemony).
Let me cap my argument by reminding that Assange's whole enterprise (Wikileaks) depends absolutely on the kinds of technology produced by Google and similar companies. Before the internet, Julian Assange would be some guy somewhere Xeroxing small runs of a paranoid zine. It's very likely that without Google and its peers, no one would know about Julian Assange or Wikileaks.
You dont get to respond to an arrest warrant with "Ill come along, but only if you accept these terms."
Don't upset a witch doctor.
...."Ribbit"
Have gnu, will travel.
Why would anyone be willing to sign "we guarantee there will be no extradition"? It would probably be illegal to do so. .
Not true. In most countries the administration (usually the appropriate Minister or equivalent official) can refuse an extradition request if they happen to feel like it, even without giving a reason. Extradition evolved historically as a reciprocal courtesy between countries and is merely a diplomatic administrative process, it is not an extension of the criminal justice process as some courts have claimed (the trend is to make it so however). An exception might be the European Arrest Warrant between EU member states but the backlash against that as an idiotic carte blanche for automatic extradition has been enormous.
"One moment" he exposes US war crimes and US underhanded foreign relations, and "a very short time later" he is accused of raping every virgin in the current country of residence. Yes, it adds up perfectly, timing and everything.
The article subtitle beat me to the Dave Seville joke...
Those that study history have no doubt how the ruling elite operate, or the methods they use to control the populace. It is today no different from how it was three thousand years ago. The psychology of those that find themselves 'in charge' is an assumption that they are "god's chosen". Even today, in the USA, more than 50% of senior US politicians state that 'god' has given them their power to rule over others.
Of course, the reality of the so-called ruling elites is one of being prepared to do whatever it takes to keep power, and wherever possible, to grow that power and pass it on to later generations of their same family/group. America, for instance, is on the verge of getting a second Clinton or a third Bush as supreme ruler.
How do you control the masses? How do you keep the mob on a leash? How do you persuade the populace, year after year, to dedicate their lives to enriching and empowering the same tiny minority?
-learn what the mob is thinking, in as close to real-time as possible
-find the best ways to manipulate the opinions of the mob, especially their long term beliefs and aspirations
-ensure the mob only ever hears control messages from the elites that rule them. Ensure the mob is trained to disregard messages from other sources
-give the mob 'bread and circuses'. Let the mob feel self-empowered by participation in useless trivial events like organised religion, organised team sports, and harmless forms of self expression
-exterminate or co-opt any emerging grass roots movements that could grown and threaten the power bases of the elites.
Only a complete fool would fail to understand where Google fits with the above goals. The dream of computerised intelligence gathering on the general population began before the age of the electronic computer. When 'electronic brains' first appeared, the elites were massively disappointed with the end results of unthinkably expensive attempts to use computers to spy on the populace. Perversely, the fiction of powerful computers doing incredible things spread like wild-fire through the consciousness of ordinary people in the 50s and 60s, but as we know the reality was far different.
The original Google project was predicated on the availability of vast amounts of cheap commodity hard-drive storage and processing power. It looked at the NSA desire to spy on the entire Human population from a very different POV. It also took account of the fact that official government IT projects (even when secret) would always fall prey to mega-corruption and complete-incompetence as a consequence. The psychology of successful IT ambitions was being made apparent by the incredible growth of the Internet.
Google gives people useful/entertaining/addicting toys like search, Youtube, Gmail and Android. Each of these toys monitors, and encourages users to provide ever greater amounts of information about themselves to monitor.
Google also provides the infrastructure (hardware and software models) that are used by the intelligence agencies of the 'West' to store and mine the information they gather. These are shadow-Google installations, built and run by people directly employed by intelligence agencies like the NSA, but based on current designs used by Google itself.
Google, as you should know, makes a lot of money from mining its data and using the results for advertising. What few of you realise is that this business is a deliberate side-effect of Google researching and developing mining algorithms for the NSA.
Today, when you vote Republican or Democrat in the USA, you get exactly the same mid/long term policies, and exactly the same program of rolling wars. In the UK, you can vote Labour, Liberal or Conservative, but still experience the exact agenda Tony Blair laid down for the UK when that monster first rose to visible power. The elites don't even have to bother maintaining even the illusion of a choice, largely thanks to Google.
