Which has nothing to do with bias. Bias, in this context, is unwarranted assumptions. Men are on average stronger and taller than women, but a system which, say, ranks potential firefighter applicants using their gender as a factor instead of looking at their performance in the actual job is biased.
His other arguments against extradition will be that he has little prospect of a fair trial and faces torture.
The US secret court system can be argued to prevent a fair trial. It's probably a weak argument, the UK tends to recognize other countries doing that because the UK does it too.
The prospect of torture is more realistic. The US has Guantanamo, it has indefinite solitary confinement, and Assange may have medical issues that he could argue would not be properly treated.
The reason often given is that it's impossible for a cop to tell if the headphones are playing anything, so there is no way to enforce such a law except banning the use of anything that can play sound entirely.
The US really, really doesn't want China to become a technology superpower. Aside from limiting the ability of the US to spy, it's a massive economic threat. Or at least the US sees it that way, i.e. as a zero sum game.
The US has put in a formal extradition request and he was re-arrested on that basis.
It's not clear what they want him for. Could be related to Manning, could be related to Snowden, could be related to Russia and the Clinton emails, could be all three.
Apparently Ecuador got a written guarantee that he would not face the death penalty or torture. Such things are illegal under UK law anyway. At his extradition hearing he will doubtless raise concerns about potential torture in the US judicial system, in light of Guantanamo and the use of extended periods of solitary confinement in prisons. It would be illegal for the UK to extradite him if it could reasonably foresee him being subject to any of that.
For a start the maximum sentence is 12 months. To get that the prosecution would have to show that he was acting purely maliciously, without any good reason at all. Since he now has irrefutable evidence that cases are pending against him in the US, and that the US does treat people accused/convicted of similar crimes by standards that would be illegal in the UK (e.g. Chelsea Manning), it's unlikely that they would be able to get the maximum sentence.
That evidence would also add weight to the argument that he was effectively incarcerated for 7 years, being unable to leave for at least part of it while Sweden was still seeking extradition.
So if convicted he would probably get 6 months maximum, of which he would likely serve half with good behaviour, and from which time already served awaiting trial would be deducted. Given that he would likely spend more than 3 months locked up simply awaiting trial, in practice he would walk free immediately.
So the CPS has to ask if it is worth all the expense of a prosecution, or find additional stuff to charge him with.
Of course they could decide to prosecute anyway, because he upset a lot of people and cost the government many millions of Pounds, but it would likely descend into farce with Assange coming off better in the end.
That's not how the CPS works. They have to decide if the prosecution is in the public interest, which means it must lead to some outcome that if beneficial for the public. Given that the maximum sentence would be 12 months, serving 6 with good behaviour, and given that his legal team would argue he has been effectively incarcerated for 7 years it's unlikely that he would actually go to jail, so there isn't much point.
It would just be a waste of time and money. If they do proceed it will be with additional charges, but since the EU arrest warrant has expired they would have to find something else.
Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.
On the other hand, he humiliated the government and caused it to waste many millions on policing outside the embassy. It's also likely that the US will want to get hold of him (they accidentally confirmed that there is an active prosecution) so there will be pressure from across the pond.
I imagine he has thought all this through and probably has some kind of insurance policy, something he can use as leverage if it goes badly.
Funny how the people who go around complaining about people accusing everyone of racism are also the ones who go around accusing everyone of being racist.
You actually believe that, don't you? Despite having Trump in the White House, both major parties to the right of centre, Nazis openly marching on your streets and committing acts of terror... You think communists are the problem.
So this is similar to the existing system where when you log in to your Google account a screen pops up on your phone asking you to confirm it's you, but extended so that it works on all sites that support U2F?
This protects against the biggest security threat currently out there: your password is re-used on another site and leaked by that other site, along with your Gmail address, and someone uses it to compromise your Google account. Since they don't have your phone that is no longer possible.
It also against similar attacks, like shoulder surfing and keyloggers, where your password is compromised.
If your phone is stolen you can only rely on whatever kind of lock screen you have set.
If you log in via your phone's browser then at least even if your phone is compromised it would take multiple exploits to bother get your password and trigger the secure authentication mechanism without user interaction.
I'm not entirely sure what your threat model is... Someone steals your unlocked phone? It's probably already logged in to your Google account anyway.
To be fair the second line of the summary mentions that the use-case is people standing close to the screen, i.e. only seeing part of it in their field of vision.
It depends how you slice it. In the West white guys are the biggest source of terrorism at the moment, always have been. This is especially true in the US. If you designate Islamic State as terrorists and consider everything they do as terrorism, you can make them the worst.
Who are these Marxists committing all these terrorist acts? Are we talking historically, before the internet existed?
Slashdot Mirror
Which has nothing to do with bias. Bias, in this context, is unwarranted assumptions. Men are on average stronger and taller than women, but a system which, say, ranks potential firefighter applicants using their gender as a factor instead of looking at their performance in the actual job is biased.
His other arguments against extradition will be that he has little prospect of a fair trial and faces torture.
The US secret court system can be argued to prevent a fair trial. It's probably a weak argument, the UK tends to recognize other countries doing that because the UK does it too.
The prospect of torture is more realistic. The US has Guantanamo, it has indefinite solitary confinement, and Assange may have medical issues that he could argue would not be properly treated.
He is now facing extradition to the US, which would likely result in torture at the very least. This proves his fears to have been founded.
I seems that the US approached Ecuador, as Ecuador demanded a guarantee that Assange would not be tortured or murdered before inviting the police in.
