I guess you didn't pay attention to the order of the events or what the events were. Collusion is not a losing scam, the involved parties usually win a lot, they have been winning for decades. It is strange that they didn't enter the bidding process of some of the largest oil reserves found so far, there was no investigation at the time.
Maybe you are right and it is just a coincidence that Petrobras (an oil company from a pacific country) was an espionage target, in which case the spying was really unexplained and for nothing.
Now, in a completely unrelated case, the document on the article says that the British spy agency does provide "intelligence relating to risks to UK investment overseas", does that sound like economic espionage?
From the second document, talking about their costumers and objectives:
Continue provision of intelligence relating to risks to UK investment overseas
Both US and UK "surprisingly" boycotted an auction for the right to explore huge oil reserves in Brazil a few months after Dilma complained about the spying on Brazilians, herself and on Petrobras (the top deep sea oil exploration company in the world), driving the prices down. Right now Petrobras is under investigation for corruption of some of its leaders, mostly related to the federal government party, it's stocks went down by a lot and most of the infrastructure investments / constructions are blocked. This is the only news here and we'll get American help on the investigations, even though we just refused German help on the Siemens case (the corrupts on that case are on the opposition party). Some people on the opposition party are involved in this Petrobras case as well, but the prosecutors decided there was no reason to investigate them. Seems like they jumped out at the right time and then, after decades of corruption (according to the case witnesses), it started falling down.
I hope people stop talking like economic espionage is a Chinese only thing.
It's absurd to say there's a statute of limitations on how long it takes to bring somebody into court. If that were the case, then someone charged with a crime who flees would be able to return to the jurisdiction that originally charged him when the limitation was up.
I work in the judiciary in Brazil and can't tell how things work in Sweden, but many of these things are similar in most countries, maybe people can discuss the differences here.
Here in Brazil there are three limitations, one to accept the charges, one to give a sentence and one to execute the sentence.
The first limitation is on how long before the charges are accepted on court. The prosecutors have to press the charges and they have to be accepted. That is slightly different from the time to press the charges because the accused have to be officially informed of the charges, as he has the right to a preliminary defense before the charges are accepted. Pressing the charges by official news extends this limitation.
After the charges are received (that's the term in Portuguese), the limitation for sentencing is equal to the one to receive the charges. That is: 1. to have a judgment were all the proofs are presented and the informed defendant has the opportunity to be interrogated and defend himself or be defended by a public attorney if he flees, 2. for the judge to give a sentence and 3. for all the possible appeals until reaching a final sentence ("trânsito em julgado" - Google translates it to "res judicata").
The third limitation is on how long after the final sentence the government has to execute the sentence.
So the first limitation is about informing the person about the accusation and the third limitation is about making the person fulfill the sentence. (basically like "bringing somebody to court").
If the criminal flees (or is not found) for enough time, he can return/stay in the jurisdiction.
To give a clear and very common example I get here: the limitation for drug possession for personal use is 2 years, 1 year if he/she is under 21. When the guy was found with drugs he was living in a district with one cop doing everything. The police report takes 4-6 months to arrive at the judiciary. We have to check if he can make deals with the prosecutor by checking his criminal records, he has something on another city, we have to ask them exactly what it is (maybe he was found innocent) -> another 3-8 months depending on how many records and where they are. Then he has the right to make a deal (different deals for charged or not charged people), we set a deal hearing ->1 - 4 months (depending on the judge and world soccer schedule), and can't find him (moved away). Try to find him -> 3 to 8 months (the cop at that district only replied to our third reiteration). If he moved to São Paulo, we have to ask them to do the deal hearing, six months latter they reply that the address we gave was wrong or that he moved back. Over and it doesn't matter if he was/wasn't fleeing.
On the other hand, crimes against children have to limitations.
I live in a small city in Brazil, we used to have an Internet monopoly here, but not due to regulations. The fastest we could buy was 10Mb from Telefonica over copper, but only in the rich parts of the city. Most of the city had only 256K to 2M.
