I do not see president Biden pardoning Assange
I guess I'll just have to keep voting for Libertarians.
Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
121–130 of 432 posts
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
So now more and more mainstream OS have storage encryption easily enabled, everyone in tech seems to need to communicate about how much their product is privacy friendly and you would still say that the last decade of tech leaks hasn't been very productive? I'm not saying that it changed everything and that we're now safe, far from that. But at least that topic is now unavoidable.
Valid point about technical changes. But most of the big leaks were sold as if they would lead to social/political/economic changes.
Technology doesn't exist in its own bubble isolated from society, politics, and economy. Changes in mainstream OSs and mainstreaming privacy concerns are absolutely the result of social, political, and economic change.
Keep in mind the companies involved in these technological changes make up a huge portion of our economy, and their users affected by their app store changes, for example, touch every sector. These changes come due to social pressure--these companies aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart. And particularly with regards to Facebook, political pressure is being placed on them to self-regulate with regard to user data to avoid government regulation.
I am not accusing you of being anti-leaking (or pro-leaking), but it does sound like you've fallen for an anti-leaking narrative here.
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm generally on Assange's side in all of this. I agree he shouldn't be charged and this is all a disgrace. Having said that, I once went to wikileaks and found a PDF of Steve Job's supposed STD test which claimed he was HIV positive. That was a surprise to me as my understanding was that he died of cancer. I looked into it and no one could corroborate the story and the general consensus seemed to be that it was fake…
HIV can cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, so that could have caused his cancer. It’s actually not that far outside the realm of possibility. Condom use was not very common in the 70s and one can live with HIV dormant for many years.
But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion. From the article you linked: Mr Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and…
I see two possible interpretations: A - This is a special process meant to assure that reports are truly independent and neutral. These conclusions are even more trustworthy. B - UN Special Rapporteur can't be trusted, it's is a random nobody that can publish untrue allegations and slap UN logo on top. It appears you are implying B is the correct interpretations. If so, why? Additionally, can you suggest a more trust…
OK I'll be explicit.
You attempted to spin the opinion of special rapporteur into that of the UN. In every special rapporteur article they have to put the disclaimer I posted because of people like you attempting to frame something in false or malicious ways.
To recap your claim:
>Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion.
UN's actual position as stated in the article you posted:
>The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
That line is meant for you:
>they are not UN staff
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
HIV can cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, so that could have caused his cancer. It’s actually not that far outside the realm of possibility. Condom use was not very common in the 70s and one can live with HIV dormant for many years.
But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"
As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#126Assange helped Trump win the election. Now, the administration that he enabled is coming for him. What a turn of events.
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I edited to include a source after you posted: the founder of BLM refers to herself as a trained Marxist. The reason people are speaking about it more now is such Marxist groups seized part of one city (Seattle) and staged riots nationally. Generally speaking, when an ideological group uses their network to stage violent riots, people talk about it. People such as Jordan Peterson or Michael Knowles have been speaking…
[flagged]
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I downvoted this comment because it is dizzying how quickly you moved the goal posts from "the whole Russia thing was a scam" to "of course Russia meddled".
I've got to say, when I hear 'the whole Russia thing' I assume people mean that the Trump administration broke the law to co-operate with Russia. That is a very different question from whether Russia decided to throw it's weight behind a candidate. Doesn't look to me like a shifting of goal posts at all.
A reading of the actual facts seems to be in conflict with "The trump administration did not break the law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
There's very little argument about whether trump broke the law (he did) - it was just a matter of whether his corrupt party would vote for impeachment (they didn't.)
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#129> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…
>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never once published anything that has been proven false. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 He has helped launder edited material from Russian state sponsored hackers in the past. That is one instance, should I find more?
1. Why is your account just 2 weeks old?
2. Apparently the testimony is based on the story told by who are trying hard to get their sentences reduced.
Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment
#130Wikileaks used to be something, then Assange decided to filter leaks based on whatever biases he felt that day. He alienated a lot of his initial supporters doing this, focusing only on leaking content from "the west." Later fully engaging with state sponsored hackers to meddle in the US election[1] while again ignoring any leaks about Russia[2] and friends. As far as I can tell there is nothing left of Wikileaks, it…
So not only are Assange and the people who gave him information supposed to risk their lives to bring these things out to the public, they are also supposed to do it in an objective balanced manner? Facts are facts. As long as they are printing true facts, they can only be doing good, even if they are only printing the truth about one particular country. Even if they were only printing leaks from a single policital p…
> As long as they are printing true facts, they can only be doing good
This is obviously not true. Releasing a fact has a tangible effect on the world, usually a slight change of opinion in the minds of those who learn the fact. Sometimes the effect is more dramatic, for example a government changing policy or someone being killed.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this could go very wrong very quickly, which is why the entire journalistic profession, counted among whom are many moral and intelligent individuals, decided not to simply release facts as they received them.
I happen to believe Assange affected the world negatively by releasing the facts he did. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but to suggest that he not only did not but could not is perfectly ridiculous.