* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

Assange fights extradition in court

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

@Adam T.

Actually it is cut and dry.

Wikileaks likes to consider itself a 'whistle blower' website. That is that a 'whistle blower' is actually whistle blowing a criminal activity.

We look at Wikileaks, What criminal activity had they actually outed?

No War Crimes.

No criminal activity by diplomats.

Just information to try and embarrass the US Government.

So in their leaks, have they created peace or have they created a situation for more war and strife?

Only time will tell.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@davcefai

What you heard was that if the US were to charge Assange with a crime, that they would allow the US's extradition to supersede their request for extradition.

Your conclusion of 'Assange's rendition will be almost assured' is based on the imagination of Assange and his lawyer.

The interesting thing you haven't asked yourself is this... Why would Assange's lawyers keep touting this potential thread against Assange if in fact there was no evidence linking Assange to Manning? In short, just because the US Government hasn't found any, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that has Assange worried.

But this is all BS. Assange gets extradited to Sweden, they are obligated under the same EU law that doesn't allow them to extradite Assange to the US as long as the death sentence is on the table. Don't believe me? Try this quote on for size...

"48. Insofar as complaints are made about the conditions of Mr Assange’s detention in Sweden or the likely fairness of his trial or the danger of his extradition to the USA so as to threaten a breach of 3, 6, 8 and 10 of the ECHR, Sweden as a contracting state has undertaken to abide by its ECHR obligations and to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined, including those guaranteed by Articles 3, 6, 8 and 10. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that Sweden will comply with its obligation in respect of persons who may be extradited to it and issues alleging any basic breach of fair trial rights or conditions of detention or arising out of any threatened extradition to the USA can and should be raised by Mr Assange in Sweden and not the Courts of the United Kingdom, see Klimas v Prosecutor General's Office of Lithuania [2010] EWHC 2076 (Admin)."

Kinda ends that twisted logic of Sweden being a puppet to the US.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@Sgt Shultz...

Lets just cut to the chase.

Here's what the Swedes have to say:

Excerpts taken from:

http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Julian%20Assange%20Case%20Papers/Judicial%20Authority%20materials/Skeleton%20Reply%20of%20the%20Swedish%20DPP.ashx

"11. The defence asserts that the EAW was issued for the purpose of interrogation and not for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. However there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant to substantiate this assertion. On the contrary the EAW, read as a whole, makes it plain that the warrant is issued for the purpose of a criminal prosecution."

But lets not stop there...

12. Clear offences are alleged, contrary to provisions of the relevant Swedish statutes; the description of the conduct identifies facts that have been established against Mr Assange; and the wording of the introductory phrase of the EAW taken in its proper context (which clearly excludes the possibility that this is a conviction case) expressly ask for extradition for the purposes of prosecution. For the importance of these features see Fox v Public Prosecutor's Office, Landshut, Germany [2010] EWHC 513 (Admin) and Mighall v Audiencia Provincial di Palma de Mallorca [2010] EWHC 568 (Admin).

13. An attempt has been made by reference to a statement by a translator, Christophe Brunski, to criticise the translation of the term ‘lagföring’ as criminal prosecution in the EAW. The difficulty for his approach is that the official Swedish language version of the Framework Decision uses precisely this term in Article 1.1 and on the annexed form to mean ‘criminal prosecution’: ‘Den europeiska arresteringsordern är ett rättsligt avgörande, utfärdat av en medlemsstat med syftet att en annan medlemsstat skall gripa och överlämna en eftersökt person för lagföring eller för

verkställighet av ett fängelsestraff eller en annan frihetsberövande åtgärd.

(English version)

The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.’

14. It is impossible to suggest that the request for the purposes of ‘lagföring’ is anything other than a lawful request for the purpose of the Framework decision and the Extradition Act 2003.

So that's what the Swedes say.

As to your point:

"He asserts his good rights to defend himself in the place of his choosing. If the Swedes want him, they have to present a good case that satisfies international law."

Perhaps you don't really have a good understanding of the law and fleeing jurisdiction. Simply put. Regardless of what Assange wants, the Swedes are the law since the crime took place in Sweden. You flee said jurisdiction, the Swedes will legally issue an EAW and will demand the extradition of said suspect. That's the law. The trial will occur in Sweden. Based on the url I provided... its a very strong document and IMHO Assange had best pack a bag.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@skelband...

Ok....

Lets see if I get this straight....

You're in Sweden, you punch someone's lights out.

The cops question you, but they don't yet have enough evidence to hold you. You say "Hey! I'm supposed to be in the UK for work... " They then say... ok, but you need to make yourself available and return if we request it.

You hop off to the UK. You don't return. The Swedes then determine they have enough evidence to charge you.