The people that run Google think that they are superior to you, and therefore their will matters, and you will does not. I hate to tell you this, but the crud that desires to rule over others always has this attitude. And when you do nothing but lay down and accept the abuse, this abusive attitude grows exponentially.
One of the things covered in the leaks he published was how the US carried out extraordinary renditions in Sweden, so that could definitely happen to him.
given that he could be directly extradited from the UK to the US fairly easily, why bother messing with Sweden.
Keiser is just a disgrace. He needs to yell his point more often. He obviously subscribes to the approach of "repeat your position loudly and people will believe it to be true".
There is something completely wrong with that guy.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Except he's talking up cyber terrorism as the future of terrorism, when its not. Boston showed that.
Is the future of tickling, cyber-tickling? Is the future of stomach punching, cyber stomach punching? Cyber kissing?
The ability to cause REAL WORLD damage is two steps harder if you add a first step of 'hack control system', 'make physical device override safeguards'. It's always easier to make real world damage if you do it in the real world.
So you've broken into the physical network, you've taken over the air traffic control, you've diverted the plane into the mountain.... how do you make the airplane radar not flash all those warnings, how do you make the pilot blind so he doesn't see the mountain???... Implausible scenarios, a Hollywood fiction.
So yeh, I'm surprised Schmidt put his name to that garbage, terrorists will always go for the easy terror, not the Rube-Goldberg terror machines involving networks and hacking.
"the man who made his treason possible is totally innocent"
Participating in the creation of, and serving as the spokesman for Wikileaks does not make treason "possible". By that reasoning, the existence of ANY mass media is an enabler of treason.
It's clear that Manning released information that the U.S. government considered secret and thus violated the law. Whether or not the release of documents that are "secret" constitutes "treason" is a subjective conclusion.
The government/military has few legitimate "secrets"
I think the government considers anything that exposes their lies and crimes as "secret". Informing the American people of government malfeasance should be considered "patriotism", even if releasing the info was technically a crime.
Or, if Assange is really trying to say "Google: just like the Nazis" with his leaning on the word 'banal' here, you know, I really hope most rational people can discern a difference. Is that really an argument he wants to make?
Nazis: initiating a world war that killed millions. Pursued a horrific genocide of their own minorities.
Google: dorky glasses.
I take this a smear. Assange sold distribution rights for his show to RT. The didn't hire him. Also, RT is not "the Kremlins Channel". I would recommend it to anyone wanting to understand international politics. It has high quality reporting and is written from a different perspective than most English language news.
For what it's worth, Schmidt has virtually disappeared inside Google
Sounds like something a witchdoctor could do! Just sayin'.
The problem with the argument that the extradition to Sweden is just a ploy to subsequently get him extradited from Sweden to the US is that nobody has ever been able to convincingly explain why the US would not just ask the UK to extradite him. The UK has already shown itself to be perfectly willing to extradite even its own citizens to the US. And they had no problem in agreeing to Sweden's extradition request. What reason is there to think that if the US wanted him extradited the UK would refuse? Why would it be necessary to get him to Sweden first?
Who else would be brave enough to take on the American and Euro spooks and hope to get away with it? At least he stil has a bit of a life left, though highly restricted.
That hardly answers the question. Why does he think he'd be in so much more danger in Sweden? Why is being in the UK, where extradition is easy, better than being in Sweden, where extradition is hard?
Because he's not technically in the UK, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Why is being in Ecuador, where the CIA doesn't mind sending in assassins, better than being in Sweden?
Because assassinating him would be such an enormous political fuck-up, the kind of thing that gets a president impeached, that it won't happen. Convicting him in a kangaroo court is a means of giving political cover to his persecution, but assassinating him would be to completely discard it.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Julian has been involved in showing EVERYONE that the USA isn't the best and brightest and loveliest people in the world, the Leaders of the Free World as they claim.
That Wikileaks produce copious amounts of information from all across the globe is continually and habitually ignored, so that the claim can be asserted, sans proof or thought, that WL and JA specifically is a USA hater.
This is so that those who have evidence of their countries' culpability in bad actions can ignore those and instead complain about anyone and everyone else.
