* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

WikiLeaks gets Swiss bank info

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

@The BigYin

Manning is being held in a military brig under the US military law. Much worse than civilian law with respect to detainment.

But I do agree with you in your sentiment as to what one should expect from Wikileaks if you send information to Wikileaks.

But that is not to say that I don't believe in *true* whistle blowing.

I just don't believe in Assange.

Creepy as hell: Facebook developers get to know you better

Ian Michael Gumby

I have friends too

And we all have e-mail accounts and real phone numbers.

We also have face to face meetings (those friends who live in the same city.)

So you're willing to give up your online security to get a picture of little billy in Little League?

Sorry, I'm not.

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Why have a facebook account in the first place?

Sure I can create an Ian Michael Gumby account. (Or anyone can claiming to be me.)

But why?

Same thing for Twitter. (Since the name starts with Twit, I suspect that's a term used to describe their users...)

I wonder when wikileaks will do a dump of their data?

Oh wait, there's no value in that. Everyone already knows that a Facebook user is already one of Mark Z.'s bitches. (Paraphrasing his alleged quote).

Assange vows to drop 'insurance' files on Rupert Murdoch

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

Mixing Ranting with Sarcasm?

LOL...

The reason I tend to say the same things over and over is that you and the other Assange fan boys who are of the leftist liberal bent don't seen to get it.

He's pulling a con and you've taken the bait.

You're too young to know 20th Century History or to really grok its importance.

I gave you an example where a picture taken out of context was printed and it showed the horrors of war where an apparent civilian was shot... When put in to context the action becomes understandable.

(The 'civilian' was a known Viet Kong who just killed that officer's family during the '68 Tet.)

I've given you examples where someone breaks the law, yet is never charged.

I've given you examples of how something is blackmail. Or that what Assange is saying doesn't jive with reality.

The irony is that if you get the chance to live as long as I have, you might start to see things differently. Take a look at the bulk of the Hippies of the 60's. Those that are alive today are totally different people because reality has crushed their ideals.

In 20 years time, I doubt you'd remember this post but if you do, maybe then you'd understand.

BTW, the problems in India, Pakistan, Middle East, and other places are all based on British Colonialism. So while you blame the US... for all of its sins.. Look to home first.

(And while we're at it. Viet Nam? That was due to the US supporting the French.)

We can go further back in to history, but us Yanks were too busy conquering our own continent while Europe was raping the world for themselves.

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

Manslaughter?

Manslaughter is a legal concept. It involves premeditated murder.

So since you wish to be a legal eagle. Please tell us when killing another person is not murder?

Yeah.

Thought so.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

Poor Vic...

I guess you fail to understand what it means when someone here calls Assange's actions blackmail.

It means that they are exercising their free speech rights. In the US that's protected by the First Amendment.

They are expressing an opinion. Whether or not Assange is charged with Blackmail remains to be seen.

I called Assange a sociopath. Many would agree with my opinion. Were a paper to call Assange a sociopath as a matter of fact, it would be a different matter unless they reported that there are those who consider his actions to be those of a sociopath. (When a news organization reports something as fact, and it isn't they face potential legal action. When they report the opinions as a matter of fact, this is not actionable when there is enough information in the public eye to justify the opinion.)

You also seem to confuse the fact that if a person is not charged that it doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed. Since you're a bit slow... I'll give you a very good example of this...

In Chicago, until the Supreme Court overturned the city's anti-handgun ownership law, it was illegal to be in possession of a handgun with a few exceptions... (Active Military, Job Requirement, Police Officer, or a member of City or County Government.) And of course if you had the gun registered w the police prior to 1982 when the gun ban went in to effect.

While the case was being heard in the US Supreme Court, there was an incident where a Korean War vet woke to hear someone trying to break in to his house. He illegally had his .45 and when confronting the burglar who was still outside, the burglar shot at him and missed. The vet returned fire and killed the burglar.

The man was never charged for illegally possessing a gun which would have been a felony.

(I don't even think they confiscated his gun.)

No one denies that a crime (Illegal possession of a hand gun) occurred. He was never charged because the DA knew that he would 1) Never get a conviction. 2) Would be more bad press for the City of Chicago.

So, here is a situation where a man was guilty of committing a crime yet was never charged. Talk to any cop and they'll tell you that not everyone who is guilty of committing a crime gets charged. (Oooh now that's a shocker.)

As to Assange,.. the clock is still ticking and more and more evidence is piling up. The US Government is very methodical and moves slowly.