You fight extradition. You claim they haven't charged you yet so you can't be extradited. They show you that they have you on tape punching this guy's lights out. But they want you back for 'questioning' and will actually charge you with a crime.

Now they want to question you before they charge you because they want to determine your mental state. Did you get in to a heated argument? Did you intentionally walk over and pick a fight with him? Was the basis for your fight because he was a minority and this was a hate crime? None of that is known until they interview you and at that time, they will charge you.

Of course you get extradited, you enter the interrogation, keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do your talking. Then they charge you with whatever they think will stick.

Does that sum it up enough for you?

Ian Michael Gumby

@ Pat Volk

Sorry I couldn't remember the exact dates of the espionage and the trial. It was post WW2 concerning the bomb. I believe the gravity of the crime did justify the death sentence. (Sorry, I really do fear the bomb getting in to the wrong hands, especially in today's world.)

With respect to Assange.

He's a little twat who think's he's a big man for thumbing his nose at the US.

He's not on trial for anything to do with the leaks... yet. The DoJ is still investigating.

If charged, they would have to extradite him under the condition of removing the death penalty.

I think that the investigation should play out.

If Manning talks and they do find enough evidence... then Assange should face trial. (He could potentially face trial in his homeland of Australia too btw... )

But lets get back to what we have in front of us.

Assange's lawyers attempted a hail marry.

The response by Sweden pretty much shoots them down.

With respect to this whole US death penalty thing... The Swedes in writing would not hand over Assange unless the death penalty is off the table. They said so in writing.

(See: http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Julian%20Assange%20Case%20Papers/Judicial%20Authority%20materials/Skeleton%20Reply%20of%20the%20Swedish%20DPP.ashx)

Its actually a good read.

While I do agree with your assessment that we should let this guy crawl back under his rock... unfortunately, when he waived his undersized manhood at the US... he made it necessary to respond.

He's lucky that its the US and not Russia. They don't care what the world thinks...

Ian Michael Gumby

@david wilson

The point I was trying to make is that it would be incorrect to assume that the DoJ has given up on their investigation. At the time of the statement, it was unknown by the unnamed person, who was quoted, that such a link exists. That is to say that the 'knowledgeable source' had no specific knowledge.

The statement made was not an official statement representing the DoJ.

Having said that... Manning could have been cooperating with people. Even if no direct link could be found... Manning could make a statement that Assange helped him. It would be up to the courts/jury to determine the veracity of the statement and judge accordingly.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@despairing citizen

Perhaps you missed the point Assange's very own lawyers have made...

He has yet to be charged. Therefore the Swedish courts do not have to provide all of the information that they have. Just enough to assure the UK courts that its really a rape allegation and that he'll be charged in Sweden.

So yes, the prosecution cannot withhold evidence during trial, but we aint there yet.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@AC Not entirely true.

There is no Human Rights Act issue here.

Its a simple extradition of a man who has been accused of Rape in Sweden and there is a EAW on the table so that he may be sent back to Sweden to face those allegations and be charged with a crime.

The whole Human Rights Act is a ruse and even that is bogus on so many levels.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@ElReg!comments!Pierre

Ok, junior, I'll go slow for you...

You wrote:

"What the eff are you talking about?

They are saying that

1- he isn't charged so there's no ground for extradition

2- they just remind everyone that IF he is to be charged some day, they need to see all the evidence (which is a legal requirement, as you cannot defend yourself when you don't know what you are accused of).

Hope that it cleared it a bit for you, you sounded confused."

Ok, let me explain my response.

The defense is making two arguments.

1) He hasn't been charged therefore he shouldn't be extradited.

On this point the Swedish prosecution have argued that they intend to charge him once they can question him. This makes perfect sense when you consider Assange left the country with the understanding that he would make himself available for questioning. Which he hasn't. Once he has returned and is questioned, they will formally charge him.

(And this is legal.)

2) The prosecution has presented evidence to Assange attorneys and I suppose to the British courts showing that there is merit to the extradition and that within the Swedish laws, he is guilty of rape. Rape is one of those 32 crimes where one does not have to show a duality of the crime. The defense is arguing that the Swedish government is withholding evidence. Which BTW, I believe that they can do until they formally charge him.

The point is that the defense is doing a hail marry.

It would be interesting to see if the courts block the extradition at all.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Loyal Commenter.. Google is your friend...

Here's the law...

First check out :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/extradition-intro1/extrad-part-1/

Pay attention to the following 2 paragraphs:

"Extradition hearing

The extradition hearing should normally take place within 21 days of arrest.

If the judge is satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence and that none of the bars to extradition apply (the rule against double jeopardy; extraneous considerations; passage of time; the person’s age; hostage-taking considerations; speciality; the person’s earlier extradition), he is required to decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.

