Megaupload Assisted FBI vs NinjaVideo, But Evidence Then Used Against Them(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Megaupload Assisted FBI vs NinjaVideo, But Evidence Then Used Against Them
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-assisted-fbi-vs-ninjavideo-but-evidence-then-used-against-them-121121/
3 comments
Why are all the people fighting the fights I want to get behind, completely obnoxious? Kim Dotcom, Juian Assange, Richard Stallman, etc... Can't we have a champion for the digital causes with the charisma that exceeds new money red neck, rapist, or raving homeless person? I'm not asking for MLK or Gandhi, just an average Joe.
From what is publicly known, there's very little reason to believe Assange raped anyone and the Swedish authorities seem uninterested in questioning Assange, filing charges, or anything besides extraditing him to Sweden for some reason.
I don't really want to talk about the details and hijack the thread, but there's something Kafkaesque about how thing shave been handled. The terrifying thing about the case is people are ready to hate him because of flimsy rape allegations, even on Hacker News!
Anyway, I guess the point of this post is Assange isn't all that obnoxious if you ignore the rape media circus. Maybe he is egotistical but most important hackers are.
I don't really want to talk about the details and hijack the thread, but there's something Kafkaesque about how thing shave been handled. The terrifying thing about the case is people are ready to hate him because of flimsy rape allegations, even on Hacker News!
Anyway, I guess the point of this post is Assange isn't all that obnoxious if you ignore the rape media circus. Maybe he is egotistical but most important hackers are.
He's not not accused of rape, actually.
Even apart from the rape allegations, I have lost all respect for him because of this "hiding in the embassy" thing. He can't go to Sweden because he "might" be extradited to the US? Even if he is extradited, he still has access to the US judicial system and as an Australian citizen can count on some basic diplomatic support, furthermore the attention of the international media...
There are thousands of political activists in third world countries, who take much greater risk of bodily harm for themselves and their families every single day, without the perks like having a platform to portray themselves as a "civil rights hero" in the world media, or receiving donations for "legal defense and bail money", or being able to sleep with several groupies on a short Sweden trip.
Grandstanding speeches in the media combined with cowardly behavior is not something I can admire...
There are thousands of political activists in third world countries, who take much greater risk of bodily harm for themselves and their families every single day, without the perks like having a platform to portray themselves as a "civil rights hero" in the world media, or receiving donations for "legal defense and bail money", or being able to sleep with several groupies on a short Sweden trip.
Grandstanding speeches in the media combined with cowardly behavior is not something I can admire...
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/...
There are so many myths arround Assange, we might never really know whats going on. Afterall sexual molestation claims could be true, could be black helicoptor crew or even just a piss of lady.
What I would say, and what angers me about him is how any message about freedom of information has been utterly lost. He has shacked up with someone who directly opposes his (former?) cause, all I see now is a self publishing type hiding in the shadows.
There are so many myths arround Assange, we might never really know whats going on. Afterall sexual molestation claims could be true, could be black helicoptor crew or even just a piss of lady.
What I would say, and what angers me about him is how any message about freedom of information has been utterly lost. He has shacked up with someone who directly opposes his (former?) cause, all I see now is a self publishing type hiding in the shadows.
To quote Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" Fighting extradition was one thing, but asylum from Ecuador has me fairly convinced there is more to the change than I originally thought.
And 24-hour Met stakeout outside the embassy, cost running into the millions, is standard for an arrest warrant?
This has been discussed to death, but... it's not the arrest warrant that caused the large police presence, it was the fact that someone that is trying to avoid deportation was using embassy soil to do so, while flaunting it and being in the centre of a large amount of controversy.
If Assange had just gone to Sweden like he was expected to then nothing would have happened with the police, if any high value media personality was wanted on an international arrest warrant and sought refuge in an embassy like Assange has done it would have warranted the same media attention and thus the same police presence.
The Assange case may be full of suspicious circumstances, but I don't think the heavy police presence at the embassy is anything other than the result of the media circus surrounding the situation (which is of Assange's own creation).
If Assange had just gone to Sweden like he was expected to then nothing would have happened with the police, if any high value media personality was wanted on an international arrest warrant and sought refuge in an embassy like Assange has done it would have warranted the same media attention and thus the same police presence.
The Assange case may be full of suspicious circumstances, but I don't think the heavy police presence at the embassy is anything other than the result of the media circus surrounding the situation (which is of Assange's own creation).