Now some guy started a small ISP and we are getting 20Mbps over fiber. It costs two times more than the Telefonica plans, but it is fast and reliable.
People talk a lot about the huge costs involved in starting on this area, but the guy here started serving a few neighborhoods in my city and now he is working on two cities. When the regulations allow, and the big players suck, others can grow.
Actually being sold in NK. It's hard to believe they have said that and easy to picture a scam involving the three websites on the post. I give the guy no credibility, but if people continue dying after the miracle drug, how is he going to explain?
A Swedish sports player will be able to testify via Skype regarding assault allegations as to not miss a game on the same day. In contrast, Swedish prosecutors have refused to question Julian Assange using the same methods for over four years.
So no, asking to be questioned over there is not asking special treatment. The fact that this was not done like the norm is the special treatment.
How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow NOT been mistreated or short changed? How?
He also said that he would go to Sweden for questioning if they could give him some guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, something Sweden refused to give. Like you pointed out, it's supposed to be just questioning, how could it be such a problem? It is pretty clear that the questioning is not the problem.
While I do agree with you that that's probably the reason, we are seeing here a case where the French are trying to do so. Also, since the mainland is respecting Hong Kong's decision to keep Google, I think that's something to consider on the debate on whether they respect jurisdictions only out of practicality or some respect also.
The problem is that if the French could do it (decide what appears on Google outside of their country), it would only be fair that the Chinese could do it too, so Internet censorship for everyone.
The Tiananmen incident would go out of existence, as well as anything that offends any dictator or anyone with access to a friendly court.
If they push forward, they should just do like they did in China, leave. The bad part is that, like in China, it would leave the market open for others who are more willing to comply with worldwide orders.
It's funny that while it is common to criticize China, I don't see them trying to give orders outside of their country. It seems they have more respect over other people's laws than the west.
The problem is that if the French could do it (decide what appears on Google outside of their country), it would only be fair that the Chinese could do it too, so Internet censorship for everyone.
The Tiananmen incident would go out of existence, as well as anything that offends any dictator or anyone with access to a friendly court.
If they push forward, they should just do like they did in China, leave. The bad part is that, like in China, it would leave the market open for others who are more willing to comply with worldwide orders.
It's funny that while it is common to criticize China, I don't see them trying to give orders outside of their country. It seems they have more respect over other people's laws than the west.
There is plenty of affirmative action in China. In university entrances, to apply for Beijing citizenship (yes, a city's citizen has more rights), employment opportunities and even for having more kids. These are the AA "things" I'm aware of from living a couple of years in Beijing.
China has 54 minorities, over 90% of the population is Han.
That's the problem with the American way of getting into college. If it was just an entrance exam, maybe she (or her parents) would have complained with the teacher and with the principal instead of this. I bet this girl will add to her "achievements" list that she had an op-ed about gender discrimination published in the Washington Post.
I doubt the face picture with a history really bothered her that much. She saw an opportunity of being published (that might help when applying to the good colleges) and went for it, maybe she even wrote the op-ed.
It is the "legal system" of one country that is mandating the blockade of perfectly legal content in most of the world. Even in America, where DMCA is king, the torrent site is legal and the copyright holders can request the removal of certain pages of it, not censor the whole thing.
Whether you feel that "censorship" is wrong or not, it's clear that if one country is threatening your business (by threatening to decide what customers you can have), you should make a stand for it, as otherwise you'll have to start getting rid of your customers based on every other dictator's whims.
It is their problem, but If the US feels like they really should help policing the world, they could help Pakistan to enforce that law (assuming it's a reasonable law and not one that violates basic human rights), not to practice extra-judicial murders...
I'll remind you that the concept of universal human rights came after defeating the nazis, when humanity thought that we never wanted anything like that again.
Just saying it was not possible to capture those "terrorists" doesn't make it true. They've been drone murdering for some time and that's just their modus operandi (check on the NYT). It was not easy to capture Hussein, and he was in the middle of a lot of civilians. These guys were in a compound with pretty much no civilians around.
