WikiLeaks founder on Interpol's most wanted list... for rape?

Note that if the relationship is linear, then a 256-bit key will take 144 times longer than a 64-bit key (or 693 years). I recommend waiting a while for Moore's law to speed up computers some more, or for a serious flaw to be found in the cryptosystem used. (And the times given above for the 56-bit and 64-bit breaks *were* using a SETI@home style project.)

Two Irish guys beat a Swede to near death on a Cruise ship to Åland (Finland). They were arrested when the ship reached the shore but later released since the assault happened in Swedish waters and neither of them are Finnish citizens.

The assault was caught on security cameras and there were confessions from both of the men. The Swedish prosecutor dropped the case instead of calling for extradition because, and I quote (roughly translated):

If we would attempt to retrieve all people who commit crimes that aren't serious enough we would be very busy. That's not how it works. That's only for serious crimes - like murder.

Pros for the victim: hard evidence.
Cons: attacked by nobodies.

I wonder if they're setting a precedent that all rapes or sexual assaults in Sweden are worth extradition proceedings.

I would say they're setting a precedent that all sexual misconduct crimes are worth extradition. Because the charges brought on Assange are only rape in the most technical of senses (sex without a condom is apparently illegal in Sweden, much like fellatio is against common law in the United States). Even then, the actual charges are not for rape-- they're for sexual misconduct or something far less violent-sounding and damaging. But the major news outlets, especially the BBC, won't stop using the word "rape" regardless.

I've read this morning that one of complainants has bolted and apparently no longer cooperates with the authorities on the inquiry.

Shoal, it seems to me that your problem is that you don't believe him when he says he has information he has not released. Your reason for believing this is that you think he hates America. OK, that's a possibility. It's pure speculation but it's a possibility. We know there's a file called "insurance" that's about 1 and a half GB sitting around, with 256-key encryption on it but we don't know what's in that file. It very well could be junk data.

It's not that I have tremendous faith in this criminal, and that's what he is no matter how you may feel personally about the blessings and curses of these leaks. He's done something wrong, even if you want to be so generous as to say he did it for all the right reasons and it will do a lot of good (I'm guessing neither you nor I would say that, Shoal).

That said, I don't think you have any evidence when you call the man a liar. You have no firm reason to think that, and certainly nothing with which to argue beyond your opinion that he's a very bad man and very bad men lie. I don't think Assange would lie about stuff like this. I don't think his ego would allow it. He's a smart guy and surely knows that once people start doubting they never stop, so it's not in his interests to have anyone doubt the veracity of the leak for any reason. Maybe that constitutes faith to you. To me, it represents my willingness to see him more as a cartoonish villain who willfully does evil for the sake of being evil. I don't think he's a hero, either, but I think he thinks what he's doing is right, or at the very least justifiable. You may disagree, I may disagree, and he's set up camp in a very gray area, but it's human nature to come up with reasons for why we do the terrible things we do. They call it neutralization, and it's how we sleep at night.

He could also neutralize lying, maybe by saying, "it's not the truth but it will make people as angry as they ought to be." Right now the only evidence we have for that is your cynicism. The only evidence we have against it is my amateur psychoanalysis. Neither is supportable. Neither makes for interesting conversation.

In other words, you go on believing he's a liar. I'll hear him out. Time will tell which of us is right.

LobsterMobster wrote:
We know there's a file called "insurance" that's about 1 and a half GB sitting around, with 256-key encryption on it but we don't know what's in that file. It very well could be junk data.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
I've read this morning that one of complainants has bolted and apparently no longer cooperates with the authorities on the inquiry.

Maybe the insurance file has the "hookup lists" of his two accusers, so she disappeared to stop him from posting it on Facebook in retaliation.

Keldar wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
We know there's a file called "insurance" that's about 1 and a half GB sitting around, with 256-key encryption on it but we don't know what's in that file. It very well could be junk data.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
I've read this morning that one of complainants has bolted and apparently no longer cooperates with the authorities on the inquiry.

Maybe the insurance file has the "hookup lists" of his two accusers, so she disappeared to stop him from posting it on Facebook in retaliation.