I suggest you learn more about the legal system and well in fact reality about how the world works before you post. Larry Niven did a short story on Anarchy... I forget which anthology contains the story and its title. I'm sure someone else here can pop it up. Read it... you might learn something.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Get your facts straight...

How many politicians have called for Assange to be executed?

I know only of one. He was some right wing moron in CANADA who has nothing to do with this except that like Australia is part of the Commonwealth.

So please share who else was calling for his death...

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

@vic,

reread my post.

Based on the definition, there is enough evidence in the public eye where one could reasonably charge Assange with blackmail. It is a clear threat. And it was made for his own personal gain.

You may not like that, but hey when you run your own country you can decide.

With respect to Assange actually getting charged... thats up to the UK, the US and whatever other nations want to get involved based on Murdoch's residency.

But seriously, you've gone off in to fantasy land in defense of Assange.

Didn't he threaten to sue the Guardian for their release of information that was leaked to them from a wikileaks insider? (Naw, that was all a right wing conspiracy concocted by the CIA to discredit him, right?)

What about all of the detailed back room discussions about who gets involved and then his releasing the stuff on TV blowing the Guardian's scoop. You're going to tell me 'donations' weren't made to Assange or Wikileaks ... yeah right. I know.. you want me to prove it knowing that I can't.

(But you can bet sooner or later that would have to come out.)

The fact that this did come to light is a clear indication that there were and are much more discussions going on.

There's more to this... after all Assange is currently enjoying his freedom due to the assistance of Britain's wealthy liberal elitists that he has conned.

The more you read, the more you know and your best bud Assange starts to show his true colors.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Stewart and Colbert?

I watch both shows on Comedy Central.

With respect to ViagraFalls post...

Spot on!

Collateral Damage is one thing. Using the term murder is another and yes, all objectivity is lost.

If you look back at Viet Nam, there was a prize wining photograph of a South Vietnamese officer executing a man on the city streets. The photo was actually a frame in some footage the journalist shot.

What the world saw was an injustice. What really happened is that the incident took place during the Tet Offensive and the man who was executed was the man who had just killed the Officer's family. (It was the journalist who conveyed the story which was somehow lost when the papers picked up the photo.)

The point of that story is that without knowing all of the facts people jump to conclusions. Truth be told, were I that officer, I'd have pulled the trigger too. (And so would many of you...)

Releasing footage out of context allows one to draw the wrong conclusion... not good.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Perhaps Not...

Ok, Vic...

If this wasn't blackmail or grandstanding, then he would have said this quietly, through counsel, to those that he felt would do him harm.

The fact that he is publicly making this 'threat' is in fact blackmail. Based on the definition you posted, there is enough evidence in the public eye that he could in fact be charged for committing blackmail.

'Oh if something should happen to me, I'm going to release the consulate documents that relate to Fox News... (Murdoch).' That sir by your definition is blackmail. "A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces;"

Legally speaking thats enough to bring charges. The second part..."and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."

This is what is known as an affirmative defense.

Since you want to play lawyer, you do know what an affirmative defense is right? So he can be charged, being found guilty is another matter, and Assange would have to show that his fears are documented. Going to jail for having committed a crime is not ample justification.

You are correct that while he can be charged, there is the chance that he may be found innocent of the charge.

IMHO This is grandstanding being done for profit. So not only is he threatening harm to others, he is clearly profiting from this... You don't believe that he's not soliciting funds to keep wikileaks going and to also draw attention to his soon to be released book?

Oh and thats another thing. He'd better release the book before he's charged by the US. There's a law on the books where he can't profit from his crimes... (I kid you not).

Ian Michael Gumby
Jobs Horns

@kain preacher NEWS FLASH WIKILEAKS REPORTS ON BALLMER!

Yes, its true. Ballmer is evil.

End of story.

I'd use the joke alert but since El Reg has an Evil Ballmer icon, I couldn't resist.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Stu 18. Not top secret. Just Classified.

Manning had access to classified networks and classified material. Of course these networks and databases are monitored. How else do you think that they caught him so fast?

The really good juicy stuff isn't somewhere that a guy like Manning had access. You know those files on Area 51 and reports out of Wright Pat AFB? Or who really shot JFK...

Ok, I'm sorry for being a bit silly but the point is that there is a lot of Classified, Secret, and Top Secret documents that Manning didn't have access to and is in a much more secure environment.

That's why Assange is all smoke and no fire. Where's the Whistle Blowing issue in all of his releases?