Forget the embassy. This man had an Interpol Red Notice issued because he is wanted for questioning about why he did not wear a condom with someone he had been sleeping with regularly.
Does that sound like standard operating procedure to you?
And what's this "If Assange had gone to Sweden" nonsense. He was in Sweden, in fact he prolonged his stay for a month and a half longer trying to talk to police. They did not even want to interview him.
Now months later they're trying to extradite him back into country.
If you don't find this all suspicious, then you aren't paying attention.
http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html
Does that sound like standard operating procedure to you?
And what's this "If Assange had gone to Sweden" nonsense. He was in Sweden, in fact he prolonged his stay for a month and a half longer trying to talk to police. They did not even want to interview him.
Now months later they're trying to extradite him back into country.
If you don't find this all suspicious, then you aren't paying attention.
http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html
The part I don't understand about this view is why would Sweden be more likely to extradite him to the US than the UK would?
If it is a conspiracy, then I would say that the point is to discredit him and to tie him up dealing with these charges, rather than talking to the media about WikiLeaks.
If it is a conspiracy, then I would say that the point is to discredit him and to tie him up dealing with these charges, rather than talking to the media about WikiLeaks.
> The part I don't understand about this view is why would Sweden be more likely to extradite him to the US than the UK would?
Sweden has cooperated with handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA, knowing they would be sent back to Egypt to be tortured, in blatant violation of Swedish law and international obligations. Wikileaks published documents showing that years after CIA rendition flights had supposedly stopped, the US ambassador had been officially summoned to receive a complaint after Swedish military intelligence had uncovered that they were still happening, with the knowledge of airport staff.
Meanwhile, in the UK, there are extradition cases that have gone on for a decade with no resolution, as UK courts take this very seriously, and a substantial portion of extradition requests from the US are refused.
To add on to that, consider the behaviour of the Swedish police and prosecutors. Maybe they are just inept. Maybe there are other motives for how they've acted. But if you're someone like Assange, who has seen several US politicians calling for him to be executed, coupled with past illegal handovers from Sweden to the CIA, it wouldn't be that strange to get a bit paranoid about things such as why the case was reopened after it had been closed, and why the prosecutors categorically refuse to interview him abroad, when they've done that for substantially more serious crimes.
Personally I think that the most likely explanation is not US involvement, but "just" political point-scoring by the prosecutor and appointed lawyer for the alleged victims, both of whom have a history of trying to get support for making Swedish laws regarding rape substantially stricter.
Sweden has cooperated with handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA, knowing they would be sent back to Egypt to be tortured, in blatant violation of Swedish law and international obligations. Wikileaks published documents showing that years after CIA rendition flights had supposedly stopped, the US ambassador had been officially summoned to receive a complaint after Swedish military intelligence had uncovered that they were still happening, with the knowledge of airport staff.
Meanwhile, in the UK, there are extradition cases that have gone on for a decade with no resolution, as UK courts take this very seriously, and a substantial portion of extradition requests from the US are refused.
To add on to that, consider the behaviour of the Swedish police and prosecutors. Maybe they are just inept. Maybe there are other motives for how they've acted. But if you're someone like Assange, who has seen several US politicians calling for him to be executed, coupled with past illegal handovers from Sweden to the CIA, it wouldn't be that strange to get a bit paranoid about things such as why the case was reopened after it had been closed, and why the prosecutors categorically refuse to interview him abroad, when they've done that for substantially more serious crimes.
Personally I think that the most likely explanation is not US involvement, but "just" political point-scoring by the prosecutor and appointed lawyer for the alleged victims, both of whom have a history of trying to get support for making Swedish laws regarding rape substantially stricter.
Assange is a CIA high value target. He qualifies 100%.
Swedens defenses against CIA/NSA operatives, actively operating in their country, are likely to be more penetrable than those of the UK, or at least more malleable to the CIA's needs.
Myself, I think its less likely that the CIA can do a body-switch when Assange is in the embassy, than on the plane to Sweden .. but thats just pure fantasy of course. The CIA would never do a body-switch to take out a political target ..
Swedens defenses against CIA/NSA operatives, actively operating in their country, are likely to be more penetrable than those of the UK, or at least more malleable to the CIA's needs.
Myself, I think its less likely that the CIA can do a body-switch when Assange is in the embassy, than on the plane to Sweden .. but thats just pure fantasy of course. The CIA would never do a body-switch to take out a political target ..