They where in Pakistan, they should be charged by the Pakistani government, with Pakistani law.
I agree with you, charging hostage takers is what should have been done, too bad extra-judicial mass murders are the US/Pakistani way of doing things. If they were charged with something other than drones no one would die, and the charges would be for taking hostages, not the Pakistani equivalent of the felony murder rule.
Sure, we should stop fighting terrorists because they hide behind hostages.
They were not hiding behind hostages. If Obama and the other people behind the mass murder knew about the captives they wouldn't have done it (I guess).
Obama said that the operation was conducted after hundreds of hours of surveillance had convinced American officials that they were targeting an Al Qaeda compound where no civilians were present
I know these leaks didn't come out trough Wikileaks, but since they republished them we are seeing a lot of stuff that nobody was talking about, here are some examples, got from "this day in wikileaks" (bolds are mine):
The US State Department recruited Hollywood to boost “anti-Russian messaging“. Sony pirated multiple books about hacking, while aggressively campaigning against piracy. Emails reveal concerns in the US over the secrecy of the TPP talks. The leaks included a draft of the international VOD and DHE agreement between SONY and Google Sony received nearly $48 million in tax breaks in 2011 and 2012 after donating to New York Governor Cuomo. Ben Affleck demanded PBS program “Finding Your Roots” hide his slave-owning ancestor. Sony changed the Snowden film press release to remove “illegal spying” from the description of NSA’s activities Sony cameras are used as a part of the guidance system for Israeli rockets bombing Gaza Sony Chiefs met with David Cameron ahead of the Scottish referendum Corrupt product placement practices used in Dr. Oz show
I really hope that slashdot doesn't become another place of pro-government propaganda, as that really pisses me off. The information was already out there, but their republishing obviously did us a favor (us that care about government accountability or knowing the truth anyway). We already have enough media outlets against information out there, let's keep this one useful.
I would never know the above facts if it wasn't for them, as 1. I believed the propaganda that it was mostly employee information and didn't feel comfortable downloading it and reading, and 2. it would be too much work for me to look into the e-mails. Now that I know these stuff I feel like someone more informed than before. I hope the Slashdot community stops being against information.
By the way, since I haven't seen here a link to their press release, with the leaks, here it is.
Times, Guardian, Post, Intercept and Der Spiegel are credible sources that the US is doing worst than China.
From your link:
"I don't know if there are backdoors - but it doesn't matter since there are so many vulnerabilities."
It was on the news that the NSA was hacking on Huawei. Maybe China was using the vulnerabilities and spying, but the US definitely was doing that. Now they want to put actual backdoors on American devices.
Since then they said they would start using more open source and open their systems for being audited by third parties. The Chinese government didn't complain about increasing the security of Chinese made devices, the opposite of what is happening in the US.
I can't imagine more depth than infecting the HDD's firmware, stealing the SIM cards encryption keys of common citizens, tracking my phone's movements, every conversation I have over the Internet (skype, email, messaging, etc), making fake slashdot copies to infect people, designating me "enemy of the state" for reading and supporting wikileaks.
There is no indication that the Chinese are doing any of those things to foreigners (they do read Chinese communications).
It is true that China has shown aggression to neighbors, but it is also true that they believe Taiwan IS China. I strongly disagree, since Taiwan has been independent for several decades. On the other hand, having billions in weapons pointing at China doesn't help much. It is hard to believe they should be nice and understanding neighbors to people who have military pacts with the US.
If they don't change the icons, we'll see comments all over saying that this OS still looks the same as it did in the old windows # days, in the 90's or in 2000, arguing this is proof that the OS it is not evolving and that the others are better.
It is not just for the sake of it, it is to give the system visible changes people can quickly notice, dismissing this kind of BS we know happens.
My mother got separated from her father when she was very young. Right now (she's almost 50) she is trying hard to find out who he was, what he was like, what kind of things he used to do, what kind of work he did and how he acted in certain moments of his life. Things like finding out her grandfather was a communist atheist meant a lot to her a few weeks ago, even though he didn't give her any advice.