None. Its no wonder his insiders are defecting to go back to their grass roots and launching their own leak site.

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Jon Stewart agrees!

Jon Stewart is a comedian on Comedy Central with his Daily Show followed up by the Colbert report.

You should google him and CNN. There was a story where Stewart actually has more influence in terms of making sense of the news than the pundits on CNN and Fox who claim to be real journalists.

(Thats not to say that CNN and Fox don't have real journalists. They do. But the 24 hour news channels' anchors aren't them...)

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Huh?

Sorry, but you do mean that you were unaware of the fact that many of the Arab states view Iran as a threat because of the power vacuum created when the US took out Saddam.

That wasn't news to anyone who follows Middle East politics.

But you prove my point. Nothing being released is of 'whistle blowing' quality.

No crimes have been uncovered.

Just an egomaniac trying to keep his face in the news and try to rake in those donations in to his personal pocket. Speaking of which. Has Wikileaks sent any money for Manning's defense fund yet?

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

So...

Assange threatens an "insurance" plan to release more cables about News corporations...

oooh! Wow. So what whistle blowing is really happening except Assange airing 'dirty laundry'.

Anything criminal about a consulate employee's opinion? Or even shocking that one may find a Fox Broadcasting reporter boring and full of himself?

So why is Assange promising more releases? I mean if wikileaks was about whistle blowing then he would have already vetted the material and released it.

What one wonders is what sort of back room conversations are taking place?

You know... the type of conversations where Assange threatens to sue the paper for releasing information before he says its ok, or by unilaterally adding competing newspapers to deal and leaking stuff to the TV reporters a day before the papers go to press?

Yeah. Its all about being above the greed and for profit opportunities and cashing in. Its all about providing the truth and whistle blowing. (Did you get the sarcasm?)

I would have to say he's blackmailing someone and while we don't hear the actual threat, you can bet it was delivered quietly behind closed doors.

Asus NX90Jq 18.4in Core i7 laptop

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

It makes sense for a niche..

At the size, its a transportable not an ultra light PC laptop.

The size of the screen and the CPU horsepower make it a desktop replacement and when you consider that there are a series of applications where this could make sense...

You're in advertising and or sales and you need to do demos at a customer site.

You're in to photography (photojournalism) and you can't wait till you get home before you work on your prints.

Oh and yeah. You're rich and you want it as a status symbol, or you'd rather have a luggable/transportable on your desktop instead of a mini tower sitting next to your desk.

And for those wankers who want a status symbol, you can have it on your office desk and when you walk in to a meeting, you have the largest most stylish laptop...

Mitsubishi commuter e-car goes on sale

Ian Michael Gumby

Errr.

You have buses that run on alternative fuel and you already said the magic word... they are more efficient based on the number of people being served.

I agree electric light rail is a better option and if you live well outside of the city, diesel electric trains make better sense than cars.

The one thing about buses over rail is that they can drive anywhere. Even a light rail needs to have tracks laid down... But there's a solution for that... Electric buses which use overhead cables for power. (50's tech) Just go nuke for your power and you're clean... ;-)

Plan now for nukes because it will take 10-15 years to build a power plant and you'll need them if everyone wants electric vehicles...

US air force has new scramjet hypersonic plane plans

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Add some '90's tech

What about applying heat tiles like those on the Space Shuttle?

Ok, they are brittle and well what happens if they fail? I know and understand.

My point was to try upgrading the 60's tech.

Of course... Kelley Johnston was a man well ahead of his time.

As to this being a waste of tax payers money... not when it could lead to lower air travel costs, and or viable space travel.

Keeping with scale models and model rockets...a good way to keep the costs down.

Virgin Mobile to throttle 'unlimited' mobile broadband

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

But they are not capping your data...

They are capping your ability to download at max allowable bandwidth.

So they are still offering you 'unlimited' data, but they are slowing it down past 5GB.

I think its kind of a moot point. If they oversubscribe a region... for example... they have 100K customers in NY when their equipment can really handle 90K customers, everyone gets 'throttled because you can only force so much data through a finite pipe.

So how would you know you got throttled because of over subscription?

I think the issue isn't for new customer contracts because until you sign the contract and agree to the T's and C's, there's no problem. Its when they want to change the T's and C's mid contract. Of course they could write that in to the contract too.

(Telcos and Banks are evil that way... )

Lawyers fear Assange faces death penalty in US

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@lain 14

Uhm Estonia? Lithuania?

We have counties in some states that are larger (by size and/or by population) than those countries.

