View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Tue May 27, 2025 8:28 pm
Author |
Message |
belchingmatt
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am Posts: 6146 Location: Middle Earth
|
So Santa uses a mac.
_________________ Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!
><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º> •.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.
|
Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:01 am |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
Well he is fashion conscious, though from looking at his work outfit you would never know. 
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:21 am |
|
 |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|

Congressional Research Service Notes That There Are Serious Challenges To Charging AssangeWhile a lot of the rhetoric from the US government -- concerning Wikileaks and Julian Assange and whether or not any law was violated -- has been overwrought and full of hyperbole, it appears that the Congressional Research Service (which tends to do a damn good job most of the time) has put out a nice simple report detailing the specific legal issues and laws that might apply here (pdf), and more or less summarizes that the US government would be breaking new ground in charging Assange, and may have difficulties in succeeding. While the report notes you could probably stretch the law to cover what Wikileaks did, it warns: [The] statutes described in the previous section have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship. To the extent that the investigation implicates any foreign nationals whose conduct occurred entirely overseas, any resulting prosecution may carry foreign policy implications..... The report does note that there has been at least one case it's aware of where a foreign national was charged under the Espionage Act for activities done outside of the US. But, it is quite rare, and beyond a single district court ruling saying this okay, the history and language of the Espionage Act suggest it was not designed for this purpose. The report also delves into the hurdles to having Assange extradited to the US (something the US is apparently already discussing with the Swedish government), pointing out that no current US treaty "lists espionage as an extraditable offense." But the biggest hurdle is noted towards the end of the report, in highlighting the rather serious Constitutional issues associated with attempting to try Assange for anything in the US, with a lot of focus on the ruling in the Pentagon Papers case: Where First Amendment rights are implicated, it is the government's burden to show that its interest is sufficiently compelling to justify enforcement. Whether the government has a compelling need to punish disclosures of classified information turns on whether the disclosure has the potential of causing damage to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States. Actual damage need not be proved, but potential damage must be more than merely speculative and incidental. On the other hand, the Court has stated that "state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards." And it has described the constitutional purpose behind the guarantee of press freedom as the protection of "the free discussion of governmental affairs."
[...]
[If] national security interests were not sufficient to outweigh the First Amendment principles implicated in the prior restraint of pure speech related to the public interest, as in the Pentagon Papers case, it is difficult to discern an obvious rationale for finding that punishing that same speech after it has already been disseminated nevertheless tilts the balance in favor of the government's interest in protecting sensitive information.
The publication of truthful information that is lawfully acquired enjoys considerable First Amendment protection. The Court has not resolved the question "whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well." (The Pentagon Papers Court did not consider whether the newspapers' receipt of the classified document was in itself unlawful, although it appeared to accept that the documents had been unlawfully taken from the government by their source).
The Court has established that "routine newsgathering" is presumptively lawful acquisition, the fruits of which may be published without fear of government retribution. There are definitely plenty of loopholes whereby the government can try to file charges against Assange, but in reading through the document it would likely be a pretty tough sell. You can read through the entire document after the jump. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201012 ... ange.shtmlI don't think that'll stop those idiots somehow This has reminded me, what's happening with Gary McKinnon? Has he been appointed a Lib Dem to look after his interests or anything? 