Is that air traffic control doesn't actually control planes, pilots (and autopilots) do. ATC just gives them directions. However it turns out the pilots have eyes and can notice things like, say, a building. They don't just blindly steer their aircraft by the directions over the radio. So, even if hackers manages to hack the ATC system (which seems rather unlikely to anyone who's seen it), and even if they got the ground controllers to give out bad directions (remember it is humans giving out info on the radio), they aren't going to get pilots to blindly follow it.
Indeed if you talk to pilots you find out that most of them have received incorrect instructions on occasion, and have dealt with the situation without problems.
"But he'd have to face up to charges about those girls"
What charges? In fact there are no charges.
The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow's world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now -- only cooler.
He's right about that. Schmidt's vision of the future is indeed banal. People still wear suits, go to offices, and make presentations. But they get there in self-driving cars and the presentation technology is better. That's the "vision" in his book. It's rather 1950s.
Are Schmidt and Cohen drinking their own Kool-Aid?
Well, I guess it's good for business. That tends to happen in such situations.
He's a fugitive now, on account of him failing to appear for his extradition warrant and jumping bail. Prior to that, he'd done nothing illegal, or at least nothing that had been proven. He'd been accused of rape, but at this point it is just an accusation/indictment. However they had a legit extradition request. So he was required to present himself for extradition. However he didn't. Well, that's against the law. So now, regardless of the validity of the rape allegation he's a criminal in the UK. He jumped bail (and screwed his supporters out of their money, since they had posted it), he's in legal trouble.
That's how it goes. When you are out on bail, you have made a promise to appear in court and it is against the law to break that promise. Even if what is going to happen is all charges are going to be dismissed, you have to appear if they order it and failure to do so is a crime.
After a swedish court decides to extradite someone, the Swedish government can block actual extradition. So yes, the Swedish government can guarantee there will be no extradition.
Dispense with the ad hominem, and construct a supportable argument that finds fault with his proposition and his premise. If you think that "WikiLeaks did a good thing, at one time", what WAS that and what was the good you saw in it?
Now, how does the intention of Assange's review differ from that of what you found of his earlier work, which by your admission was one of merit?
You don't have to like someone because of their correct application of Andy Warhols' adage. He may have become tiresome, by refusing to "do one thing well" then go away.
But you may find that he has - at least - something worthy of notice, among the many things said herein. This, regardless of your accepting his entire thesis.
The interesting linkage between Kissinger and the Google authors, that Assange draws to attention, for instance. There are many in the US and around the world who have a considered and defensible case of international war-crimes against Mr. Kissinger.
You may be dismissive. That is an indication of prejudice, not of analysis.
My own prejudice? I believe that some people can love their country, or they can love the truth. In no nation that ever existed, could they ever do both things with commitment, at the same time.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
He's wrong. The technocratic imperialism part is accurate, in a sense.
The notion that it is centered around a specific culture confined to a specific nation-state is not. He seems to be blinded by his disdain for America, when in fact his alleged adversaries are politically ambivalent outside of their concern for policy that impacts their own state-independent agenda.
We are deeply offended by any comparison with Schmidt and Cohen.
Our harmless and ineffective curses, incantations and potions are a comfort, and not without entertainment value.
Please refrain, Mr. Assange, from making further degrading likenesses of our calling, to that of the subjects for your article.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Disagree. I, an American by birth, own firearms for several reasons (not necessarily in order).
1) Recreation - shooting a firearm is a great stress reliever and fun to boot.
2) Sport - I actively hunt game for food.
3) Protection - I am responsible for the safety of my family.
4) Rights - in this country, it seems if you don't exercise your rights, the gov't will have more fodder to take them away.
By the way - I may not represent all Americans with my ideals or standards, but I'm not the exception to the rule either - I'm not fearful at all.
I wonder if the so-called "libertarians" and "rational independent thinkers" who so liberally disparage Assange and this piece got as far as the following:
Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so âoeThe Future of Terrorismâ gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush.
Well. I guess you can try to support Lawrence Lessig on one hand, while taking pot-shots at Assange.