If the judge decides that question in the affirmative, he must order the person to be extradited.

Dual Criminality Test

The framework decision contains a list of 32 categories of offence for which the 'dual criminality' test is not needed. The offence must carry a maximum sentence of at least 3 years in the issuing state.

If the conduct for which extradition is sought is not covered by one of these list offences, then the conduct must be an offence in both the issuing and executing states. Also, if any of the conduct for which extradition is sought was carried out outside the issuing state, the conduct must be an offence in both the issuing and executing states."

-=-

So the argument of 'duality' that is where the charge has to be a crime in both locations is moot if the charge is one of the 32 categories...

Which leads us to this site:

http://mle.ncalt.com/MLE/data/PL_LGL_NLD_01_02/D12400.asp

Note the following:

"Notes:

(i) Schedule 2 contains the European framework list, which is reproduced from article 2.2 of the European framework decision, as defined in section 215.

(ii) Schedule 2 can be amended, by order made by the Secretary of State, thus ensuring the list corresponds to any changes made to the European framework list.

(iii) The UK has reduced the sentence requirement for extraditions for the 32 generic offence categories (listed below) from 3 years down to 12 months.

(iv) 32 'offences' are listed, which in reality they are better described as forms of conduct (as they are in schedule 2), for the descriptions are generic rather than of a detailed legalistic nature - the purpose is to describe broadly since there are differing versions and understandings of offences, even of common offences such as homicides, across the European Union. "

And now the fun part.

In the list... you can see the following charge:

"28 Rape."

So in a nut shell, Assange is being charged with RAPE so that the duality test does not apply.

See isn't this fun.

The more you ask, the more you know.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC

What I was talking about was the fact that the defense used statements from two talking heads who are not currently representing anyone but themselves. Posturing for the next Presidential campaign. (Two potential Republican conservative candidates).

So the defense argument fails on that ground.

The fact that there hasn't been a charge by the US also makes the issue of the death penalty a moot point.

Or the fact that the US hasn't used the death penalty in an espionage case since the end of WWII.

Or the fact that if the US does charge Assange, they will agree to take the death penalty off the table so that they *can* extradite him.

Didn't miss any of that.

With respect to your comment...

The DoJ hasn't made that statement. What you read was an unidentified source has stated that they haven't found enough evidence to tie Julian to the theft of documents. Yet. It wasn't an official statement.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@Dennis Wilson...

Pretend that you're a soccer hooligan.

You hop a plane to Germany to catch a match.

While in Germany, you get pissed (drunk) and you start a bar brawl.

Before the cops can nab you... you ditch out and get out of the country.

But the cops caught you on cctv and identified you from your passport photo.

So they have enough evidence to charge you. (They have footage of you in the brawl and they have identified its you in the footage by your entry photo and passport photo.)

Now they want to extradite you, but they haven't charged you.

Clearly you're guilty of breaking the law, but they don't know if they should charge you for

Assault, Aggravated Assault, attempted murder, or a hate crime. (The guy you beat up happened to be a minority)

Now just so everyone stays focused, I'm making the following assumptions:

1) German law, like US law has various degrees of assault charges.

2) Assault is an offense that could be grounds for extradition.

So, what you're saying is that before you are extradited to Germany that the Germans have to first charge you with some sort of criminal assault, yet the Germans say that they will charge you with a crime once they can interrogate you.

The point is that you can be extradited and then charged. That is of course if you believe the Swedes.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@AC Common Sense?

I'm sorry... but maybe being a Yank, I've seen too many police and legal dramas in my day.

Common sense says that the Swedes have enough to charge Assange. But that they want to question him and depending on his answers charge him with a more serious crime. They haven't charged him because he left their jurisdiction and made himself unavailable to be questioned.

I would also suspect that they would like to get him to clarify some of the information that they have against him. Giving him time to prepare an alibi or excuse? C'mon. Get real.

You're making the assumption that the charges aren't viable. Somehow the Swedes who know their law seem to think they are viable, hence the extradition...

And you're right. A simple 2 hour flight to Sweden for Julian would be enough to question him. So why won't he make the flight? You know back to the jurisdiction where the officers of the law in Sweden can actually then charge him? Oh that's right. Lets forget about the fact that the Swedish Police only have jurisdiction in Sweden?

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ AC

I'm not an expert on EAW, but I believe the time period is based on due process and a speedy trial. The fact that he's fighting the extradition means that the 'clock' has stopped and that he's not being held or illegally detained.

Were he to have surrendered and not fought the extradition, he would have had to be produced within 10 days. Appealing the extradition doesn't count. So if he loses the appeal, he'd have to then re-surrender and he'd be shipped back within 10 days.

