51–60 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nooo, really ? ;-)
Hey sleazy or not this gets a lot of attention to a important issue which we desperately need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That said, I think that ideologically, all of these men are absolutely on the same page... I don't think even they would agree to that. KDC is a serial criminal/fraudster with a ton of convictions to his name that will pursue a buck no matter what he has to do for it. Glenn Greenwald is a journalist who will not be pushed or pressured into behaving as governments believe he should, who has taught a superb lesson in…
I think that's a little unfair to KDC; at the very least, it is no more a complete picture of the man than "John Doe is a felon" is of anyone else. There are a lot of other people who see Assange as nothing more than "rapist on the run". Dotcom hasn't stopped fighting his imprisonment and the seizure and loss of his equipment, business, and customers' data, even though he's already won far more than maybe anyone else…
He's also been involved in setting up a ponzi scheme and stole 1.5M in a 'pump and dump'.
I won't take a word of that back.
Will any of this really make any difference? I feel that, in the long run, it won't. Edit: And to further clarify my question (since I'm being down-voted for a very legitimate question)... I know a lot of smart people and none of them (as in 0 of them) seem to take any notice to these conversations. There is a lot of apathy towards mass surveillance. Sure, the conversation comes up a lot on HN but HN is not a very go…
Surveillance was sold to the public under vague terms: "we only use it to catch terrorists", "it's for your safety", "nobody's reading your email", "if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about" ... and now there's solid evidence that these are all lies, and have been lies for a long time.
The man-on-the-street might be OK with surveillance to catch terr'ists, but they're not OK with a more personal form of surveillance, where someone, somewhere, might be looking at them at some point.
So our job is to continue to have these conversations about what kind of surveillance is actually happening, and what the implications are. New Zealand has been politically apathetic about surveillance so far; tonight's event might begin to change that tide.
And even in my small town, working with a lot of people who know only a little bit about computers, we've gotten a lot of unprompted questions about surveillance, and who to trust, and what to avoid. We've seen a number of customers that are moving, bit by bit, away from Google products, because they now perceive "Google = surveillance". Again, unprompted -- we don't nudge people in one way or another on this stuff.
Talk to more folks. I guarantee you'll find other people that are talking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a little unfair to KDC; at the very least, it is no more a complete picture of the man than "John Doe is a felon" is of anyone else. There are a lot of other people who see Assange as nothing more than "rapist on the run". Dotcom hasn't stopped fighting his imprisonment and the seizure and loss of his equipment, business, and customers' data, even though he's already won far more than maybe anyone else…
KDC is a convicted felon in Germany, has 10 or more counts against him and has had a 2 year suspended sentence which he did not contest. He's also been involved in setting up a ponzi scheme and stole 1.5M in a 'pump and dump'. I won't take a word of that back.
This feels like the typical Kimble self-advertising event. Disgusting.
Both Snowden and Greenwald have choosen to honour the truth above their own safety and security. Both of them are also acutely aware of the fact that standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Dotcom reflects poorly on their own integrity.
Maybe the USG leaked this email as a 'false flag' in order to make Greenwald look a fool when it gets proved as false, or it is true, and Greenwald and Snowden are right to back Dotcom in this particular argument, whether or not he is a crook or not.
A US movie company doing back-room deals (on behalf of the USG) with NZ politicians, in order to get someone extradited for alleged copyright infringement is just downright dirty and a waste of public money. It is corrupt corporatism at it's finest.
If it is true, I hope the shit hits the fan. However, as many others have pointed out. The fact that a politician is dirty is not an automatic guarantee that the voting public won't vote for him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey sleazy or not this gets a lot of attention to a important issue which we desperately need.
That's such a central problem though! The messenger is always part of the message so it has to be a "good guy" or the message gets tainted.
EDIT: I assume your "No" is a reply to "Stop complaining". Unfortunately, your attitude reflects a "No" to the stepping up part as well. Which is fine, if your goal is to complain rather than to change things :)
In fact, the central problem here is how to step up and be part of the solution. It's a question I ask myself, and one that you should consider asking yourself if you care about the issues at hand.
While I find Dotcom to be a epitome of a shill, I doubt Greenwald or Snowden would back this particular claim if they truly believed it was false. Both Snowden and Greenwald have choosen to honour the truth above their own safety and security. Both of them are also acutely aware of the fact that standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Dotcom reflects poorly on their own integrity. Maybe the USG leaked this email as a 'fal…
Personally, I doubt the CEO of a major company like WB would send an email outlining this kind of agreement, especially when he says that Key told him 'in private' that such and such would happen. I'm not saying it didn't happen but would the CEO of a major movie studio be careless enough to put this in the clear in an email? Half the employees of a place like WB are lawyers...