But I think you just get mad, when someone thinks there is evidence to indicate that your toys are bad for you, and perhaps your father is a corrupt policeman.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Yeah, you can say a lot about the Nazis but at least they had style.
You're dismissal of this article out of hand, with no explanation other than the fact that you don't seem to like him, is weak and suggestive of google shilling
People on Slashdot (and Internet forums in general, I guess) really need to stop seeing dismissing a person's retarded behavior as shilling from the other side. "You disagree with me! You must be paid by the opposition company to do so, no reasonable person would disagree with my behavior!" Until recently, I've only seen the Church of Scientology make those claims on a regular basis. Now every troll on Slashdot seems to do so.
.. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, etc... are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire. " You know, that's pretty patronizing and dismissive of all these groups, just for starters. Those are real people with real needs, dignity, culture, volition, goals etc of their own - not props.
Exactly why Assange is unhappy that they are brought up. Do you think those groups were actually involved in the book or asked about their needs? Assange's criticism is yours - they are props.
Complexity Happens
This!
In the past month I have been accused on Slashdot of being paid by 5 different companies.
I only wish there was some way I could collect all those paychecks.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
That hardly answers the question. Why does he think he'd be in so much more danger in Sweden? Why is being in the UK, where extradition is easy, better than being in Sweden, where extradition is hard?
Is Julian Assange really afraid of extradition? Personally, I think he's more afraid of indefinite detention in a Swedish government facility while being stuck in indefinite legal limbo.
In any case, does extradition even matter anymore? Sweden just went against common sense, against its own body of laws, and against existing precedents to redefine what a "rape" is supposed to be viewed like. Do you think that's just a coincidence? In my opinion, that's what Julian Assange should really be afraid of, the redefinition of law for his own "special" case and the prospect of being stuck indefinitely in a prison facility (where contact with the outside world is severely controlled and limited and your visitors are harassed and stripped-searched, assuming visitors are even allowed at all).
Why is being in Ecuador, where the CIA doesn't mind sending in assassins, better than being in Sweden?
Because the probability that the CIA will be successful in killing him in Ecuador is less than 100%, but should he return to Sweden, the probability that he will have to lose his freedom, be forced to stop most of his work, and be prosecuted under dubious just-made-up legal theory, is much closer to 100%.
It would have been terribly easy for the USA to extradite him directly from Britain.
Are you kidding me? If Assange was really extradited to the US. London would have a huge riot on its hands (and rightly so). And the current government would probably have to step down (or at least, make sure Assange never actually makes it on that plane, so that things can get back to normal without having the government needing to resign).
In any case, the extradition itself is a strawman. The threat of extradition and the legal limbo it creates, or the redefinition of "rape" and the legal limbo it creates, are more than enough to put Julian Assange under ice and out of commission for a number of years, even if none of those proceedings ever finally go through.
With respect, a lot of us are not scared of the bullshit bogeymen flogged by Fox News every day and night. We are rather bothered by the seemingly inexorable descent into fascism we've seen in over the last 2-3 decades. So please spare us the generalizations.
I routinely find sensible arguments from people I disagree with (aside from yourself, obviously) here on /.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Because he is using the word "banal" he is paraphrasing "The banality of evil"?
I understood that he is comparing the book authors and that their view is "banal", as such "“Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth." which is in fact a "banal" view of "progress".
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
No shit.
Assange has become a parody of tin-foil-hat anti-US tripe.
What do you mean "become"? He's always struck me as far more motivated by anti-US hate than any desire for openness and such. His 'releases' and such seemed to target the US far more than anyone else as if no other country has secrets far more terrible to expose. They however get ignored because... well... I don't know just because?
I would be very hard to convince me that he's never been handed leaks from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or any of a number of places and yet (so far as I know) he/wikileaks has never released any significant material from any such place and certainly never made a multi-month big deal of them.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You may be right about the "foster alliances" bit, but Kissinger.
.: Semper Absurda
Wow, this shouldn't be marked as Troll.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
That's tendentious bullshit. Google is offering two legal products that people apparently want. That's what companies are supposed to do. If you think they are "bad" for "us", then go through the political and legal process to ban such products.