I believe the best you can do for her (on the videos) is to show her who you are, tell her your experiences and your values. She will make it from there.
Good luck for you and your family and make the most of this time with them.
China is not overthrowing democratically elected governments, it is not drone murdering abroad or creating wars. Since I'm not in China, I take Chinese espionage over American any day.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you are right and it is just a coincidence that Petrobras (an oil company from a pacific country) was an espionage target, in which case the spying was really unexplained and for nothing.
Now, in a completely unrelated case, the document on the article says that the British spy agency does provide "intelligence relating to risks to UK investment overseas", does that sound like economic espionage?
Continue provision of intelligence relating to risks to UK investment overseas
Both US and UK "surprisingly" boycotted an auction for the right to explore huge oil reserves in Brazil a few months after Dilma complained about the spying on Brazilians, herself and on Petrobras (the top deep sea oil exploration company in the world), driving the prices down.
Right now Petrobras is under investigation for corruption of some of its leaders, mostly related to the federal government party, it's stocks went down by a lot and most of the infrastructure investments / constructions are blocked. This is the only news here and we'll get American help on the investigations, even though we just refused German help on the Siemens case (the corrupts on that case are on the opposition party). Some people on the opposition party are involved in this Petrobras case as well, but the prosecutors decided there was no reason to investigate them. Seems like they jumped out at the right time and then, after decades of corruption (according to the case witnesses), it started falling down.
I hope people stop talking like economic espionage is a Chinese only thing.
crimes against children have NO limitations*
It's absurd to say there's a statute of limitations on how long it takes to bring somebody into court. If that were the case, then someone charged with a crime who flees would be able to return to the jurisdiction that originally charged him when the limitation was up.
I work in the judiciary in Brazil and can't tell how things work in Sweden, but many of these things are similar in most countries, maybe people can discuss the differences here.
Here in Brazil there are three limitations, one to accept the charges, one to give a sentence and one to execute the sentence.
The first limitation is on how long before the charges are accepted on court. The prosecutors have to press the charges and they have to be accepted. That is slightly different from the time to press the charges because the accused have to be officially informed of the charges, as he has the right to a preliminary defense before the charges are accepted. Pressing the charges by official news extends this limitation.
After the charges are received (that's the term in Portuguese), the limitation for sentencing is equal to the one to receive the charges. That is: 1. to have a judgment were all the proofs are presented and the informed defendant has the opportunity to be interrogated and defend himself or be defended by a public attorney if he flees, 2. for the judge to give a sentence and 3. for all the possible appeals until reaching a final sentence ("trânsito em julgado" - Google translates it to "res judicata").
The third limitation is on how long after the final sentence the government has to execute the sentence.
So the first limitation is about informing the person about the accusation and the third limitation is about making the person fulfill the sentence. (basically like "bringing somebody to court").
If the criminal flees (or is not found) for enough time, he can return/stay in the jurisdiction.
To give a clear and very common example I get here: the limitation for drug possession for personal use is 2 years, 1 year if he/she is under 21. When the guy was found with drugs he was living in a district with one cop doing everything. The police report takes 4-6 months to arrive at the judiciary. We have to check if he can make deals with the prosecutor by checking his criminal records, he has something on another city, we have to ask them exactly what it is (maybe he was found innocent) -> another 3-8 months depending on how many records and where they are. Then he has the right to make a deal (different deals for charged or not charged people), we set a deal hearing ->1 - 4 months (depending on the judge and world soccer schedule), and can't find him (moved away). Try to find him -> 3 to 8 months (the cop at that district only replied to our third reiteration). If he moved to São Paulo, we have to ask them to do the deal hearing, six months latter they reply that the address we gave was wrong or that he moved back. Over and it doesn't matter if he was/wasn't fleeing.
On the other hand, crimes against children have to limitations.
