Have you not read recent new stories of people taking advantage of publicity and blackmailing folks for money?
He's not rich, he has little money.
Like I said, we'll see what happens after he is tried for his crimes. I have a good memory and all of the people who are defending him will be reminded of that if and when he is convicted of his sexual crimes and violation of women.
The new claims from Assange purport that security firms are secretly selling surveillance "equipment" to states around the world, allowing governments to locate mobile phones to within 50 meters. Once again, however, it is unclear what the WikiLeaks founder meant by "equipment" as his accusations mention only software.
I am absolutely outraged, even horrified that this is the case. They can track our whereabouts to within 50 meters. It's a travesty. Why, it is an example of absolute incompetence on the part of everyone involved.
It sounds like they triangulate signals when all they have to do is access the GPS chipset. It is accurate to well with 10 meters. Idiots.
Good thing we have people exposing these kinds of things, and what more reason does one need to jailbreak their iOS devices -- so these kinds of problems can be found, brought to light and remedied, by We The People!
Asange talks about VASTech being one of the companies making some of this 1984 spy software, well read about VASTech <http://www.vastech.co.za/>; HERE:
I am absolutely outraged, even horrified that this is the case. They can track our whereabouts to within 50 meters. It's a travesty. Why, it is an example of absolute incompetence on the part of everyone involved.
And they can track my whereabouts to about 10 feet each evening, seeing as my name is in public records at the local town hall! And that doesn't take any fancy technology either!!
1. Assange didn't rape the women in normal sense, but sense sex without a condom is considered a rape in Sweden he is being charged with rape there.
2. He is not bogus, why do you think his information cause a havoc around the world and US didn't sue him for misinformation?
3. Backdoors have existed for a long time, before internet there were commercial BBS systems which had backdoors and I myself have used them What makes you think they don't exist today? Haven't you recently heard of Carrier IQ?
Oh and here is one commercial trojan which took Apple to fix 3 years, I wonder why especially since its a commercial trojan
I could have sworn we had the death pentalty. His offensive are punishable by death if he were American.
Well Assange isn't American, isn't in America, and is not accused of any crimes in America. His "offensive" is not punishable by death in America because not telling a woman you haven't got any condoms is not an offense in America. It isn't in the UK or Australia either, it's a Swedish peculiarity. And neither Sweden, where he is accused, nor the UK, where he is, nor Australia, where he is from, have the death "pentalty".
Well Assange isn't American, isn't in America, and is not accused of any crimes in America. His "offensive" is not punishable by death in America because not telling a woman you haven't got any condoms is not an offense in America. It isn't in the UK or Australia either, it's a Swedish peculiarity. And neither Sweden, where he is accused, nor the UK, where he is, nor Australia, where he is from, have the death "pentalty".
And not worth listening to. What he's asserting is a small number of facts and a large dose of speculation and conspiracy theory hoo-hah.
Look, can a national intelligence organization with a lot of resources bug or tap someone's mobile phone when motivated? Sure, I suppose so. So what else is new. Does this expand into a wild eyed assertion that everyone in some city is being monitored? This doesnt pass the smell test.
Remember Assange's motive. He is radically anti-spy especially US spy agency. He wants it all to come crashing down and there be no government (or business) secrets. To justify this he has to believe ordinary citizens are under active attack by them. Really?
IIRC, Assange was pursued by two women who were totally infatuated with the guy and wanted to have sex with him. They met and had consensual sex and Assange actually used a condom. They then fell asleep, and during the middle of the night Assange got horny and they went at it again, except being randy and half asleep makes you forget to put on that all-important condom (there was even one report that said Assange used a condom but it split during sex).
What do they do for fellatio and/or cunnilingus, I wonder -- condoms and dental dams?
I think the guy is cracking up -- governments have been overtly and covertly listening to their citizens for years. Driving to Heathrow airport on the M40 motorway, there is a US base which has tens of massive golf-ball like structures openly visible from the road. The British government is open about GCHQ and activities that happen there. The one that people fear most is e-c-h-e-l-o-n.