Are you implying that the police presence was demanded by the media so that they could have a better story, because there was "controversy?" I'm not sure that's a good justification for the use of public resources.
On a more reasonable note, try:
- "The world is watching, so we better not let him get away."
- "If he uses the embassy to avoid charges in such a public manner, could set a 'dangerous' precedent."
- "The UK will have 'egg on its face' if they let him use this to get away."
- "We need to save face, the world is watching."
- "This guy is pissing me off. I normally wouldn't care too much, but he is flaunting his situation to the media, so I can't back down now."
- etc...
No one is saying that "The Media" specifically called for this sort of action. It's the "eyes of the world" that limit options. If this wasn't all over the news, it would be more likely that they might just let him go, but with the world watching "THEY ARE LETTING A CRIMINAL GET AWAY!!!" would be the next headline were they to let this slide.
- "The world is watching, so we better not let him get away."
- "If he uses the embassy to avoid charges in such a public manner, could set a 'dangerous' precedent."
- "The UK will have 'egg on its face' if they let him use this to get away."
- "We need to save face, the world is watching."
- "This guy is pissing me off. I normally wouldn't care too much, but he is flaunting his situation to the media, so I can't back down now."
- etc...
No one is saying that "The Media" specifically called for this sort of action. It's the "eyes of the world" that limit options. If this wasn't all over the news, it would be more likely that they might just let him go, but with the world watching "THEY ARE LETTING A CRIMINAL GET AWAY!!!" would be the next headline were they to let this slide.
I'm stating that with such a large amount of media and public present at the embassy police presence was required, due to the large crowds.
Good point.
More than the threat of extradition to the US and a Guantanamo vacation?
that was never going to happen. I have no idea why anybody would think it would. He is far too public for that.
Really?
There is at least one politician, who's name completely escapes me at the moment but she was either a rep in the EU parliament or the swedish one, who confirmed that extradition to the US from Sweden was the entire point of the circus.
And Bradley Manning is still being tortured in military prison right now.
I haven't seen anything to make this seem ridiculous or even unlikely. If he was convicted of treason, as he would be, I can't imagine being public would mean anything other than more media attention.
edit: as pyre pointed out by torture i mean extended solitary confinement. I call it torture because everyone who studies it calls it so. However it is true that people think the hypothetical Joe "ignorant american voter stereotype" Average disagrees. If you feel my use of the word "torture" was unfounded then do look at the literature and read the statements of people who have experienced both extended solitary confinement/sensory deprivation and physical torture. I am very certain you will agree with me afterwards.
There is at least one politician, who's name completely escapes me at the moment but she was either a rep in the EU parliament or the swedish one, who confirmed that extradition to the US from Sweden was the entire point of the circus.
And Bradley Manning is still being tortured in military prison right now.
I haven't seen anything to make this seem ridiculous or even unlikely. If he was convicted of treason, as he would be, I can't imagine being public would mean anything other than more media attention.
edit: as pyre pointed out by torture i mean extended solitary confinement. I call it torture because everyone who studies it calls it so. However it is true that people think the hypothetical Joe "ignorant american voter stereotype" Average disagrees. If you feel my use of the word "torture" was unfounded then do look at the literature and read the statements of people who have experienced both extended solitary confinement/sensory deprivation and physical torture. I am very certain you will agree with me afterwards.
> Bradley Manning is still being tortured in
> military prison right now.
> Bradley Manning was stripped and left naked in his cell for seven hours.
This was according to the New York Times[1] in March of 2011 and it took place at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va.
Might not be torture by most standards (though personally I think solitary confinement is torture) but I would hardly consider it proper conduct.
Also, who can say what really happens at Guantanamo...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04manning.html
This was according to the New York Times[1] in March of 2011 and it took place at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va.
Might not be torture by most standards (though personally I think solitary confinement is torture) but I would hardly consider it proper conduct.
Also, who can say what really happens at Guantanamo...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04manning.html
I happen to agree that solitary confinement is a form of torture regardless of whether or not he was stripped and left naked for 7 hours. My point was that the 'average Joe' pictures medieval torture devices (or someone tied to a chair and being beaten), when they hear talk of torture. So trying to claim that he was tortured because he was left naked for a few hours (or is in permanent solitary confinement) isn't going to win over anyone in that respect.
I'd venture that the internal monologue goes something like:
I'd venture that the internal monologue goes something like:
" Tortured? He's just left in a birthday suit for a bit,
and doesn't get to socialize. How bad could that be?