The only 'afforded right' would be bail and I believe that is at the discretion of the court?

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@Gerardo Korndorffer

Your argument fails on so many different levels.

First, Assange believes and argues for complete transparency, he doesn't make a distinction. After all a corporation isn't the government and if its a private corporation, should they not have the same rights to privacy as an individual?

So by your logic, Wikileaks should treat leaks about individuals as off limits, right? Then a private corporation, like a private bank, should also be off limits.

Now if you want to argue that the banks have allegedly broken the law therefore, private or not, they are fair game... need I remind you that Assange has allegedly committed rape, and thus he too is not exempt from having his dirty laundry aired.

Then there's the issue of a private citizen versus a public figure. Assange has made himself a public figure. So just like Lindsay Lohan's latest jewelry hiest, Assange is fair game for the press.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

The defense is grasping at Straws...

"Assange's defence team also said that his onward rendition from Sweden to the US would breach his human rights.

They claim there is a real risk that if sent to Sweden, Assange could be extradited or illegally rendered to Guatanomo Bay or elsewhere and "there is a real risk he could be made subject to the death penalty". Lawyers quoted comments from Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee in support of this claim."

For those who don't follow US politics... Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are *former* politicians and are not government officials. Like all Americans, they have their first amendment right to free speech.

Their voice or opinion carries the same weight as 'Joe the Plumber' has on Congress, the USDoJ or even the President of the US.

The fact that the defense attorney's trotted out this garbage just shows how weak an argument that they have against the extradition to Sweden.

Ian Michael Gumby
Headmaster

Bored?

Sorry, had to point that one out.

If Assange gets to go back to Australia, then it would mean that the UK violated a treaty with a fellow EU country. (Sweden is in the EU, right?)

The Aussies don't want him, however they will afford him all the protection they can give him as an Australian citizen. So when he does get sent back to Sweden, and he his charged, he can then ring up his consulate and ask for legal advice.

I'll wager they'll say " ... bad boy Julian... next time wear a rain coat or when in Sweden, if they'll let you back in.. just say no and take a cold shower. ..."

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC wikileaks..

The legal documents from Assange's Swedish team didn't appear in Wikileaks. No sorry Assange would have put a stop to that. But they were leaked out to a different site.

What the defense is arguing is that they don't have *all* of the evidence that the Swedish Authorities have. Apparently the Swedes only presented enough evidence that they thought would be enough to charge Assange.

What is definitely interesting is that the Defense is on one hand arguing that Assange hasn't been charged yet... and on the other hand demanding to see *all* of the evidence that the Prosecution has collected as if he were charged.

That in itself is very interesting.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

This isn't the UK fighting/delaying to extradite Assange. This is Assange fighting the extradition. If his lawyers can make a credible argument then the UK courts have to let him stay.

Its not a question of the UK Government showing zeal for others or any zeal at all.

Assange may be a douche bag, but he's still afforded the same rights as anyone else.

Russia has 'secret space warplane' to match US X-37B

Ian Michael Gumby
Alien

Been there done that...

See UFO TV series 1970-1973....

Google to site devs: 'Please code for Google TV!'

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

@Darkwolf..

Here's the thing.

I want the new TV because it has a great picture. It just happens to have internet capabilities and 3D which neither are of interests.

So if I want that picture, I can't say no to the other features.

Now because I bought this new TV that has the picture quality I want, I'm now labeled as some smeg head wanker because I 'bought into' the google TV.

And yes, if brand x and y tout their TV's success, Google will point to it as their success and the success of Google TV.

What's a guy to do?

ROBOT COP scatters LIVE GRENADES in San Francisco STREET

Ian Michael Gumby
Dead Vulture

Lewis probably wrote this while down in the pub...

Yeah, the grenade fell out of the bag and the operator didn't see it happen.

C'mon Lewis, I was hoping for the start of the mech men jihad!

Documents in Assange rape probe leak onto the net

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

@Bernard Orwell

Show me that the leak occurred in Sweden.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

unitron...two vids?

Actually yes if you consider what Assange put out on the web was an edited version of the actual footage to intentionally not show the guy carrying the RPG.

Now why do you think Assange edited out the part about the bad guy and the RPG?

This is why I asked if you know the RoE. That's rules of engagement. Its what Western Combat forces can legally do under certain circumstances. I say Western Combat forces because the bad guys running around with machine guns and RPGs, IEDs and Suicide Bombers will do whatever the fsck they want because they don't care about human life.

I also don't think you understand how people are being used as human shields. You probably have this TV/Movie image of a gunman tying a group of people up to surround him so he can't be taken out by sniper fire. The reality is a tad different. Having wives and children play outside and around a known 'safe house' where they are meeting so that there won't be a drone attack and take them out.