As I've read it, the 'poison pill' documents are insurance against being physically harmed to silence him, not insurance against being convicted.

WipEout wrote:
..much like fellatio is against common law in the United States...

Hold up...what?

Son of a biscuit!

Yeah, I always thought it was an urban legend, but some states still have laws against sex that's not missionary.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law wrote:
Under both the common law and present-day statutes, there must be actual insertion of the male organ into the mouth of another for the crime to be committed. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient. Emission is not a necessary element of the offense under most modern statutes.

If the offense is committed by two persons who mutually consent to engage in the act, both are guilty of the offense. If one party is below the age of consent, only the adult is guilty.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the regulation of unnatural sexual conduct or activity is within the police power of the state. The penalty for fellatio in many states is a fine, imprisonment, or both. Some states, however, do not treat it as an offense. In New York, a penal law prohibiting consensual sodomy was held unconstitutional by the highest state court on the grounds that it violated the constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection of the law.

Statutory definitions of fellatio may exempt from prosecution spouses who engage in such sexual conduct within the confines of their marriage. Fellatio is among several sexual acts that remain illegal in many jurisdictions, but are rarely prosecuted when consensual and engaged in in private.

In Georgia, it's also considered sodomy, same-sex or not.

Weren't the sodomy laws overruled by Lawrence v. Texas?

Tanglebones wrote:
Weren't the sodomy laws overruled by Lawrence v. Texas?

Yes they were, I was unaware until now. However, that was only 7 years ago...

In Florida, only the missionary positional is allowed. There is also a law specifically against having sex with a porcupine.

Edwin wrote:
In Florida, only the missionary positional is allowed. There is also a law specifically against having sex with a porcupine.

The problem with old laws which aren't enforced is they never get the chance to be repealed. Legislatures tend to not waste time reviewing old laws to get rid of, and unless someone is being charged with a violation, there's no challenge being made to the law. The Texas law is a good example. Most likely, the guy was charged with violating a law which isn't usually enforced, he protested the law, and it got overturned. The reason why we have century old laws that don't get repealed is because they just sit on the books since no one is enforcing them and thus they are never challenged.

I guess it's sort of a loophole/flaw in the legal system, but it's also a resource problem (as it takes resources to get rid of these laws). It shouldn't be seen that the US is against sodomy or fellatio, when in fact these are old laws that just haven't been challenged to be repealed. If there's no enforcement behind a law, it's as good as non-existent, in the US system.

Shoal07 wrote:
Edwin wrote:
In Florida, only the missionary positional is allowed. There is also a law specifically against having sex with a porcupine.

The problem with old laws which aren't enforced is they never get the chance to be repealed. Legislatures tend to not waste time reviewing old laws to get rid of, and unless someone is being charged with a violation, there's no challenge being made to the law. The Texas law is a good example. Most likely, the guy was charged with violating a law which isn't usually enforced, he protested the law, and it got overturned. The reason why we have century old laws that don't get repealed is because they just sit on the books since no one is enforcing them and thus they are never challenged.

I guess it's sort of a loophole/flaw in the legal system, but it's also a resource problem (as it takes resources to get rid of these laws). It shouldn't be seen that the US is against sodomy or fellatio, when in fact these are old laws that just haven't been challenged to be repealed. If there's no enforcement behind a law, it's as good as non-existent, in the US system.

Quite true, and the whole Assange "Sex by Surprise" thing was what reminded me of these outdated US laws. It made me wonder how outdated such a law might be in Sweden and whether this was a trumped up charge based on an almost-forgotten law just to get Assange in Their sights. Although I admittedly don't know anything about the laws of Sweden, aside from that they are quite pro-feminism by comparison to US laws, and thus a law regarding sex with/without condoms even existing sort of makes sense.

Edwin wrote:
In Florida, only the missionary positional is allowed. There is also a law specifically against having sex with a porcupine.

Dammit!

"Spiny Gerald! We're going to have to cancel the trip to Epcot!"