While the US Government has this thing called the First Amendment there are some things which are not protected speech. At the same time, the US Government has learned from past experience that there has to be some restrictions concerning the press and what gets reported.

If you look at the US and UK, there is this concept of 'Yellow Journalism' or sensationalizing the news for the sake of selling news papers. William Randall Hurst ring a bell? Something at small postage stamp sized countries don't have to deal with.

Oh and 20th out of how many countries? 192 or so? (I've lost count and if the Sudan vote goes the way the press is reporting, they'll be a separate country...)

Not bad.

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

@Whitespace... you don't know anything about a LE subpoena.

The reason LE subs are sealed is that they do not want to endanger an ongoing investigation. You find out you're being identified and you cut bait and take off. This happens all of the time. You'd be surprised how many LE subs the SEC does on stock boards because people try to manipulate the market. (And yes, I happen to know a bit about this first hand. ;-)

So the fact that there are sealed subpoenas means nothing. Its the normal course of business.

Plea bargain deals are also a matter of fact in the US criminal systems. Did Manning act alone? Only Manning and his co-conspirators know. (If there are any). Since they have Manning, a plea deal allows them to also get the co-conspirators and reduce his sentence. And no I don't believe that Manning acted alone, nor do most people.

So a plea bargain is also the normal course of business.

The death sentence? Hmmm when was the last time the Death Sentence was used in an espionage case? The Rosenbergs. Height of the Cold War and they were KGB agents who gave the Russians the secret to the atomic bomb. That is one Genie that would have been best kept in the bottle.

In the 80's and 90's espionage cases ended with long jail terms but no death penalty cases.

I don't believe Manning faces the death penalty, however he probably faces life in prison. How long do you think he'll last in solitary confinement before he starts to cooperate? Maybe that's what has Assange running scared?

Its also good to hear that you're starting to see Assange as the con-man he is.

And yes, he fits the description of a sociopath. Sure I can't make an official diagnosis, however that doesn't mean I can't exercise my first amendment rights of free speech and call him a sociopath because his actions fit that profile. And yes, IMHO I believe him to be a sociopath. If you read the New Yorker article, you'd understand that he doesn't care what harm he may cause.

But to your last comment, what lies, crimes and evil deeds did the Wikileaks expose?

The US has been open about crimes committed in the combat zone. Friendly fire? Journalists getting killed in a combat zone? Civilians getting wounded or killed for disobeying a lawful order? Sorry but shit happens. From what I've seen, soldiers who regret their actions or have witnessed crimes by other soldiers have done more to expose war for what it is than Wikileaks.

Sorry, as I said before, airing another's dirty laundry for the sake of embarrassment isn't whistle blowing. No crimes were committed or uncovered by Wikileaks. In fact the leak that Assange and his lawyers threatened to sue the Guardian and some of the other in-depth reporting by the Vanity Fair reporter hint that there may be more to the case being build by the US DoJ...

Apply Occams Razor and you'll find your conspiracy theories don't hold true.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@N&G

Perhaps you misunderstand that I'm trying to point out that the Death Penalty is going out of fashion. The reason that the state of IL is looking to remove the death penalty is that there were several death row cases involving innocent men who were convicted because of prosecution misconduct and/or DNA evidence cleared them. (Separate cases)

With respect to espionage. Can you recall the last time the Death Penalty was used in the US on an Espionage case? Hmmm I think back to the Rosenberg trial. Past that, I can't think of any.

The recent Espionage cases where US citizens sold secrets to foreign governments (80's and 90's) they all got long stiff prison sentences. Death penalty was never on the table.

Now if you had been paying attention, Espionage isnt' the only avenue that the US Government could prosecute Assange. The USDOJ already hinted at that and the US press pundits all agree that there are other options. So if Assange is charged not for Espionage but something else, the death penalty wouldn't be an option. (There are sentencing guidelines that the judges must use when sentencing a convicted felon.) Again making the death penalty a moot point.

But since you're keen on this death penalty issue, there is one case where IMHO the death penalty is appropriate. You did hear about the gunman in AZ? No insanity plea there.

So hopefully you've learned a little bit more about the US legal system.

(The more you know...)

Ian Michael Gumby

@AC

This point seems to be in contention. I believe we heard this from the Assange camp and since the Guardian article was published, I don't put a lot of credibility in their argument.

If this point were true, then why would his lawyer bring up the 'death penalty' issue?

Remember Occam's razor.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Huh?