Note that it was the NYT that outed Assange's editing and reported the presence of the RPG toting bad guy. They reported this to show Assange's bias and willingness to twist the truth in order push his agenda...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@skelband... Slightly OT...

In http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/23/assange_swedish_claims/

you see the following:

"Assange told Al Jazeera TV he had no direct evidence of spook involvement but had been warned 11 August by Australian intelligence services to expect such a slander campaign. He said he learnt of the allegations when he saw them on TV on Saturday morning. Assange is on holiday in northern Sweden."

(Riight... Australian 'intelligence service' telling Assange what to expect....)

Which made me look at the following question "Assange welcome in Australia?"

(You can google using this search parameter and come up with the following:)

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/06/has-australia-abandoned-wikileaks-julian-assange/

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/pm-has-betrayed-me-assange-20101204-18ks8.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/issues-with-cancelling-assange-passport-australia/720415/

and the latest:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8759753/our-hands-tied-gillard-tells-assange/2/

(from Feb 2)

If Assange is not afraid of the charges in Sweden, why is he looking to bail back to Australia?

(Oh he misses his home... kinda flies in the face of his long standing 'nomad' lifestyle.)

And that's kind of the point. Assange is a mess of contradictions....

You read the reports and come to the conclusion as to how shaky the women's testimony is.

You said :" What these leaks do seem to outline is how shaky, inconsistent and unlikely these women's case is."

While its your opinion and its a valid opinion, you still need to ask yourself is it enough information for there to be charges brought forth under Swedish law? Neither you nor I know Swedish law so we can't say for sure. Evidently there is enough to risk the negative publicity and file an arrest warrant for Assange.

What do you think those investigators would find out if/when they interview Assange directly?

Now remember those links I just posted?

The Australian government is cooperating with the US. Australia has troops in Afghanistan and to quote one of the articles...

"Ms Gillard has asserted that Mr Assange's actions were illegal. A taskforce of Australian soliders, intelligence officers and officials is investigating whether he has breached any Australian laws.

Mr McClelland yesterday said Mr Assange might not be welcome back in Australia if he is convicted over the leaks. He confirmed Australia was providing ''every assistance'' to US authorities in their investigation."

-=-

When you play with fire, the odds are you are going to get burned.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC... intentionally dense?

Whoa! Perry Mason!

The courts do not determine the facts. They take the facts presented and they ascertain a decision of innocence or guilt (criminal) or a verdict in favor of the plaintiff or the defense (civil). The individual who's lawyer is more persuasive in arguing which side has the better facts will win. All of this based solely on the evidence provided by both parties.

The documents in the leak are not prejudicial meaning that they will not taint any potential jury pool. They are the actual documents that the prosecution has sent to Assange's defense team. They are outlining the case against Assange.

Does Sweden even offer jury trials?

The point I was trying to make was that the OP commentard was going off the deep end.

Go get a copy of Blacks Law dictionary. ;-)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC

"On the other hand you've got leaked documents proving Governments and politicians are happily covering up all sorts of real, actual, proven crimes against people and democracy. Politicians work for us and we have a right to know when they lie. Hilary Clinton claiming to stand for democracy while at the same time trying to spy on the UN for example.

If you uncover a war crime it is pretty stupid for it be dismissed because you forgot to get your car an MOT."

-=-

Ok, What war crime was uncovered by Wikileaks?

Seriously. Look at the last major leaks that Wikileaks has taken credit for.

(Al Jeezera didn't say where they got their leaks when they launched their 'transparency' site... ;-)

So leak #1:

Its an edited video which was released and went 'viral' showing a US military chopper shooting at armed gunmen who are in the midst of a pair of journalists and some civilians. Note that the NYT stated that the video was edited to not include footage of an enemy combatant toting an RPG.

[Sorry no WAR CRIME there. What's the RoE? for US servicemen?]

Then there's leak #2:

All those after action reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

While news journalists like the NYT took their time and redacted information to protect informants and others... Wikileaks dumped the documents unedited (redacting key information that could cause harm). In all of those documents... what crime or alleged crime was uncovered?

[NONE.]

Then we have the coup de grace... leak #3:

Wikileaks dumps all of those 'classified' communications...

And what did we learn?

Was there any 'crime', 'criminal activity' or *any* whistle blowing news worthy data there?

[NOPE]

So tell me oh wise and all knowing AC, what probative value (yes that a legal term) did wikileaks generate?

And yes, there is irony in the leaking of Assange's legal docs.

He believes in transparency. Complete transparency. So its ironic that he got his pants pulled just as he pulled others pants down. The truth is that in all of Wikileaks posted documents, no illegal acts were uncovered yet in the Assange document leak the evidence to his criminal conduct in Sweden is revealed. That is the irony.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@AC Re: Slight difference...