Jack Bauer resists being beaten while tied to a chair
every other episode, and still has the strength to
save that day! This Bradley Manning guy is just a
pussy. "7 hours?
That's friendly considering the later reports. According to the UN special rapporteur on torture he was kept in solitary 23 hours a day for 11 months.
That's friendly considering the later reports. According to the UN special rapporteur on torture he was kept in solitary 23 hours a day for 11 months.
I wouldn't be so sure. The US government have been doing whatever the hell they want lately, civil liberties and public opinions be damned.
Lately?
There's been a bumper crop of stupid comments on HN this year, but yours should win the county fair.
Is there a particular era you are thinking of that was that much better than now in this respect?
I'll say it this way: Americans have never been so privacy deprived and frightened of their government as they have been in the last decade.
No one expects Obama to defend your civil liberties. He's invisible most of the time. A middle man to the oligarchy. Some say he is a great "centerist", but I say he's a man with no morals.
No one expects Obama to defend your civil liberties. He's invisible most of the time. A middle man to the oligarchy. Some say he is a great "centerist", but I say he's a man with no morals.
Since I find the kill list/drone strikes/unaccountable assassination of civilians issue particularly troubling I can see where you are coming from.
I'm just not convinced that this is a shift in terms of the "US government have been doing whatever the hell they want lately, civil liberties and public opinions be damned" statement. The specifics are different now and the tools for manufacturing consent or controversy are always shifting but the lack of concern for civil liberties or public opinion (beyond what's necessary for horse-race politics) seems like a "new boss, same as the old boss" type thing to me.
I'm just not convinced that this is a shift in terms of the "US government have been doing whatever the hell they want lately, civil liberties and public opinions be damned" statement. The specifics are different now and the tools for manufacturing consent or controversy are always shifting but the lack of concern for civil liberties or public opinion (beyond what's necessary for horse-race politics) seems like a "new boss, same as the old boss" type thing to me.
Now there is the refined argumentation I come to HNN for. Well done, son.
Yes, I think its something like "do not want to rot in American Gulag, do want to continue exposing crimes of the Imperial Criminal Gang.."
I wish i could understand why anybody would defend Assange for anything.
What's interesting to note is that Sweden doesn't extradite for political crimes. So, legally, there's nothing that Assange has to worry about. Honestly, the more I looked at it the more I started to wonder if he was just being paranoid.
Sweden has in the past illegally handed political asylum seekers over to the CIA without extradition requests, knowing these people would be handed back to the regime they escaped from, to be tortured.
Later Wikileaks released documents that showed that years after this had supposedly been stopped, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that CIA rendition flights were still ongoing, with the cooperation of Swedish airport staff.
So there might not be much for Assange to worry about legally, but that doesn't say much.
He might very well be paranoid, but Sweden hasn't exactly acted in a way that does anything to give someone in his position reasons to trust they'll even follow their own laws.
Later Wikileaks released documents that showed that years after this had supposedly been stopped, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that CIA rendition flights were still ongoing, with the cooperation of Swedish airport staff.
So there might not be much for Assange to worry about legally, but that doesn't say much.
He might very well be paranoid, but Sweden hasn't exactly acted in a way that does anything to give someone in his position reasons to trust they'll even follow their own laws.
[deleted]
Cory Doctorow has quite the charisma - I love his speech at last year's Chaos Computer Conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
Don't really like his novels (subtlety is French to them) but his speeches are great.
Don't really like his novels (subtlety is French to them) but his speeches are great.
It's because the government strategically makes example cases of the least sympathetic individuals. Why do you think all of the anti-privacy legislation is deployed first against child pornographers?
I think part of the problem is that many of them just get more headlines as a result of their weirdness. There are plenty of people fighting these fights without being insane, Schneier for one.
http://www.schneier.com/
You just don't hear him being accused of raping anyone, that's all.
You just don't hear him being accused of raping anyone, that's all.
Because political activism on an issue that's not obvious injustice is a quixotic, and the smart people are out building new things/finding ways to route around the problem rather than fighting a losing battle.
While it may not be universally true, I quite like this.
Any insight on how one might route around the upcoming internet control battle that will take place in the UN? Or the neverending stream of [RI|MP]AA-written laws that congress tries to pass?
Any insight on how one might route around the upcoming internet control battle that will take place in the UN? Or the neverending stream of [RI|MP]AA-written laws that congress tries to pass?
if by "route around the problem" you mean "extract money from the broken system" then I would agree. Otherwise I'd need to be convinced with examples.