"While no one really believes the rape claims, it doesn't matter, Assange made it easy for the USA and has lost a lot of credibility in the process. He needs to go face the rape charges and clear them asap"

I actually do believe the rape charges.

Rape as defined by Swedish laws.

That doesn't mean that Assange would face charges, would be tried, and if tried, would be found guilty.

I do believe that the accusers are credible in their story and that there is some evidence that can support their claims. And I'm not the only one. Some may say that the charges are politically motivated. Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. Were it not for a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter pressing the issue of Sam Sheppard's wife's murder, he might have gotten away with it. (This is the real life story that the movie and TV series 'The Fugitive' is based on.)

So politics or whatever is forcing the issue. It doesn't mean that the charges aren't real.

Ian Michael Gumby

@ AC in the US or in Sweden?

At this point...

No charges in Sweden except fleeing jurisdiction to avoid questioning.

No charges in the US, although there is an ongoing investigation as to his involvement and complicity in Manning's (allegedly) theft of US classified documents.

Hence the claim to his facing the 'death penalty' in the US is pure hype and a smoke screen.

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

@david wilson

Don't confuse them with facts and logic.

The fact that McKinnon has been able to use the system and to fight extradition for so long shows that the system works. (Isn't McKinnon's defense an affirmative defense?)

With respect to the honeytraps... didn't they drop those claims after the Guardian reporter outed the fact that Assange's Swedish defense team had access to the information of which Assange was being questioned about?

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

@multipharious

Very good point.

Whistle blowing... the biggest and well known case was PGE's Chromium-6 dump. And even today we're still seeing the after effects. The EPA is now testing water in and around Chicago and other major cities for levels of Chromium-6 (Chromium Hexavalate?)

That's Whistle blowing.

Price Fixing of products? Again Whistle blowing. (Corn Products, Memory Chips, etc...)

What has Wikileaks done?

Google and read the articles in 'The New Yorker', 'Vanity Fair', 'The Guardian' and other newspapers around the world. I'm talking about accredited journalists and not some conspiracy nut blog post.

I'm all for true whistle blowing.

But Assange isn't about that.

Read up on the articles about Assange threatening to sue 'Grauniad' (Guardian) over the leaks from his 'organization'.

He's a con man and many of the commentards have bought in to his con.

Oh and one more thing... Can Gaddafi file a medical insurance claim if he's getting a 'theraputic' massage from his Ukrainian 'nurse' if it includes a 'happy ending'?

(That's one question I have based on the information Wikileaks published from the cables....)

Ian Michael Gumby

@Dagg

Seriously, you give the CIA too much credit.

And of course you probably don't know that the CIA has to act within the law. (Although there is a lot of gray area...)

You also give Assange too much credit.

As it has been pointed out ad nauseum, what Assange leaked was classified, yet nothing of great importance.

Assume you're right. The CIA might do something. Do a risk assessment. Assange isn't worth the risk. (Murphy's law... if something can go wrong ... it will go wrong.) The US Government is building a case against Assange. You can't say that there is no transparency. What you and other 'commentards' don't know is what information and what evidence the US Government has against Assange. Until the legal card is played out, there's no reason to plan anything.

If you were talking about the Russian spy network (remember Anna Chapman???), or the Mossad, I'd say they would be more adept at performing the dark spy arts than the CIA.

What you probably don't remember (If you were even alive back then...) is the failed attempt at the rescue of the American Iran Hostages when the Shah fell. Or the fact that the Clinton Administration pulled a Kennedy and cut the CIA's budget so they lost Human Intel capabilities and their effectiveness.

So please by all means keep the dark conspiracy alive. Over estimate the CIA ...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Too late...

Sorry, but my post got here first. :-P

What's interesting is that I call this pure hype and get thumbs down. Someone else says the exact same thing... thumbs up.

Assange's lawyer is doing his job and is trying to do anything that's within the law to keep his client out of jail.

The truth is that if the whole US issue was off the table and it was a matter of Assange facing the rape charges, he'd be in Sweden by now. There would be no grounds to fight the extradition.

This is why a lawyer in the UK who knows that the US would have to take the Death Penalty off the table if they wanted to extradite someone from the EU is making those remarks. He's just doing his job. Were I him, I'd probably do the same thing.

In truth, were Assange to face charges in the US, he'd get something like 20 years or less. Even Manning wouldn't get the death penalty.

And speaking of the death penalty... In Illinois the state is in the process of removing the death penalty. But please don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions.

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Pure hype ...

Silly me.

I thought Sweden was its own country and has its own legal system. And Assange has already claimed his innocence. (This is the issue at hand.)