I live in a small city in Brazil, we used to have an Internet monopoly here, but not due to regulations. The fastest we could buy was 10Mb from Telefonica over copper, but only in the rich parts of the city. Most of the city had only 256K to 2M.
Now some guy started a small ISP and we are getting 20Mbps over fiber. It costs two times more than the Telefonica plans, but it is fast and reliable.
People talk a lot about the huge costs involved in starting on this area, but the guy here started serving a few neighborhoods in my city and now he is working on two cities. When the regulations allow, and the big players suck, others can grow.
Actually being sold in NK. It's hard to believe they have said that and easy to picture a scam involving the three websites on the post. I give the guy no credibility, but if people continue dying after the miracle drug, how is he going to explain?
A Swedish sports player will be able to testify via Skype regarding assault allegations as to not miss a game on the same day. In contrast, Swedish prosecutors have refused to question Julian Assange using the same methods for over four years.
So no, asking to be questioned over there is not asking special treatment. The fact that this was not done like the norm is the special treatment.
How is it that you think (mistakenly) that he has somehow NOT been mistreated or short changed? How?
He also said that he would go to Sweden for questioning if they could give him some guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, something Sweden refused to give.
Like you pointed out, it's supposed to be just questioning, how could it be such a problem? It is pretty clear that the questioning is not the problem.
While I do agree with you that that's probably the reason, we are seeing here a case where the French are trying to do so.
Also, since the mainland is respecting Hong Kong's decision to keep Google, I think that's something to consider on the debate on whether they respect jurisdictions only out of practicality or some respect also.
The problem is that if the French could do it (decide what appears on Google outside of their country), it would only be fair that the Chinese could do it too, so Internet censorship for everyone.
The Tiananmen incident would go out of existence, as well as anything that offends any dictator or anyone with access to a friendly court.
If they push forward, they should just do like they did in China, leave. The bad part is that, like in China, it would leave the market open for others who are more willing to comply with worldwide orders.
It's funny that while it is common to criticize China, I don't see them trying to give orders outside of their country. It seems they have more respect over other people's laws than the west.
The problem is that if the French could do it (decide what appears on Google outside of their country), it would only be fair that the Chinese could do it too, so Internet censorship for everyone.
The Tiananmen incident would go out of existence, as well as anything that offends any dictator or anyone with access to a friendly court.
If they push forward, they should just do like they did in China, leave. The bad part is that, like in China, it would leave the market open for others who are more willing to comply with worldwide orders.
It's funny that while it is common to criticize China, I don't see them trying to give orders outside of their country. It seems they have more respect over other people's laws than the west.
There is plenty of affirmative action in China. In university entrances, to apply for Beijing citizenship (yes, a city's citizen has more rights), employment opportunities and even for having more kids. These are the AA "things" I'm aware of from living a couple of years in Beijing. China has 54 minorities, over 90% of the population is Han.
The main difference between a prostitute and a politician is that the prostitute only sells her body, not her soul.
I think the main difference is that prostitutes keep their promises.
I doubt the face picture with a history really bothered her that much. She saw an opportunity of being published (that might help when applying to the good colleges) and went for it, maybe she even wrote the op-ed.
It is the "legal system" of one country that is mandating the blockade of perfectly legal content in most of the world. Even in America, where DMCA is king, the torrent site is legal and the copyright holders can request the removal of certain pages of it, not censor the whole thing. Whether you feel that "censorship" is wrong or not, it's clear that if one country is threatening your business (by threatening to decide what customers you can have), you should make a stand for it, as otherwise you'll have to start getting rid of your customers based on every other dictator's whims.
I'll remind you that the concept of universal human rights came after defeating the nazis, when humanity thought that we never wanted anything like that again.
Just saying it was not possible to capture those "terrorists" doesn't make it true. They've been drone murdering for some time and that's just their modus operandi (check on the NYT). It was not easy to capture Hussein, and he was in the middle of a lot of civilians. These guys were in a compound with pretty much no civilians around.