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:37 pm |
|
 |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|

The US's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Doing A Lot More Harm Than The Leaks Themselvesfrom the destroying-any-moral-high-ground deptIt's becoming clear as the weeks go on, that the US government's massive overreaction to the latest Wikileaks releases is doing much more harm to the US's standings abroad than anything in the documents themselves. So far, most of the reaction from various politicians and diplomats concerning the actual content of the documents was that some of it might be slightly embarrassing, but there's been nothing all that surprising. Some foreign diplomats have joked back: "you should see what we say about you." And yet, we're still hearing claims that Julian Assange needs to be put on trial or (worse) executed, and other forms of "attacks" should be made on Wikileaks itself. All this has done has been to have foreign governments and diplomats start mocking the US for not living up to its claims of supporting freedom of the press and freedom of expression. This will make it much, much harder any time the US tries to stop any form of censorship in other countries, as they'll immediately point back at how many of our politicians flipped out over Wikileaks. A bunch of folks sent over this blog post by Jack Goldsmith, which succinctly summarizes how backwards and damaging the US's response to Wikileaks has been. He questions if whoever leaked the diplomatic cables (he names Bradley Manning, but nothing has yet proven that he's the specific source, as far as I know) directly to the NY Times -- and the same info would likely have been published -- would the US government reacted in the same way? Would our reaction to that have been more subdued than our reaction now to Assange? If so, why? If not, why is our reaction so subdued when the Times receives and publishes the information from Bradley through Assange the intermediary? Finally, in 2005-2006, the Times disclosed information about important but fragile government surveillance programs. There is no way to know, but I would bet that these disclosures were more harmful to national security than the wikileaks disclosures. There was outcry over the Times' surveillance disclosures, but nothing compared to the outcry over wikileaks. Why the difference? Because of quantity? Because Assange is not a U.S. citizen? Because he has a philosophy more menacing than "freedom of the press"? Because he is not a journalist? Because he has a bad motive? He also notes that a reporter like Bob Woodward has published and revealed "many details about top secret programs, code names, documents and the like," obviously with direct help from top administration officials... and yet there's been no anger and threats about all of that. Among the many points he raises, one is particularly compelling: any attempt to actually charge Assange will backfire for a huge list of reasons: I think trying to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act would be a mistake. The prosecution could fail for any number of reasons (no legal violation, extradition impossible, First Amendment). Trying but failing to put Assange in jail is worse than not trying at all. And succeeding will harm First Amendment press protections, make a martyr of Assange, and invite further chaotic Internet attacks. The best thing to do -- I realize that this is politically impossible -- would be to ignore Assange and fix the secrecy system so this does not happen again. Yet again, I'm left noticing the similarities between the US government's reaction to Wikileaks and the entertainment industry's reaction to file sharing. Each move that it made, including going legal, backfired in a big, bad way. It's really quite stunning to watch the US government make the same mistakes. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201012 ... lves.shtml
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:52 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
When you consider the problems that Gary McKinnon highlighted have still not being fixed it demonstrates that they do not take security that seriously. 
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:12 pm |
|
 |
JJW009
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm Posts: 8767 Location: behind the sofa
|
Why is the blindingly obvious is so difficult for some people to see? It's clear to anyone that deploying your entire country's legal gobsh1tes across the whole world is going to draw attention to the very thing you're trying to cover up... If only Asssssanggge was a charismatic chap called "Bob" or "Bill" or "Bernie" I'm sure there would be less vindictiveness.
_________________jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly." When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net
|
Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:49 pm |
|
 |
ProfessorF
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm Posts: 12030
|
If he was called 'Keith', we'd never hear of him. I think the Yanks are threatened by the fact he's called Julian, and assume he probably speaks with a terribly sinister Ox-Bridge accent.
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:06 am |
|
 |
JJW009
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm Posts: 8767 Location: behind the sofa
|
LOL, my mate from Oxford who now lives in Cambridge with his oxbridge wife named their son Julian 
_________________jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly." When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:21 am |
|
 |
okenobi
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm Posts: 4932 Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
|
Well Bill Hader's been doing a hilarious impression of him on Saturday Night Live for two weeks now!
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:58 am |
|
 |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|

Online protesters in first DDOS fax attackAnonymous has added fax machines to its arsenal in its campaign to defend whistle-blowing site Wikileaks. The campaign to send copies of the leaked diplomatic cables to anti-Wikileaks firms has been called the first "fax DDOS" by industry experts. As part of its Operation Payback campaign, Anonymous has been using distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks against Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and others that have refused to do business with Wikileaks. Now, the loose collective of campaigners has switched to a new plan called Operation Leakflood, spreading the information in the diplomatic cables leaked by the whistle-blowing site. Aside from posting YouTube videos detailing the cables, the group has now started faxing its target companies copies of the cables, letters from Anonymous, and images of Guy Fawkes and the character V from V for Vendetta. "Nothing else. No porn, no gore," an Anonymous post advised its members in a document posted online. "Be respectful." "We must remind the corporations that the truth cannot be stopped," it added. The document also lists the fax numbers of Amazon's headquarters and legal department, as well as MasterCard, PayPal and MoneyBookers. It advises users to use the free MyFax service, but warns them to use a proxy to stay untraceable. While Anonymous has claimed it is stepping back from DDOS attacks to focus on spreading information, others see the fax campaign as more of the same. "This latest campaign by the Anonymous group is analogous to the distributed denial of service attacks it has been carrying out against websites over the past week," wrote Paul Mutton, the internet services developer for web firm Netcraft. "In essence, this has turned into a DDoS attack against fax machines." Panda Labs researcher Sean-Paul Correll, who has been tracking the Anonymous attacks, agreed: "It is the first fax DDoS I have ever seen." Read more: Online protesters in first DDOS fax attack | Security | News | PC Pro http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/36 ... z186AnQPcc 
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:02 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
Oh that is pure genius.