I don't see the public interest in a lot of the recent leaks, but it is worrying how unscrupulous the various players are being here. All I can see is that Assange is making a mockery of them, making them seem powerless and silly, and they want to stamp on him.

He answered some reader questions on the Guardian website last Friday. His responses are interesting. He evades the one really serious (if a bit rambling) question about impeding diplomats' ability to function if they can't communicate secretly. He bigs up Wikileaks as a force against evil a bit in the last question, and explains why he felt that Wikileaks needed a face.

I get the impression of a man who knows that the Powers have caught up with him, and he's trying to use public perception to get himself out of his jam. Why he went to the UK I don't know - presumably it's the easiest place in Europe for the US to extradite him from.

DudleySmith wrote:
I get the impression of a man who knows that the Powers have caught up with him, and he's trying to use public perception to get himself out of his jam. Why he went to the UK I don't know - presumably it's the easiest place in Europe for the US to extradite him from.

Revolutionary Handbook, Page 213 section 2. If you're going to get killed by vigilantes or government agents, try to do it while in the custody of people that want you dead but are legally and morally bound to protect you. They hate that.

Well you know how things pan out. While he is on his way from UK to extradiction in Sweden, the plane is suddenly diverted to Dulles International Airport in D.C. "due to weather conditions in Stockholm", and then some terrible, terrible fatal misunderstanding happens...

"We're sorry, we really didn't know the backscatter machine could malfunction that way."

Edwin wrote:
There is also a law specifically against having sex with a porcupine.

The problem with enforcing this law is that I can't think of a single punishment that would be worse than the crime itself.

muttonchop wrote:
Edwin wrote:
There is also a law specifically against having sex with a porcupine.

The problem with enforcing this law is that I can't think of a single punishment that would be worse than the crime itself.

Easy: the punishment is porcupine fellatio.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Well you know how things pan out. While he is on his way from UK to extradiction in Sweden, the plane is suddenly diverted to Dulles International Airport in D.C. "due to weather conditions in Stockholm", and then some terrible, terrible fatal misunderstanding happens...

Naw, the plane would either be diverted to CIA black prison in Eastern Europe or the government would simply arrange to turn him over to the Egyptians or Syrians so they could truthfully say that they didn't do anything to Assange themselves. The last place they want him is on American soil where he has legal rights.

OG_slinger wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Well you know how things pan out. While he is on his way from UK to extradiction in Sweden, the plane is suddenly diverted to Dulles International Airport in D.C. "due to weather conditions in Stockholm", and then some terrible, terrible fatal misunderstanding happens...

Naw, the plane would either be diverted to CIA black prison in Eastern Europe or the government would simply arrange to turn him over to the Egyptians or Syrians so they could truthfully say that they didn't do anything to Assange themselves. The last place they want him is on American soil where he has legal rights.

I think your both still living in the Hollywood world where the CIA is competent. Honestly how are they going to sell us the next espionage movie (or game even) when in the current world they cant even shut this guy up.

The previous post about dead hookers had me laughing. Like honestly this is the best they can do to a supposed security risk? China is loving this.

Rezzy wrote:
DudleySmith wrote:
I get the impression of a man who knows that the Powers have caught up with him, and he's trying to use public perception to get himself out of his jam. Why he went to the UK I don't know - presumably it's the easiest place in Europe for the US to extradite him from.

Revolutionary Handbook, Page 213 section 2. If you're going to get killed by vigilantes or government agents, try to do it while in the custody of people that want you dead but are legally and morally bound to protect you. They hate that.

Whatever their rhetoric, I don't believe that Clinton or Lieberman actually want to kill him, in the rooftop sniper sense. They want him disgraced and locked up under draconian anti-terrorism charges. Being in the UK makes it easier for that to happen.

muttonchop wrote:
Edwin wrote:
There is also a law specifically against having sex with a porcupine.

The problem with enforcing this law is that I can't think of a single punishment that would be worse than the crime itself.

I think this is where the missionary position law comes in.

One thing I've been mulling over is whether it's in the interests of Assagne's agenda to have this wrapped up. On one hand it definitely is better not to have the charge hanging over you, but on the other hand it does generate press, which is what he's about right now.