Of course, so far, such challenges have been completely unsuccessful, and for good reason: it's an infringement on our liberties and you can expect strong opposition to any such attempts to restrict the freedom to take photographs in public places.
His article is entitled "The Banality of 'Don't be Evil'". You have to be wearing ideological blinders if you think that isn't a reference to "The Banality of Evil".
People read more, write more, research more, travel more, invent more, learn more, communicate more than ever before. People can do more science in their kitchen and more computing on their phone today than you could do in a million dollar lab a few decades ago. You can access millions of books, the DNA sequences of thousands of species, intricate chemical databases, vast astrophysical database, and a huge library of software, scientific and otherwise. That seems anything but "banal" to me.
But if you whine and complain about US culture, there must be some alternative, better view of "progress" that you have in mind. So what is it? Or are you just blowing smoke? For that matter, what distinctive contribution to progress and culture has your own country made, other than following the US model with typical German efficiency?
and is now trying to fight for his right to remain free even after that. That is indeed a commendable effort.
So if I break the law, and hide, I'm doing something "commendable" too? I am, after all, remaining free (both physically, and from the potential consequences of my own actions).
It keep him "alive", from what? Last I checked Sweden doesn't kill people, not even for suspected sexual assault.
Oh, sorry, left my tinfoil hat in my other pants...
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
That's not because of the US, that's because of feminists, who got Sweden to pass rape laws with ridiculous definitions.
now he's just an entertainment "news" story figure
This is not because of a change in Assange, but due to corrupted media. Most people only know OWS as a group of pot-heads that want Government handouts, and not a group of people demanding justice for a few making billions while putting millions in to poverty. Most people don't know that people have been in Gitmo for 13 years with no trial, no charges, and no future (most people probably have no idea that there are over 150 of those on a hunger strike for over 3 months trying to simply learn their fate).
One should not be bothered by Assange, but rather by a corrupt media. We used to be horrified at how the Pravda twisted news in the USSR preventing Russians from seeing the real world. We have the same thing here in the US now, but few want to admit it. We have corrupt police caught on camera trying to plant drugs on a protester Adam Kokesh in Philly. We have corrupt politicians, and while most people know they are corrupt few want to demand action.
Your comment simply shows that the corrupt media is able to brain wash the masses into believing an alternative reality.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
> Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid?
It's due to the fact that we have so many people with completely opposing world views living here trying to prove theirs 'correct' (or others' wrong) through legislation that breeds an atmosphere of someone always being out to get you. There's always someone telling you something you're doing is wrong and should be made illegal, no matter who you are. Ergo,paranoia.
You have...a massive military...
Not really... They keep having to hire security contractors to fill in the gaps, and it's still not enough to do the jobs they set out to do. Tons of money, yes. But it mostly goes into pet projects and inflated budgets nobody else cares about.
...cry like a bunch of pussies each time someone talks bad of you...
Last I checked, almost nobody likes someone from another country coming over and telling them how theirs sucks. Americans certainly aren't the best at taking advice from other nations, but many are far worse... You can barely fart around a Chinese person without them snapping your head off about how westerners don't know everything.
The only people here that really believe Julian Assange is a danger to the US are either the ones that believe everything the TV tells them anyway (roughly half to three-fifths of everyone I'm guessing), or the people that were embarrassed by something that was leaked, but even they're only saying it to potentially protect their jobs because protecting their jobs is all these people do, not because they actually believe it.
Maybe he's trying to say "Google: just like IBM". IBM, of course, provided the Nazis with the data technologies of the day for tracking Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and political undesirables. Then the Nazis rounded up those people into concentration camps and systematically murdered them.
Ok I forget the title. Not everyone had red "The banality of evil". I thought it was just the Google slogan "Don't be evil".
The current trend in consumer electronics goes more to the "consume" part and not "create". Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. all go to App-Shop and iTunes model. Plus the Cloud and Software as a Service, goes all to constrain the user and degrade him to consumer only.
My opinion is that the tech companies want to kill the general purpose computer because you can not only sell more media through the App-Shop and iTunes model, but you can also prevent competition.