I agree with you, charging hostage takers is what should have been done, too bad extra-judicial mass murders are the US/Pakistani way of doing things. If they were charged with something other than drones no one would die, and the charges would be for taking hostages, not the Pakistani equivalent of the felony murder rule.
Sure, we should stop fighting terrorists because they hide behind hostages.
They were not hiding behind hostages. If Obama and the other people behind the mass murder knew about the captives they wouldn't have done it (I guess).
Obama said that the operation was conducted after hundreds of hours of surveillance had convinced American officials that they were targeting an Al Qaeda compound where no civilians were present
I hope the Slashdot community stops being against information.
*fix: "I hope that the part of the slashdot community that is against dissemination of information stops doing so."
I'm very thankful to the slashdot community in overall, there is, still, great stuff here. It would be very hard to find all this stuff on my own.
The US State Department recruited Hollywood to boost “anti-Russian messaging“.
Sony pirated multiple books about hacking, while aggressively campaigning against piracy.
Emails reveal concerns in the US over the secrecy of the TPP talks.
The leaks included a draft of the international VOD and DHE agreement between SONY and Google
Sony received nearly $48 million in tax breaks in 2011 and 2012 after donating to New York Governor Cuomo.
Ben Affleck demanded PBS program “Finding Your Roots” hide his slave-owning ancestor.
Sony changed the Snowden film press release to remove “illegal spying” from the description of NSA’s activities
Sony cameras are used as a part of the guidance system for Israeli rockets bombing Gaza
Sony Chiefs met with David Cameron ahead of the Scottish referendum
Corrupt product placement practices used in Dr. Oz show
I really hope that slashdot doesn't become another place of pro-government propaganda, as that really pisses me off. The information was already out there, but their republishing obviously did us a favor (us that care about government accountability or knowing the truth anyway). We already have enough media outlets against information out there, let's keep this one useful.
I would never know the above facts if it wasn't for them, as 1. I believed the propaganda that it was mostly employee information and didn't feel comfortable downloading it and reading, and 2. it would be too much work for me to look into the e-mails.
Now that I know these stuff I feel like someone more informed than before. I hope the Slashdot community stops being against information.
By the way, since I haven't seen here a link to their press release, with the leaks, here it is.
From your link:
"I don't know if there are backdoors - but it doesn't matter since there are so many vulnerabilities."
It was on the news that the NSA was hacking on Huawei. Maybe China was using the vulnerabilities and spying, but the US definitely was doing that. Now they want to put actual backdoors on American devices.
Since then they said they would start using more open source and open their systems for being audited by third parties. The Chinese government didn't complain about increasing the security of Chinese made devices, the opposite of what is happening in the US.
There was a great talk on 31C3 (Chaos Communication Congress), the largest hacker conference in Europe. Tell no-one A century of secret deals between the NSA an the telecom industry
The talk can be found on youtube as well.
how does that relate to spying level or depth
I can't imagine more depth than infecting the HDD's firmware, stealing the SIM cards encryption keys of common citizens, tracking my phone's movements, every conversation I have over the Internet (skype, email, messaging, etc), making fake slashdot copies to infect people, designating me "enemy of the state" for reading and supporting wikileaks.
There is no indication that the Chinese are doing any of those things to foreigners (they do read Chinese communications).
It is true that China has shown aggression to neighbors, but it is also true that they believe Taiwan IS China. I strongly disagree, since Taiwan has been independent for several decades. On the other hand, having billions in weapons pointing at China doesn't help much. It is hard to believe they should be nice and understanding neighbors to people who have military pacts with the US.
It is not just for the sake of it, it is to give the system visible changes people can quickly notice, dismissing this kind of BS we know happens.
I believe the best you can do for her (on the videos) is to show her who you are, tell her your experiences and your values. She will make it from there.
Good luck for you and your family and make the most of this time with them.
China is not overthrowing democratically elected governments, it is not drone murdering abroad or creating wars. Since I'm not in China, I take Chinese espionage over American any day.