Many years ago I came across an image of a man sitting in a deckchair on his patio reading a newspaper, and you could actually read the headline -- they said it was taken by a camera onboard a satellite.
It is amazing how poorly Americans, and Brits, parse information.
1) Assange may or may not have used some form of deceit on two women in a way that would be morally objectionable to many people (myself included.)
2) If Assange, or Hitler, made a claim about a state of things in the phenomenal world (Say, "two and two makes four,") their moral caliber would only be relevant if their claim were of a moral nature (i.e. Hitler may, obviously, be absolutely correct in uttering the sentence, "two and two makes four," but we might question his rationale when he tells us that, "Aryans are the master race.") The scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project (Shout out to my boy Doc Oppenheimer!) may have been shameless immoralists (this, parenthetically, is not strictly true in my opinion,) but we would not question their physics on the grounds of their morals, unless we wanted to be thoroughly irrational (which, albeit, would make us fit in nicely with our fellow Americans/Brits.)
3) Considering only the relevant points, then, we would be inclined to say that Assange is something of an alarmist that nonetheless bases his overstatement on some legitimate fact or set of facts. The set of facts in question could be easily hypothesized, since, to the knowledge of most of us, corporations HAVE been tracking a great deal of consumer activity through their technological devices. If we hypothesize further that governments, as an alternate locus of power, possess the necessary resources, the permitting opportunity, and catalytic motivation to employ similar tactics we could entertain the possibility that Assange's overstatement of the facts is, at the very least, a hypothetical possibility, if not a particularly probable one.
It is amazing how poorly Americans, and Brits, parse information.
1) Assange may or may not have used some form of deceit on two women in a way that would be morally objectionable to many people (myself included.)
2) If Assange, or Hitler, made a claim about a state of things in the phenomenal world (Say, "two and two makes four,") their moral caliber would only be relevant if their claim were of a moral nature (i.e. Hitler may, obviously, be absolutely correct in uttering the sentence, "two and two makes four," but we might question his rationale when he tells us that, "Aryans are the master race.") The scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project (Shout out to my boy Doc Oppenheimer!) may have been shameless immoralists (this, parenthetically, is not strictly true in my opinion,) but we would not question their physics on the grounds of their morals, unless we wanted to be thoroughly irrational (which, albeit, would make us fit in nicely with our fellow Americans/Brits.)
3) Considering only the relevant points, then, we would be inclined to say that Assange is something of an alarmist that nonetheless bases his overstatement on some legitimate fact or set of facts. The set of facts in question could be easily hypothesized, since, to the knowledge of most of us, corporations HAVE been tracking a great deal of consumer activity through their technological devices. If we hypothesize further that governments, as an alternate locus of power, possess the necessary resources, the permitting opportunity, and catalytic motivation to employ similar tactics we could entertain the possibility that Assange's overstatement of the facts is, at the very least, a hypothetical possibility, if not a particularly probable one.
Refine your thinking, lads!
Great post. I'm not getting why people somehow tend to think that facts are somehow irrelvant because of the person. Havin read Mein Komf, a lot of what Hilter wrote wasn't necesarily wrong and quite ironic in many way. If a smoker told you not to smoke, as you'll regret it.....that doesn't mean he's not right. It may seem hypocritical in some way. But facts are facts. The sky is till blue, no matter what your religon/race/background.
we could entertain the possibility that Assange's overstatement of the facts is, at the very least, a hypothetical possibility, if not a particularly probable one.
Cold, hard facts are what is needed here.
It is a waste of time to entertain the possibility of what a known delusional person claims without hard facts and evidence. A person with very little credibility is not going to be taken at their word.
He can either put up or shut up. I am not discounting anything that he claims. But I am discounting anything that he claims without legitimate proof or hard evidence.
You are essentially correct. Rape, like Murder, is a very specific legal term and in that sense, no he did not rape those women.