The western Governments are on the same site. A democratic Government should celebrate the Internet, give the citizens more privacy and encourage civil debate. But all we get is more surveillance and less freedoms. Wikileaks should be celebrated, but instead it's under criminal investigations.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
First, a lengthy anti-American diatribe, now just a list of generic platitudes. You're a perfect representative of the kind of vapidity and consumer culture you yourself complain about.
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. The question really is, as we wade through our world of relativity, what are the things worth fighting for?
Your generic, flowery dismissal is nothing more than a failure to face the issue squarely.
I love my country, I love the truth. I, however, do not conflate the shenanigans of Rome-On-Potomac with my country. :-) Also, my love is a tough one, the same one I'd have with my son if he got strung out on meth.
Last I checked Sweden doesn't kill people, not even for suspected sexual assault.
Last I checked, US didn't mind keeping people in jail for more than 10 years outside of any judicial process. Last I checked, Sweden didn't mind handling people the US asked for "terrorist invesitgation". A US senator has called for the death penalty for Assange. Bradley Manning has been detended in conditions that would make everyone raise eyebrows if it was happening in a poorer country. Is it really tinfoil hat wearing to believe that Assange can end up in Guantanamo fairly quickly if he gets out of the embassy?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
...which were illegal. They have a history of bending over when the US establishment wants something.
I was more or less with this AC until the last sentence:
Yep. Troll.
**of course** one of the richest most powerful men in the world is interested in geopolitics. He makes decisions that are almost *above* traditional nation/state 'sphere of influence' type geopolitics.
One word: China
Because, you know, Google's business decisions there are the very definition of geopolitical decisions.
AC is a troll. Trollbots and paid commenters are **all over** anything with Schmidt or Cohen. I posted previously about Eric Schmidt and his harmful incompetence and it was a shtistorm.
Cohen is just as bad as Schmidt. He's one of those secretly trying to gather all the world's data into a supercomputer to spur the next step in human evolution or live forever or w/e and he doesn't care who gets in his way...
That or he's just willing to sell your privacy as a commodity...point is he's ethically compromised.
Seriously a substantial number of comments on these topics represent bots or paid commenters. Take heed!
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm not arguing that the US is fantastic. Far from it, these days (Thanks Bush, thanks Obama... thanks Every president since Reagan).
My point was that we also shouldn't forget that he is also avoiding potentially legitimate charges in Sweden, involving misconduct towards women. Even if those laws are a bit odd by most standards (well, not really, having sex with a woman whose sleeping without her concent is just universally wrong), those were the laws of the land, and we can never know if he's innocent unless he's cleared of those charges. Charges he is avoiding facing, at the moment. Like a coward.
Hell, and I'm going to be modded to hell for this, if he solicited Manning to leak, he should face charges in the US. I'm okay with this, at least on a philosophical level. All of the great protesters, and agents of change (which we nerds want to bill him as) were willing to stand up to the consequences of their actions. Mandela didn't run from jail, even if he was in the right, nor did any of the participants of the great racial protests in mid-century America. Being a coward, and not willing to face consequences makes him suspect. It also assumes that what he did was at all threatening to the powers that be... which he wasn't/isn't. Things (sadly) are the same, Manning and Assange, or no. In the long term, both of them proved to be insignificant to the preservation of the status quo. If he had a cause, he'd realize that being openly attacked by the US would make it stronger.
Further, I have seen no proof whatsoever that the US is out to get him. Yes, our government is creepy at times. But this doesn't mean that Assange is really worth the hassle. Also, why stay in the UK, which is even more willing to bow down to the US government, than go to Sweden, which is less likely.
Has anyone ever asked themselves what if he did act badly towards those women? Does his involvement in Wikileaks excuse his treatment of women?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I faced "the issue" squarely:
My response is that this is bullshit. The voluntary adoption of US culture, lifestyle, and goods around the world is a good thing and it is exactly what "progress" is supposed to mean. Europeans have failed to come up with a compelling alternative vision for the future of humanity.
Come on, the original comment has been modded -2 Flamebait. I don't think relevance was ever a goal.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
As for the women, maybe it's you who doesn't understand charges. The women have both flatly stated that Assange DID NOT RAPE THEM. I can't be assed to search for the interviews, but I'm sure that anyone posting here can easily run a Google search to find any number of tabloid releases of the interviews. One more time: Both women have flatly stated that Assange DID NOT RAPE THEM!