The reason often given is that it's impossible for a cop to tell if the headphones are playing anything, so there is no way to enforce such a law except banning the use of anything that can play sound entirely.
It's a stupid reason. Don't shoot the messenger.
The US really, really doesn't want China to become a technology superpower. Aside from limiting the ability of the US to spy, it's a massive economic threat. Or at least the US sees it that way, i.e. as a zero sum game.
The US has put in a formal extradition request and he was re-arrested on that basis.
It's not clear what they want him for. Could be related to Manning, could be related to Snowden, could be related to Russia and the Clinton emails, could be all three.
Apparently Ecuador got a written guarantee that he would not face the death penalty or torture. Such things are illegal under UK law anyway. At his extradition hearing he will doubtless raise concerns about potential torture in the US judicial system, in light of Guantanamo and the use of extended periods of solitary confinement in prisons. It would be illegal for the UK to extradite him if it could reasonably foresee him being subject to any of that.
It looks like the US has put in an extradition request for hacking, and they arrested him on that basis rather than for skipping bail.
That's not how UK courts work.
For a start the maximum sentence is 12 months. To get that the prosecution would have to show that he was acting purely maliciously, without any good reason at all. Since he now has irrefutable evidence that cases are pending against him in the US, and that the US does treat people accused/convicted of similar crimes by standards that would be illegal in the UK (e.g. Chelsea Manning), it's unlikely that they would be able to get the maximum sentence.
That evidence would also add weight to the argument that he was effectively incarcerated for 7 years, being unable to leave for at least part of it while Sweden was still seeking extradition.
So if convicted he would probably get 6 months maximum, of which he would likely serve half with good behaviour, and from which time already served awaiting trial would be deducted. Given that he would likely spend more than 3 months locked up simply awaiting trial, in practice he would walk free immediately.
So the CPS has to ask if it is worth all the expense of a prosecution, or find additional stuff to charge him with.
Of course they could decide to prosecute anyway, because he upset a lot of people and cost the government many millions of Pounds, but it would likely descend into farce with Assange coming off better in the end.
That's not how the CPS works. They have to decide if the prosecution is in the public interest, which means it must lead to some outcome that if beneficial for the public. Given that the maximum sentence would be 12 months, serving 6 with good behaviour, and given that his legal team would argue he has been effectively incarcerated for 7 years it's unlikely that he would actually go to jail, so there isn't much point.
It would just be a waste of time and money. If they do proceed it will be with additional charges, but since the EU arrest warrant has expired they would have to find something else.
Hard to say if the CPS will go after him. On the one hand it would open up another can of worms for them, with Assange and Wikileaks going all out to show that he was at risk by releasing potentially sensitive information to use as evidence. There is also a good chance it wouldn't go anywhere - his legal team would argue that he already lost the bail money and spend 7 years in effective incarceration, so even if convicted no further punishment is merited.
On the other hand, he humiliated the government and caused it to waste many millions on policing outside the embassy. It's also likely that the US will want to get hold of him (they accidentally confirmed that there is an active prosecution) so there will be pressure from across the pond.
I imagine he has thought all this through and probably has some kind of insurance policy, something he can use as leverage if it goes badly.
"Race is the ideology"? What does that even mean?
Funny how the people who go around complaining about people accusing everyone of racism are also the ones who go around accusing everyone of being racist.
Read it again, carefully. That caveat only applies to CA certificates, not ones you make yourself.
You actually believe that, don't you? Despite having Trump in the White House, both major parties to the right of centre, Nazis openly marching on your streets and committing acts of terror... You think communists are the problem.
It's fairly easy: https://support.google.com/nex...
Should work with all major browsers.
Is this an issue that needs solving?
Yes. MITM attacks are used by everyone from governments to ISPs to spread malware.
there is something fucked up when one company imposes restrictions on the entire Internet because it can.
The entire internet runs on Chrome?
What percentage of internet users do you think actually know what a hash is?
This is just another step towards fixing a very old mistake. Security should be the default.
You are supposed to install a local root certificate that you use to produce your own test certs.
So this is similar to the existing system where when you log in to your Google account a screen pops up on your phone asking you to confirm it's you, but extended so that it works on all sites that support U2F?
That isn't the threat model they are using.
This protects against the biggest security threat currently out there: your password is re-used on another site and leaked by that other site, along with your Gmail address, and someone uses it to compromise your Google account. Since they don't have your phone that is no longer possible.
It also against similar attacks, like shoulder surfing and keyloggers, where your password is compromised.
If your phone is stolen you can only rely on whatever kind of lock screen you have set.
If you log in via your phone's browser then at least even if your phone is compromised it would take multiple exploits to bother get your password and trigger the secure authentication mechanism without user interaction.
I'm not entirely sure what your threat model is... Someone steals your unlocked phone? It's probably already logged in to your Google account anyway.
Assuming the reason for it not booting is not that some other item of soldered-down hardware is broken.
Hopefully that doesn't work any more, otherwise it would be a massive security hole. Fortunately Firewire is long dead.
Only for larger aircraft. A Cesna 172 only gets about 18 mpg (15 mp US gallons).
To be fair the second line of the summary mentions that the use-case is people standing close to the screen, i.e. only seeing part of it in their field of vision.
It depends how you slice it. In the West white guys are the biggest source of terrorism at the moment, always have been. This is especially true in the US. If you designate Islamic State as terrorists and consider everything they do as terrorism, you can make them the worst.
Who are these Marxists committing all these terrorist acts? Are we talking historically, before the internet existed?
Citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://fullfact.org/crime/eth...
https://ourworldindata.org/ter...