But if you're wondering about the US Government...

First the US Government knows that many if not all of the EU and other countries will not extradite a person when there's a potential for the death penalty. So usually for an extradition, the US has to agree that the death penalty is off the table. And to date, the US Government has not yet charged Assange with anything so what US extradition?

As to a CIA rendition ... I don't recall the US Government labeling Wikileaks a terrorist organization.

And Obama has already vowed to close down Guantanamo. So if anything... if there was a rendition... Bulgaria anyone?

This is pure fantasy on the part of Assange's lawyer. Don't blame him because he's doing his job. The question is if the English judges buy in to it...

Now tell me that Assange doesn't live in a fantasy world!

Supercomputer boffins warm to clouds

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Good stuff.

The CPU-GPU model only works on a subset of cloud solvable problems.

For those who don't need the processing power of the top of the line GPU boards, you can pick up an NVIDIA GTX 460 board w 1GB of memory for around $200.00 (USD) Granted its not as powerful as the real deal, but with 330 CUDA cores its a cost effective solution that can be added to any cluster of 'commodity' machines.

You just need to have the C/C++ libraries and then JNI wrappers if you're using Java to run your M/J jobs.

Now if only large sized SSDs were 'commodity' and 10GB interconnects for each node ... (One can only dream...)

Microsoft's Novell patent cartel dodges German regulators

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Simple soluton...

Just outlaw software patents and the value of CPTN goes to Nil.

Feds subpoena Twitter for info on WikiLeaks backer

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@AC

Surely you jest when you say that you actually looked to see if Iceland was not the USA. I'd consider your remark to be sarcasm, however the intelligence shown on the part of Assange's followers leaves one to doubt.

To answer your question...

Twitter is a US based corporation. Twitter posts are in the public domain. Therefore it is the right of the US Government to subpoena Twitter to gain the identity of the person or persons unknown who made such posts. Of course that is to say that the posts and the account in questions must be relative to an ongoing criminal investigation for there to be a law enforcement subpoena. And the subpoena requires a judge to sign off on the Law Enforcement's request. (LE or LEO).

The fact that the owner of the account happens to be in Sweden and has admittedly outed herself is a moot point. The US Government has the right to this information and the burden of blocking the request now falls upon the lady in Sweden. Regardless of the fact she is in Sweden anyone can create an account and pretend to be someone else and tweet in their name. (Fake Steve Jobs for example...) The US Government is required by law to do their due diligence investigating a crime before the can bring charges.

The information being requested is in fact very routine. I wonder why the lady protests too much? Were it Nancy Pelosi the US Government would request the same information. (Nancy Pelosi is a very liberal Democrat from California and was former speaker of the House, for those who are not familiar with US politics.)

So you're wrong as to what the story is...

The real story is that you have some woman who has in the past admitted that she was an anarchist and is currently in the Swedish government who has intimate knowledge of Assange and his quest to hurt the US Government. She also has admittedly assisted Assange by getting him in to an US Ambassador's function on a 'lark'.

The real story is that while Wikileaks and their followers justify dumping 1000s of 'classified' US documents that were not properly vetted or for the most part had any value as evidence in a 'whistle blowing' incident, he and his supporters cry foul when the US Government goes through legal channels to obtain evidence of their actions. It is a further example of the irony we know as Assange.

The real story is that as journalists and the US Government dig in to Assange, they expose him to be less about whistle blowing but more about being an anarchist sociopath.

I expect this to be down voted, because you and others can't handle the truth.

With respect to your comments about a 'witch hunt' or 'fishing expedition', this is not the case.

There was a breach and a crime has been committed. The US is investigating all of those parties involved. Please understand that the US Government isn't creating the evidence, they are tying all of the loose ends together so that they can tell a story in court. (Do I need to really explain how the US Justice system works or have you watched enough TV to get the general idea?)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Graham Marsden

Clearly you don't know much about the law.

I'll make it really simple for you...

Manning allegedly stole classified documents and placed them on Wikileaks.

For the sake of this argument, you can assume his guilt.

Did Manning act alone?

What conversations occur between Wikileaks(their lawyers) and the US Government prior to the release of the flood of documents.

Is there evidence of Assange being complicit in Manning's crime?

Is there enough evidence to show that Assange did commit a crime?

The short answer is that the US Government doesn't know and is in fact investigating and gathering evidence. You do realize that this is something that they do, right? Its the law.