This is why I said that these documents are not prejudicial. The release of these documents will not in anyway have an impact on Assange getting a fair trial, assuming he loses his extradition hearing.

(Or the US trumps Sweden by seeking their own extradition, assuming that they conclude their investigation by then...)

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@ Jaicht

Playing lawyer? :-)

Look,

I'll make it simple... the release of these documents are not prejudicial. They are the facts of what the police have gathered in evidence against Assange.

Any lawyer would tell you to keep your mouth shut at all times.

I don't know what benefit you may thing exists.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Chris Alpha

"I'm sorry, I don't see how it clearly demonstrates anything at all, how do you conclude anything from the half facts and fictions given by both sides."

I'm afraid you've misunderstood.

The post isn't a question of Assange's innocence or guilt, but of the fact that there was a police investigation in to the allegations. That these allegations are in fact real and that they are not some stunt/ploy to get Assange out of England so he can be extradited to the US. Assange had been playing the ' The Big Bad US wants to get poor widdle ol' me...' in the press. That was until the Guardian reporter outed him. Or rather he put an end to their 'If the Swedes had any evidence they would have shown it to us. So where's the evidence' spin.

This leak clearly shows that both the evidence exists and that it had been provided to Assange and his cartooney in England.

And that is what we can conclude. That there is a valid complaint against Assange in Sweden. Is this new? No. But it is definitive.

With respect to the rest of your post...

You have three things that Wikileaks have posted which have 'tweaked' Uncle Sam's nose.

1) An edited and prejudicial video of American forces following RoE yet causing collateral damage as gunmen use journalists and civilians as shields. [It has been reported in the NYT that Assange edited out the RPG toting bad guy from the vid.]

2) The leaks of Iraq/Afghanistan after action reports. (Marked classified)

3) The leaks of US consulate messages which were marked classified.

Of these things... what was the probative value of these leaks? To put it bluntly, what evidence exists that there was any illegal activity occurring by the US government?

None. So to call the actions of Wikileaks 'whistle blowing' is doing a disservice to those who actually blew the whistle on illegal government and corporate actions. I applaud the soldiers who stepped forward in the Abu Ghraib prison incident(s). I applaud those who forced the EPA to do an investigation in to the Chromium-6 leakage in to our cities water supplies. I applaud those former Sun and Oracle employees who blew the whistle on their over charging the government. That is whistle blowing.

Assange is an alleged rapist in Sweden. He escaped jurisdiction and he's fighting extradition.

Why? Its simple. He goes back to answer the questions. The worst case is that he gets charged, found guilty and loses any hope of Swedish citizenship. (NOTE: That is the worst case.) Actually the fact that he is fighting extradition and even the accusation is probably enough for the Swedish government to deny him citizenship. A criminal conviction could potentially make it impossible for him to travel to Sweden since he isn't a citizen of the EU. (He's Australian right?)

So please get your facts straight. You'll find that you're defending a person who created his own bed...

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Goat Jam

Perhaps if you understood the significance of the 'leaks'...

First, what you thought you knew was based on a reporter in the Guardian. Reporters don't disclose their sources. What we learned there was that the information of the accusations were credible.

Second. This leak was sensational for two facts...

1) Its a leak apparently from Assange's own legal team and is a leak that shows the hypocrisy known as Assange.

2) Its the actual complaint against Assange. While you may not call non-consensual sex 'rape', the laws in Sweden do. And that's what counts. These are the actual documents which outline the case against him. They aren't forgeries. And yes, while these are allegations... they are strong enough for the Swedish Police to issue an arrest warrant to someone who had left their jurisdiction.

As to your comment about the actual crime and being in a sensible country... I guess your idea of a sensible country is one where if a woman accuses a man of rape, she's the one guilty and should be stoned to death.

Flickr flap illuminates cloud concerns

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Please get this straight...

The issue is that the cloud company 'accidentally' removed his account. Normally in the 'cloud' you have high availability and redundancy. (Of course you really have to define what you mean by the 'cloud'.)

In terms of cloud computing you can see companies like Facebook and Yahoo! have 1000's of machines in cloud clusters and this is repeated in to several data centers.

What happened was that there was a human error that removed the account. Luckily they were able to retrieve the data from somewhere else in their cloud infrastructure.

What people don't understand is that the amount of data within these clouds, the only way to back up the data in terms of disaster recovery is to have another cloud in a different site. Its impossible to back up PB of data to tape.

The photog was lucky that he could get his data back.

In the future you have to read the fine print and always maintain your own backup...

Crocodile keyboard becomes top Android app

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

'Patentable'?