Jolly Bill wrote:

As I've read it, the 'poison pill' documents are insurance against being physically harmed to silence him, not insurance against being convicted.

I've read both versions but in the end it's up to Assange and company. He controls that data now and has no obligation to play fair by his own rules. I'd honestly be surprised if we ever see any of that information. It's Assange's only leverage. If he gives that up, he doesn't have a whole lot left to bargain with.

Scratched wrote:
One thing I've been mulling over is whether it's in the interests of Assagne's agenda to have this wrapped up. On one hand it definitely is better not to have the charge hanging over you, but on the other hand it does generate press, which is what he's about right now.

It's also generated an army of angry "hackers" that have done some pretty surprising and impressive things. I'm sure there's a room in the Pentagon where people are flipping their sh*t over that.

jowner wrote:
I think your both still living in the Hollywood world where the CIA is competent. Honestly how are they going to sell us the next espionage movie (or game even) when in the current world they cant even shut this guy up.

While I don't dispute that the CIA is incompetent (it's a government agency after all ;)), I don't think the leaks are serious enough that they'd start suiciding people. Most of it is confirmation of things we already suspected or juicy political gossip about who's sleeping with who and who else is a total skank or thug. We haven't even seen any riots or protests over what's come out.

Maybe this leak will usher in a new age of transparency, not because the government knows nothing is totally secure but because it knows we don't really care either way.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

As I've read it, the 'poison pill' documents are insurance against being physically harmed to silence him, not insurance against being convicted.

I've read both versions but in the end it's up to Assange and company. He controls that data now and has no obligation to play fair by his own rules. I'd honestly be surprised if we ever see any of that information. It's Assange's only leverage. If he gives that up, he doesn't have a whole lot left to bargain with.

If he was truly devious, he could have made it an automated stepped response. For instance, he could have a number of applications running on distributed and clandestine servers searching news for particular keywords. When those criteria are fulfilled, it would release some of the archive with an automated message that there is more to come if persecution continues.

Paleocon wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

As I've read it, the 'poison pill' documents are insurance against being physically harmed to silence him, not insurance against being convicted.

I've read both versions but in the end it's up to Assange and company. He controls that data now and has no obligation to play fair by his own rules. I'd honestly be surprised if we ever see any of that information. It's Assange's only leverage. If he gives that up, he doesn't have a whole lot left to bargain with.

If he was truly devious, he could have made it an automated stepped response. For instance, he could have a number of applications running on distributed and clandestine servers searching news for particular keywords. When those criteria are fulfilled, it would release some of the archive with an automated message that there is more to come if persecution continues.

Or he could have just asked two buddies to keep an eye on the news.

Shoal, as per our earlier discussion, defectors from WikiLeaks are going to open up a "rival" site, OpenLeaks. Whether you consider them to be every bit as big a liar as Assange or not, they are promising to be "more transparent." If that doesn't imply less discretion, I don't know what does. But hey, maybe they're lying too.

He said that the team did not want the responsibility of deciding what was or was not relevant and what would be good for the organisation as a whole to publish.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal, as per our earlier discussion, defectors from WikiLeaks are going to open up a "rival" site, OpenLeaks. Whether you consider them to be every bit as big a liar as Assange or not, they are promising to be "more transparent." If that doesn't imply less discretion, I don't know what does. But hey, maybe they're lying too.

He said that the team did not want the responsibility of deciding what was or was not relevant and what would be good for the organisation as a whole to publish.

You like to puts words in my mouth, often. I never said Assange was a liar, I said I didn't find him trustworthy because he seems motivated at striking out at America, not revealing truth. If he was more moderate instead of clearly anti-American in his approach, he would garner more credibility from me.

I also said I didn't believe he did any real "vetting" because the leaked documents clearly identify sources. In that you may think I called him a liar. That could be true, or he could just be incompetent. Not that I would expect the average person to know how to properly sanitize information.

So, with Openleaks we will have to see if they are a bit more moderate in not just what they release, but also their public statements. They seem to avoid the vetting issue as they are going to let the news outlets do that for them.