That said, in Sweden if you have sex with a woman and you don't tell her that you aren't using a condom that's still considered sexual assault. A lot of this case is he said, they said. He said he told them he didn't have any condoms and they were basically "whatever lets do this" and they came he never said a word. But neither is likely to be able to prove their side. Unless the punishment for this level of crime is life in jail or your penis being removed, most men would go and state their side with a very sincere "I thought she understood, it seems she didn't and for that I am sorry. I'm happy to pay if she wants to be tested for any STDs etc" and take the probation, the getting kicked out of the country or whatever. But Mr Assange likes to make himself into a martyr so it is no shock he's doing things this way
What you said makes sense. I really don't know much about Swedish law being American but as you described it, he should have faced the court. I agree with you.
Anybody that knows anything about computers and lives in a country with a government should already be aware there's always a back door into any Operating System! it's not a flaw, it's a design feature.
There was pressure by US\\UK Government security agencies long before 9\\11, calling for encryption program manufacturers to allow access via back-doors into their wares and 9\\11 made getting that access much easier for the likes of the FBI & MI6.
Maybe Assange's English isn't as good as it could be in accurately describing his meaning, but it isn't news to any one with the slightest computing knowledge.
Governments can't have radicals making terror plans without an ability to eavesdrop on public communication means. Hence, there's no such thing as a completely secure OS.
ArsTechnica has a story up that seems to confirm most of WikiLeaks claims. According to the story, yes both Apple devices and Safari (along with most others) are open to remote installation of "spyware", completely unbeknownst to the user.
While the use of "rape" is not accurate, sexual assault certainly is and that charge covers a broad range of offences that differ in form including rape and groping just as spitting on someone or punching them, two very different crimes, are both considered "assault" is many countries.
This being considered sexual assault is not unique to Sweden, either. Exposing someone to a chance of pregnancy or STD when they did not give consent to unprotected sex is a crime in many countries.
Poking holes in a condom alone before consensual sex, even with someone you are married to can get you charged in many countries.
The question I don't see being asked is if Assange is innocent why does he resist extradition and use his faithful followers to defame his accusers? Why doesn't he just not just return to Sweden and face the charges? Its not like Sweden is some sort of corrupt totalitarian regime.
Also, sexual assault charges are usually very hard to prove and prosecutors rarely even pursue them due to lack of evidence. The Swedes would not be so persistent if they were just relying on the claims of the alleged victims and would not reveal the nature of all the evidence they have against him.
While he has repeatedly invoked "democracy" it is clear he sees himself as above the laws of democratic countries. Courts and laws are a part of democracy and until he mans up and faces the charges instead of being the cowardly little troll he usually is, I will doubt everything he says.
Comments
Have you not read recent new stories of people taking advantage of publicity and blackmailing folks for money?
He's not rich, he has little money.
Like I said, we'll see what happens after he is tried for his crimes. I have a good memory and all of the people who are defending him will be reminded of that if and when he is convicted of his sexual crimes and violation of women.
The new claims from Assange purport that security firms are secretly selling surveillance "equipment" to states around the world, allowing governments to locate mobile phones to within 50 meters. Once again, however, it is unclear what the WikiLeaks founder meant by "equipment" as his accusations mention only software.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/c]
I am absolutely outraged, even horrified that this is the case. They can track our whereabouts to within 50 meters. It's a travesty. Why, it is an example of absolute incompetence on the part of everyone involved.
It sounds like they triangulate signals when all they have to do is access the GPS chipset. It is accurate to well with 10 meters. Idiots.
Hey, Julian. You do know what GPS is, don't you?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us
Oh and read THIS:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/10960027.cms
I am absolutely outraged, even horrified that this is the case. They can track our whereabouts to within 50 meters. It's a travesty. Why, it is an example of absolute incompetence on the part of everyone involved.
And they can track my whereabouts to about 10 feet each evening, seeing as my name is in public records at the local town hall! And that doesn't take any fancy technology either!!
2. He is not bogus, why do you think his information cause a havoc around the world and US didn't sue him for misinformation?