So as they work through the evidence and look at leads and gather more evidence. While you don't know what evidence they have,you can't say that they are 'on a fishing' expedition. As I stated in an earlier post, the I MP made public comments concerning her involvement with Assange therefore opening the door to herself being investigated.

With respect to the Twitter account.

There was enough evidence of the twitter account to have some involvement with Assange's case for a US Judge to sign off on a subpoena. Again as I pointed out in an earlier post, until the US Government gets the information from Twitter, they don't know who owns the account, and who has been using the account. And yes, when one gets a subpoena, they ask for everything and anything that they can think of.

What you fail to miss is the fact that it was the I MP that outed herself in public. Twitter doesn't fight the subpoena, the person who wishes to conceal his/her identity does. So all of this occurs in private. So why did she out herself in public?

Specifically in the law, Twitter is obligated to hand over the information when requested. However they have the right to challenge the Sub and to allow the individual to fight the sub as well. This is actually quite common and its not just the government getting a subpoena. Many companies sue John Doe and then get a subpoena to get the identity of the individual. I was tangentially involved in such a case. (And yes, I've had a government agency subpoena my identity too.) In this case, the individual fought the sub and won. (He shared his identity with the judge in private and showed that he was not the individual that they thought he was.)

So yes, while you whine about the unfair actions of the US Government, please understand what you are talking about. There is an ongoing investigation and when the time comes, the Government will make their case and connect the dots. Jumping to conclusions that the US Government is evil and is the cause of all that is wrong in this world is just absurd.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC

So the theft of classified documents isn't a crime?

Silly me, I guess that if no crime was committed, then wikileaks didn't release classified documents, right?

The point is that it is a *FACT* that wikileaks released these documents.

It is a *FACT* that the documents released by wikileaks were in fact *STOLEN* *CLASSIFIED* *DOCUMENTS*. (Look at any newspaper and you can see evidence of the crime...)

Therefore a crime has been committed.

Let me guess... There's a dead body on the floor with a knife sticking out of his back and you'll say that no crime was committed?

Give me a break.

Please stop and think before you post. Its no wonder you post as an AC.

Groupon buys big after $1bn funding round

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Cool!

Granted I'm biased because I like the fact that its a Chicago based start up that is getting traction and not a Silicon Valley or Alley that is getting face time.

But yeah, why sell out when you can control a market segment?

After the first 100 million, the rest doesn't matter.... :-)

Local business journal reported that some of the money raised went to investors and insiders...

Assange bailed again

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not right wing at all.

But then again, you'd probably call Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Guardian all right wing publications because they have printed news stories that paint your hero Assange in a different light.

Perhaps what you perceive as 'right wing' is that I probably have a wee bit more life experience that most of you and I've seen a lot more shite.

Perhaps one could call you an extreme leftist for your views?

Sorry I'm really a centralist.

I'm just sick of idiots portraying Assange as a hero and feeding in to his ego.

Even those who were part of Wikileaks left because of Assange's central focus on the US Military. Whistle blowing occurs in the private sector too. Ask PGE about Chromium poisoning...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

My Bad...

I said Vanity Fair.

While there are a lot of good articles, the one I thought to be an interesting read was this one...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian

If you want something recent...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jan/06/wikileaks-julian-assange

Just some references...

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Errr ... AC one other thing...

The politco who was calling for Assange's execution was in fact a conservative Canadian politician. You do know that Canada was a part of the Commonwealth which is just north of the US border right?

Granted there are some politicians who do believe that they should call Wikileaks a terrorist organization. IMHO that would be a stretch, although I'd like to see what the USDOJ comes up with when they end their investigation.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@No, I will not fix your computer

Its interesting in how you filled in the questions yourself.

I believe that others less biased would beg to differ with some of your responses.

I also believe you should read the Guardian article concerning the charges Assange faces in Sweden.

Its not my definition of rape or yours that counts. Its what Sweden thinks which is where he is being charged.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Sarah

Loyal was commenting that my post was actionable as in slander or libelous.

My point is that its neither.

In my follow up, I provided a definition of a sociopath. I challenged Loyal to show me that the definition I used was incorrect.

To your point(s)...

Regardless of a psychiatrist's diagnosis, it is neither libel or slander for me to express an opinion which can be supported by facts already in the public eye. And note that its a psychiatrist's diagnosis of a mental disorder. Not a psychologist.

In one of the articles published about Assange (Vanity Fair but last year... I think) Assange admits in his own writings that he doesn't care about any potential harm he may cause by publishing the leaks. His own writing damns himself and he feels justified in taking an action which he knows can cause harm to others. (You would call his justification 'for the greater good'.)