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:29 pm |
|
 |
paulzolo
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm Posts: 12251
|
There will either be a sudden running out of paper, or the fax gateway servers will clog up with crap files.
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:48 pm |
|
 |
ProfessorF
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm Posts: 12030
|

 |  |  |  | Michael Moore wrote: Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange (A statement from Michael Moore) Tuesday, December 14th, 2010 Friends, Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail. Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars. We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again. So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top: **Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act." **The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal." **Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders." **Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." **Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist." **Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization." And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us! WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets. I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks. But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes? But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.) Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest? Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today. Instead, secrets killed them. For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today. Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed. And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period. I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged. Yours, Michael Moore MMFlint@aol.com |  |  |  |  |
Oh, and his statement is here. Which is all well and good. Bravo sir. But why are you still using AOL?
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:55 pm |
|
 |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted bailThe founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been granted bail in London on conditions including cash guarantees of £240,000. But he is expected to remain in prison overnight as the £200,000 cash required up-front by the court is collected. His lawyer Mark Stephens said it would take an "inordinately long period of time" for supporters to find the money. Mr Assange is fighting extradition to Sweden, accused of sexually assaulting two women - charges he denies. There is confusion about whether Swedish prosecutors plan to lodge an appeal against Mr Assange's release on bail. Such a challenge could delay the Australian's release from Wandsworth Prison, in south-west London. Mr Assange was granted bail on condition he provides a security of £200,000 to the court, with a further £40,000 guaranteed in two sureties of £20,000 each. He must also surrender his passport, obey a curfew at a specified address, wear an electronic tag and report to a local police station every evening. A number of demonstrators gathered outside City of Westminster Magistrates' Court for the bail hearing on Tuesday. Mr Assange is due to return to the court on 11 January. A large crowd of reporters and a number of Mr Assange's high-profile supporters were also outside the court. Following the bail decision, novelist Tariq Ali said: "I'm very pleased that he is out. I think the extradition charges should now be dealt with in the same way. "His barrister made the same point, that this is not rape under English law and there is absolutely no reason for extradition. "We are delighted he is out and he should never have been locked up in the first place." Author Yvonne Ridley said: "It is a victory for common sense. If he had been refused bail, it would have meant the court had become a political arena." In his first appearance at court last week, Mr Assange was refused bail on the grounds he could flee - despite the offer of sureties from figures including film director Ken Loach. Mr Assange is accused of having unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom. He is also accused of having unprotected sex with another woman, Miss W, while she was asleep. Mr Assange claims the charges are politically motivated and designed to discredit him. Earlier on Tuesday, Christine Assange told Australian television station Channel 7 that she had spoken to her son in prison. "I told him how people all over the world, in all sorts of countries, were standing up with placards and screaming out for his freedom and justice and he was very heartened by that," she said. "As a mother, I'm asking the world to stand up for my brave son." 'No access' Ms Assange also read a statement from him, which she had copied down when he spoke to her from Wandsworth Prison. In it, he defended the actions of Wikileaks, adding: "My convictions are unfaltering." His lawyer Mark Stephens said he had not been given any of his post - including legal letters - since being remanded in custody. "He has absolutely no access to any electronic equipment, no access to the outside world, no access to outside media," he said. Mr Stephens said the only correspondence his client had received was a note telling him that a copy of Time magazine sent to him had been destroyed because the cover bore his photograph. In recent weeks, Wikileaks has published a series of US diplomatic cables revealing secret information on topics such as terrorism and international relations. The latest release, published by the Guardian newspaper, shows that the US had concerns after the 7 July bombings that the UK was not doing enough to tackle home-grown extremists. Another cable claims British police helped "develop" evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents after she went missing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:24 pm |
|
 |
adidan
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm Posts: 5048
|
Granted bail then back to jail as Sweden are lodging an appeal.
It's a bloody farce. He's not been charged with anything, the prosecutors have failed to send over any "evidence" to the defence lawyers and a judge in Sweden threw it out of court a few months back as there is no case to answer.
All of this instigated at the behest of a Swedish MP. I wonder what dirt the US, or Wikileaks, have on him.
_________________ Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much. jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:10 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|