3. Backdoors have existed for a long time, before internet there were commercial BBS systems which had backdoors and I myself have used them
Oh and here is one commercial trojan which took Apple to fix 3 years, I wonder why especially since its a commercial trojan
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/11/a...r-trojan-hole/
I could have sworn we had the death pentalty. His offensive are punishable by death if he were American.
Well Assange isn't American, isn't in America, and is not accused of any crimes in America. His "offensive" is not punishable by death in America because not telling a woman you haven't got any condoms is not an offense in America. It isn't in the UK or Australia either, it's a Swedish peculiarity. And neither Sweden, where he is accused, nor the UK, where he is, nor Australia, where he is from, have the death "pentalty".
Well Assange isn't American, isn't in America, and is not accused of any crimes in America. His "offensive" is not punishable by death in America because not telling a woman you haven't got any condoms is not an offense in America. It isn't in the UK or Australia either, it's a Swedish peculiarity. And neither Sweden, where he is accused, nor the UK, where he is, nor Australia, where he is from, have the death "pentalty".
I never said he was American.
Look, can a national intelligence organization with a lot of resources bug or tap someone's mobile phone when motivated? Sure, I suppose so. So what else is new. Does this expand into a wild eyed assertion that everyone in some city is being monitored? This doesnt pass the smell test.
Remember Assange's motive. He is radically anti-spy especially US spy agency. He wants it all to come crashing down and there be no government (or business) secrets. To justify this he has to believe ordinary citizens are under active attack by them. Really?
What do they do for fellatio and/or cunnilingus, I wonder -- condoms and dental dams?
I think the guy is cracking up -- governments have been overtly and covertly listening to their citizens for years. Driving to Heathrow airport on the M40 motorway, there is a US base which has tens of massive golf-ball like structures openly visible from the road. The British government is open about GCHQ and activities that happen there. The one that people fear most is e-c-h-e-l-o-n.
Many years ago I came across an image of a man sitting in a deckchair on his patio reading a newspaper, and you could actually read the headline -- they said it was taken by a camera onboard a satellite.
1) Assange may or may not have used some form of deceit on two women in a way that would be morally objectionable to many people (myself included.)
2) If Assange, or Hitler, made a claim about a state of things in the phenomenal world (Say, "two and two makes four,") their moral caliber would only be relevant if their claim were of a moral nature (i.e. Hitler may, obviously, be absolutely correct in uttering the sentence, "two and two makes four," but we might question his rationale when he tells us that, "Aryans are the master race.") The scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project (Shout out to my boy Doc Oppenheimer!) may have been shameless immoralists (this, parenthetically, is not strictly true in my opinion,) but we would not question their physics on the grounds of their morals, unless we wanted to be thoroughly irrational (which, albeit, would make us fit in nicely with our fellow Americans/Brits.)
3) Considering only the relevant points, then, we would be inclined to say that Assange is something of an alarmist that nonetheless bases his overstatement on some legitimate fact or set of facts. The set of facts in question could be easily hypothesized, since, to the knowledge of most of us, corporations HAVE been tracking a great deal of consumer activity through their technological devices. If we hypothesize further that governments, as an alternate locus of power, possess the necessary resources, the permitting opportunity, and catalytic motivation to employ similar tactics we could entertain the possibility that Assange's overstatement of the facts is, at the very least, a hypothetical possibility, if not a particularly probable one.
Refine your thinking, lads!
It is amazing how poorly Americans, and Brits, parse information.
1) Assange may or may not have used some form of deceit on two women in a way that would be morally objectionable to many people (myself included.)
2) If Assange, or Hitler, made a claim about a state of things in the phenomenal world (Say, "two and two makes four,") their moral caliber would only be relevant if their claim were of a moral nature (i.e. Hitler may, obviously, be absolutely correct in uttering the sentence, "two and two makes four," but we might question his rationale when he tells us that, "Aryans are the master race.") The scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project (Shout out to my boy Doc Oppenheimer!) may have been shameless immoralists (this, parenthetically, is not strictly true in my opinion,) but we would not question their physics on the grounds of their morals, unless we wanted to be thoroughly irrational (which, albeit, would make us fit in nicely with our fellow Americans/Brits.)