The judge in Sweden wants a man to submit to examination (and cross examination, and recross, probably) for a crime that the supposed victims have flatly stated DID NOT HAPPEN.
Sure, Assange may have committed some impropriety. It seems that he has admitted that much. But - HELLO!! Both women seduced him, both women got what they wanted from the encounter. Unless one or both women alleges rape, then it's none of the friggin' court's business.
"Oh, that bastard - he didn't use a condom!"
FFS - if a condom were that important to either women, she could have resisted his advances the next morning - THEN if he forced himself on them, they would have a case of rape.
This is real life - and I don't much give a rat's ass whether it's Sweden, Zimbabwe, or it happened on Io.
It's politically motivated, and that's all I can see here.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I thought he was cool at first, but he managed his life poorly and has compromised the standing of wikileaks in my opinion. What he thinks about anything is questionable at this point. It may very well be he was lured into a honey trap, but he allowed that. I am not sure how he will define the rest of his life under the circumstances. I wouldn't call what he has done as, "lee[ping your head down".
What he did with Manning was what every journalist of the world does : trying to get sources to give exclusive information. Had Assange worked for the NYT there would be no question about how legit it was.
About being a coward to not go into tribunal and face those charges, well, the US does not provide tribunals anymore for this. Look at what is happening to Manning. Understand as well that as a non-US citizen, Assange can end up in of the many "anti-terrorist" loopholes that US administrations have created over the years.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
What he did with Manning was what every journalist of the world does
This is true. Though there still should be a layer of culpability. Don't do anything, no matter how noble, if you're not willing to face the consequences. There also is a very large difference between Manning approaching Assange, and Assange approaching Manning. The former is more "journalistic", the latter is a bit more (legally) dubious.
I'm not cheerleading for the US here, or trying to belittle Wikileaks (which I have nothing but respect for). Notice I said "Wikileaks" not Assange, one I have respect for, the other I have very mixed opinions on.
About being a coward to not go into tribunal and face those charges, well, the US does not provide tribunals anymore for this.
This isn't the US we're talking about. We're talking about Swedish law. It doesn't matter one way or another if it is or isn't against US law, or the law of any other country that isn't Sweden. I find it a bit odd that some of the crimes he's wanted for questioning in aren't against the law in the US. Having sex with a sleeping woman, and not wearing protection against the woman's wishes are a bit creepy to me. Again, if these charges are true, and we'll never know until he actually steps up and faces them.
Look at what is happening to Manning.
Which is horrible. Though it annoys me that we only care with Manning, when this same treatment happens hundreds of less glamorous criminals in the US system every year.
Understand as well that as a non-US citizen, Assange can end up in of the many "anti-terrorist" loopholes that US administrations have created over the years.
The US, sadly, doesn't need legal extradition for this, anymore. Further, they could have nabbed him at anytime in the UK, which has no qualms whatsoever with bowing down to the US's dubious requests. Sweden at least has a culture, and some history of resistance, despite a few publicized cases to the contrary. I'm sure the US would rather deal with the UK than Sweden. This again precludes any proof that this is indeed the reason behind the legal hullabaloo.
Personally I think Assange is an egotistic twerp, whose relevance has passed. If anything he is now hurting the leaking scene with his theatrics and histrionics. Wikileaks is great, and we owe him a debt in his roll in its creation. But as a person he isn't worth talking about.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Those with the technology and cash to back it can and will have everything they want much sooner than you think .make my words wilfred satan
That's not because of the US, that's because of feminists, who got Sweden to pass rape laws with ridiculous definitions.
Frankly, it doesn't even have to be just the US and its allies against Julian Assange. Nor does it even need to be China, or some of the other countries exposed by Wikileaks.
By leaking war secrets and government secrets (and even banking secrets), Julian Assange didn't just piss off the governments the leaks were from. He pissed off many right-leaning individuals who believe wars are necessarily messy, and average people should be protected from being exposed to them. And he pissed off many people in power who believe government secrets should be kept secret, whether some of those people in power are corrupt politicians, or goodie-to-shoes who just believe that on average their own government usually knows better than its own people.