Sorry but I fail to see how this would qualify for a patent considering that there exists a lot of prior art in terms of customizable and mod keyboards and touch areas for input.

So if someone can explain what makes this patentable, I'd appreciate it.

Thx

Amazon lobs Oracle onto heavenly servers

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC

I guess the fact that Amazon is going to do the maintenance is the big news.

With respect to IBM's Express/Workgroup offerings, Enterprise offers a couple of features that aren't really going to be of much use in a cloud world. ( Replication comes to mind.)

If I were to look at a 'real' enterprise class RDBMs in the cloud, I'd look at Informix XPS (still a product sold by IBM but not really marketed or enhanced.)

XPS in its day offered near linear scale. Of course back in the 90's we're talking about databases measured in TB not PBs

There's more too it, but I'll let an IIUG type expand on it. ;-)

Boffins hope for dimensional portal event at LHC by 2013!

Ian Michael Gumby
Alien

@MinionZero

You are correct, I stand corrected.

You truly are a twisted nerd who needs to get a life.

But who am I to talk?

I'm the guy wearing the MIT Hillel's T-Shirt w Maxwell's Equation printed on the front with the added line '... and there was light'.

(Ok I haven't worn it for years and I wonder if they still print it.)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@MinionZero

You're mixing stories... Maxwell and Harry Potter don't mix.

Here's a hint... "And the lord said let there be light..."

Now do you know who Maxwell was?

Ian Michael Gumby
Joke

Oh yeah...

There was this guy Maxwell who lived in a cave...

He was a wizard who kept a pet daemon who blocked all of the fast moving particles from entering the cave in the summer and then kept the fast moving particles in during the winter so to keep the cave warm.

So you've got to wonder.... where did Maxwell get such a small daemon?

If he could open a portal way back when... what makes you think one of his little daemons wouldn't pop through now?

Boffins squeeze a mesh onto Android handsets

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@BallBoy

First, you have a bounding problem.

Inside a city, you have lots of cell phones.

Yes, lose a cell phone and the mesh holds.

(You can imagine the drain on the batteries of running this mesh.)

Outside of a city, you have fewer cell phones so that you may not be able to create a viable mesh.

So your mesh is only good in an urban environment. Outside the urban environment you won't have a mesh.

Jamming a frequency isn't jamming a single phone or a small area. But you're jamming the frequency for a very large area. You can bet that military grade airborne equipment can jam a large area. So yes, its very possible that the Egyptian Military can in fact jam all of the cell phones in Cairo if they wanted. (Again assuming that they have the necessary equipment.)

With respect to 'ham' operators... in WWII you had hidden radios that got the word out... There are ways to hide the equipment and avoid detection...

As to your other point...

In a disaster... you can communicate video, voice, and text via a packet switched network. Yes you are correct that ham radios will communicate via voice, however if you have a packet switched network in place, you can fill a hole in the internet that is hard to shut down. All this in addition to voice.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Terry

Lets make this simple..

Suppose you have a mesh of 10 phones. What's the square area covered by the mesh?

Suppose your enemy has an airborne transmitter. What's the square area that they can cover at oh lets say 10,000 feet?

I realize that its not a fair comparison, but you get the idea. How much power do you need at 40,000 feet?

As to jamming ham radios... you're going to jam all of the frequencies in the usable range? Isn't that going to be a bit harder?

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ BallBoy one more thing...

At US sporting events where there is normally not enough cell traffic to require multiple cell towers, that get overwhelmed when the sporting venue is packed.... they bring in portable temporary cell towers.

In the event of an emergency the idea would be to erect a portable cell tower then tie it to an alternative network. (Microwave, Satellite, radio uplinks)

Thats the whole thing that people are missing with this mesh. You have hand set talking to handset. Yet if all of the cell towers are down in a region, the mesh then has to extend outside of that area.

With respect to the situation in Egypt, the government has the ability to shut down the entire network. You get out of the city, your population declines and the distance between points in your theoretical mesh increase.

You create the 'mesh' you can only communicate to others within the mesh. However if jammed, you're SOL...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Not really...

Wi-fi networks still require a radio frequency to broadcast.

If the Egyptian government wanted to, they could jam the wi-fi band and still stop all communications in an area.

So creating a 'mesh' really wouldn't be a good idea and it would probably let them know where you are....

But if your objective would be to get the word out... You'd want to set up a series of packet switched networks run by ham radio operators. Much harder to detect and jam.

If you're talking about disaster services... having the ability to create temporary base stations with up links to Satellite would have a larger impact. And then you'd want to restore SMS/Text services first since it would allow more people to communicate.

IMHO that would be a better solution.