3) Considering only the relevant points, then, we would be inclined to say that Assange is something of an alarmist that nonetheless bases his overstatement on some legitimate fact or set of facts. The set of facts in question could be easily hypothesized, since, to the knowledge of most of us, corporations HAVE been tracking a great deal of consumer activity through their technological devices. If we hypothesize further that governments, as an alternate locus of power, possess the necessary resources, the permitting opportunity, and catalytic motivation to employ similar tactics we could entertain the possibility that Assange's overstatement of the facts is, at the very least, a hypothetical possibility, if not a particularly probable one.
Refine your thinking, lads!
Great post. I'm not getting why people somehow tend to think that facts are somehow irrelvant because of the person. Havin read Mein Komf, a lot of what Hilter wrote wasn't necesarily wrong and quite ironic in many way. If a smoker told you not to smoke, as you'll regret it.....that doesn't mean he's not right. It may seem hypocritical in some way. But facts are facts. The sky is till blue, no matter what your religon/race/background.
we could entertain the possibility that Assange's overstatement of the facts is, at the very least, a hypothetical possibility, if not a particularly probable one.
Cold, hard facts are what is needed here.
It is a waste of time to entertain the possibility of what a known delusional person claims without hard facts and evidence. A person with very little credibility is not going to be taken at their word.
He can either put up or shut up. I am not discounting anything that he claims. But I am discounting anything that he claims without legitimate proof or hard evidence.
Havin read Mein Komf, a lot of what Hilter wrote wasn't necesarily wrong and quite ironic in many way.
It's Mein Kampf, not Mein Komf.
It's Mein Kampf, not Mein Komf.
Damn it, I knew I spelled it wrong.
You are essentially correct. Rape, like Murder, is a very specific legal term and in that sense, no he did not rape those women.
That said, in Sweden if you have sex with a woman and you don't tell her that you aren't using a condom that's still considered sexual assault. A lot of this case is he said, they said. He said he told them he didn't have any condoms and they were basically "whatever lets do this" and they came he never said a word. But neither is likely to be able to prove their side. Unless the punishment for this level of crime is life in jail or your penis being removed, most men would go and state their side with a very sincere "I thought she understood, it seems she didn't and for that I am sorry. I'm happy to pay if she wants to be tested for any STDs etc" and take the probation, the getting kicked out of the country or whatever. But Mr Assange likes to make himself into a martyr so it is no shock he's doing things this way
What you said makes sense. I really don't know much about Swedish law being American but as you described it, he should have faced the court. I agree with you.
There was pressure by US\\UK Government security agencies long before 9\\11, calling for encryption program manufacturers to allow access via back-doors into their wares and 9\\11 made getting that access much easier for the likes of the FBI & MI6.
Maybe Assange's English isn't as good as it could be in accurately describing his meaning, but it isn't news to any one with the slightest computing knowledge.
Governments can't have radicals making terror plans without an ability to eavesdrop on public communication means. Hence, there's no such thing as a completely secure OS.
You're being watched ...get over it.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...overnments.ars
This being considered sexual assault is not unique to Sweden, either. Exposing someone to a chance of pregnancy or STD when they did not give consent to unprotected sex is a crime in many countries.
Poking holes in a condom alone before consensual sex, even with someone you are married to can get you charged in many countries.
The question I don't see being asked is if Assange is innocent why does he resist extradition and use his faithful followers to defame his accusers? Why doesn't he just not just return to Sweden and face the charges? Its not like Sweden is some sort of corrupt totalitarian regime.
Also, sexual assault charges are usually very hard to prove and prosecutors rarely even pursue them due to lack of evidence. The Swedes would not be so persistent if they were just relying on the claims of the alleged victims and would not reveal the nature of all the evidence they have against him.
While he has repeatedly invoked "democracy" it is clear he sees himself as above the laws of democratic countries. Courts and laws are a part of democracy and until he mans up and faces the charges instead of being the cowardly little troll he usually is, I will doubt everything he says.