Well-adjusted individuals who do well within the system have little reason to fight it.
Because, when a smart person comes out in the open, he quickly gets labelled as a new money red neck, rapist, or raving homeless person.
That is the power of the opponents. They are able to manipulate the media outlets better.
Don't know about Stallman but Assange has some ego issues that didn't get smaller with the media attention (though to be fair without his ego he probably wouldn't have survived being the public image of Wikileaks) and Dotcom always was a Grade A scumbag.
There are a lot of great (personally) people doing great work, even in IT/security/digital liberty. It's just that the more obstreperous ones stick out in your mind.
Linus Torvalds is pretty universally regarded as a nice person, and very important to open source. Same with a lot of the earlier Bell Labs UNIX people, and computer scientists like Knuth, Ritchie, etc.
Within the startup world, it's even easier -- most of the well respected early angel investors, founders, etc. are decent people.
Every EFF employee that I've spent time with has been great, and a lot of them (Seth Schoen; Wendy Seltzer come to mind) are really important. Same with Prof Zittrain, Lessig, etc.
Even in computer security -- Jon Callas, Bruce Schneier, Ian Goldberg, Hugh Daniels, John Gilmore, Ben and Adam Laurie, Nicko and Alex van Someren, etc.
Linus Torvalds is pretty universally regarded as a nice person, and very important to open source. Same with a lot of the earlier Bell Labs UNIX people, and computer scientists like Knuth, Ritchie, etc.
Within the startup world, it's even easier -- most of the well respected early angel investors, founders, etc. are decent people.
Every EFF employee that I've spent time with has been great, and a lot of them (Seth Schoen; Wendy Seltzer come to mind) are really important. Same with Prof Zittrain, Lessig, etc.
Even in computer security -- Jon Callas, Bruce Schneier, Ian Goldberg, Hugh Daniels, John Gilmore, Ben and Adam Laurie, Nicko and Alex van Someren, etc.
Just take a look at Eben Moglen[0], he is a very brilliant speaker and a brilliant man in general. Or Jérémie Zimmermann[1] for the European side. Or Benjamin Bayart for the French side.
[0] http://youtu.be/sKOk4Y4inVY [1] http://youtu.be/qRiY9tkdkV8 [2] http://youtu.be/i7JVzN3dM34 (in french)
[0] http://youtu.be/sKOk4Y4inVY [1] http://youtu.be/qRiY9tkdkV8 [2] http://youtu.be/i7JVzN3dM34 (in french)
@ rymith: very interesting that your post is the only one slightly on-topic ;)
And I totally agree. We need a president of the internet. I'm serious.
You are not helping by unjustly calling him a rapist. In fact, even if he did what's he's being accused of, in most countries wouldn't be considered rape.
If you only read the headlines you are better off not reading news at all.
If you only read the headlines you are better off not reading news at all.
Then you be the champion. I'm serious (not being sarcastic or anything). Someone else needs to step up to the plate.
As soon as you find one they will make rape accusations against him, or just anything that is as evil in your eyes.
[deleted]
A Texas ranger was chasing a Mexican bandito around the turn of the last century. The bandito had robbed a bank in Texas and was hiding in a bar in a border town when the ranger found him. The ranger only spoke English and the bandito only Spanish so he found a local translator. The conversation went like this :
Ranger : Ask him where he hid the money.
Translator (in Spanish) : He wants to know where you hid the money.
Bandito : Tell him to go [expletive deleted] himself.
Translator (in English) : He said he's not going to tell you.
The ranger stands, draws his revolver, points it squarely at the bandito's head, and says "ask him again."
Translator (in Spanish) : He still wants to know where you hid the money...
Bandito : Okay! Okay! I hid it in the dried up town well, just tell him not to kill me!
Translator (in English) : He said that he is prepared to die.
Moral of the story, everyone has an agenda.
Ranger : Ask him where he hid the money.
Translator (in Spanish) : He wants to know where you hid the money.
Bandito : Tell him to go [expletive deleted] himself.
Translator (in English) : He said he's not going to tell you.
The ranger stands, draws his revolver, points it squarely at the bandito's head, and says "ask him again."
Translator (in Spanish) : He still wants to know where you hid the money...
Bandito : Okay! Okay! I hid it in the dried up town well, just tell him not to kill me!
Translator (in English) : He said that he is prepared to die.
Moral of the story, everyone has an agenda.