Setting up a portable network means that the base station is known so it wouldn't be good to hide from authorities. But you're not doing that if you're in a disaster area and are looking for help....

Looking at what telco's do at sporting events... that's what you would need to do in the event of a disaster...

Assange relishes US banks 'squirming' over 'megaleak'

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

@Gordon 10

Wikileaks was never about whistle blowing.

Its all about Assange.

Why do you think the smarter chums left to do it right? (Openleaks)

Why 60 minutes put him on the air is beyond me. The NYT already exposed him for what he is.

(A media attention whore.)

I guess they had it in the bank before Egypt went under....

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

@ Cool Hand Luke...

No.

But for the most part those who praise Assange don't have a pot to piss in, thus nothing to lose.

Those that have a pot to piss in... see Assange for the danger he represents.

Of course any corporation and government are fair game. Individuals like Assange or his company Wikileaks are not fair game. (He did go in to the press w lawyers threatening to sue...)

Ian Michael Gumby

Really?

There was an expression used during the housing bubble burst... "Tell that to main street."

This was in reference that during the banking melt down, businesses had their lines of credit frozen.

No credit, no money to pay suppliers, employees, etc ...

No money, business goes belly up.

Grow up junior and start to think 2-3 steps down the food chain.

Chinese 'repurpose' Top Gun footage

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

WTF?

Dude!

90% of all of the greatest software ever written was conceived out of an alcohol induced stupor.

Ok, so I made my statistics up, but its still true. How many hack-a-thons done today would be successful if they were done sans pizza and beer?

I rest my case. :-)

Mine's the jacket that has two bottles of beer stuffed in the lower pockets.

(And if they're empty, someone's going to owe me a couple of rounds!)

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Guess again!

Look, these guys blew their budget on the fighters and well lets face it, life size drones are very expensive.

So rather than create some sort of footage of a scale model blowing up, they got creative.

I can understand it. A T-5/F-5 is still advanced tech in 3rd world militarizes?sp? so why waste one for PR?

My only question... where's the MPAA on this? Shouldn't they be suing the Chinese government for copyright infringement?

Google and Apple locked horns over iPhone location data

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@nsid

The initial OP stated: "Which company do you think would be the first to hand over real time geo-location info to the FBI & CIA were there ever a civil revolt in the USA (or elsewhere)?"

My point is that you don't need GPS because triangulation of your cell signal from cell towers is accurate enough.

Now if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty... If the guvmint was 'after you', if you're in the countryside (open fields), they will be able to find you from your cell phone via cell tower triangulation.

But if you really want to be accurate...

Cell companies already get the gps location so the OP's initial daft question is a nonstarter. Your telco will hand that data over under a LE. Oh and its not the CIA, but FBI in the US and NSA outside of the US.

I could give you a long lecture on the variables that effect your GPS accuracy. Also if you consider one of the reasons why Google was slurping Wi-Fi locations... You'll understand that for LBS (Location Based Services) for pedestrian traffic require more accuracy than you can get with GPS alone.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

Get REAL...

Do you realize how foolish you sound?

Get real. You don't need any GPS location to find you, they can triangulate your position based on your phone being turned on and from the phone company's cell towers.

If your point was to suggest that either or both companies would turn over that data in a state of declared emergency? The answer is both.

If you're asking which company is more evil? Google. Why? Because they have the motto "Do no evil."

Don't 'cha know that the greatest trick the Devil every played was convincing people that he didn't exist?

Memo to Microsoft, RIM, Nokia: Quit copying Apple!

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Check your numbers...

Yes, you are correct that Nokia still retains the largest share of the market for overall cell phones.

But if you do some trend analysis, people are upgrading to smart phones. Its in this market that Nokia lags.

This isn't news to Nokia and they are working on trying to fix this and remain competitive.

Looking at Nokia's phones, they have done a lot in terms of hardware. The build quality of the N8 is great. Better than a lot of the android based phones coming from China. While this may not seem like an important thing... without subsidized phones, that 200.00 phone with a 2 year contract would cost between $600 and $800 (US) retail.

Its the OS.

Symbian doesn't cut it and now they are moving to meego. (I haven't see a phone with meego on it so its hard to say how competitive it is....)

Nokia has a new CEO who is just starting to take control this year. It will be interesting to see how well they turn things around.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Now Oracle doesn't look so evil anymore...

"RIM is apparently considering the Dalvik virtual machine, which would allow its Blackberry and PlayBook devices to run Android apps. With Android gaining in the enterprise, according to a report from Good Technology, this move would allow RIM to ride the Android wave while seeking to differentiate itself on hardware, email services, and more."

This statement alone shows you why Oracle is suing Google over Android.

Can you hear the sucking sound of revenue slipping away from their Java licensing?