I'd say google the Vanity Fair article, however there's now a lot of stuff on the Guardian and Vanity Fair author Sarah Ellison.

If you care to read other authors outside of El Reg, Assange's own comments damn him.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Danny 2

Funny, I read 'Crime and Punishment' over 25 years ago for a high school English class.

So while specific parts of the story may be fuzzy, I do grok Doestoevsky as well as Friedrich Nietzsche.

I suggest you do your homework.

Like I said, he's not the hero you claim him to be.

Just ask the reporter from the Guardian. ;-)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ AC ...Hmmmm

Color me silly but wasn't Assange found guilty of hacking US Government computers while in Australia?

He was convicted, wasn't he?

Go ahead and google it.

But wait, you probably don't know how to properly google something so you never find anything.

Here's one article that may help...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/899661--10-things-you-don-t-know-about-wikileaks-mystery-man-julian-assange

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@ Loyal ...

My post is neither slander or libelous.

Would you care to challenge this definition of a sociopath?

sociopathic - Having the characteristics of a sociopath; Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sociopathic

Based on the known actions attributed to and admitted actions taken by Assange and wikileaks, the definition fits.

Perhaps you should learn the definition of the words I use before making outlandish claims which my comments are actionable.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@RegisterFail

Clearly the education system has failed you.

Placing faith in a sociopath is a sign of a weak mind.

The reason I post here is because there are individuals like yourself who don't understand who or what Assange is or the damage he has done.

He's no hero.

When he posted those classified cables, where's the cover up? What material in those cables showed that the US Government had committed a crime? You do know what a crime is, right? Iran/Contra for example? I don't see how a cable outing Libya's ruler's 'nurse' is evidence of a crime. Logging observations and opinions of consulate staff is a crime?

As I discussed with another poster. There's nothing wrong with Whistle Blowing when you've got something. But there's nothing here and its apparent that your hero has a vendetta against the US Government.

Calling me an eStalker is a hoot. Clearly again you don't know the meaning of the term.

Defending the truth in light of your ignorance is enough reason to be here.

But I guess you're of the ilk mind that if enough members of the hoard say something 1+1=3, then it must be true.

As another poster pointed out... Assange is a convict. One of the many facts you seem to gloss over.

WikiLeaks lawyer dubs US subpoena on Twitter 'harassment'

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Huh?

Ok,

Sorry, but is it just me who's confused by the fact that the US doesn't know that the MP is the true owner of the account until they get the response back from Twitter identifying the owner of the account?

The point is that the US Government has to identify who the owner of the account is, and if anyone else used the twitter account besides herself. This is why the subpoena exists.

Until 'ownership' is proven and the information is released to the US, its not admissible in court.

So its not a question of the I MP asking if they know she's an MP, but if the account is really hers.

Having Iceland's government asking the US envoy to explain the subpoena is going to be an interesting conversation. Not that this is an embarrassment for the US, but for Iceland and their MP who's arrogance could cost her MP job. Its a chance for the envoy to explain why they want to look in to the ownership of said account.

Ian Michael Gumby

Getting Back on Topic

Is it just me, or is it interesting how a lawyer who's in the UK and not licensed to practice law in the US is able to make a valid comment about the subpoenas being a fishing expedition?

The truth is that they are not.

Boys and Girls, this is all smoke and mirrors as a way to deflect from the real issues...

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

OCCAMS Razor

OCCAMS Razor is the bane of every conspiracy nut's argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Simply put... all things equal, the simplest answer is the most likely one.

The US Government is very thorough with their investigations. Especially when its a high profile court case. So its a reasonable explanation that they are investigating anyone and everyone that is a high profile individual in this case. Your Icelandic MP for example, has openly admitted to her follies along with having an alleged twitter account. Note that she outed herself in the press. Even if Twitter notified the owner of the account that there was a Law Enforcement subpoena and that they had the option to fight it, the MP reported on it, not the US Government.

Clearly some of the Tweets and the alleged owner of the Twitter account caught the government's attention. So its logical that the US is going to confirm who is the owner of the account and who made the Tweets.

The point is that the US legal system requires that all evidence presented must be factual. If the police say that Jimmy was on the street at the time of the robbery they must be able to place him at the scene of the crime. That is they must have some evidence like eye witnesses and/or CCTV footage. So there is something in the public eye that requires further investigation. This is the simplest explanation therefore the more likely one.

Now for the fun part.

One has to ask ones self why did the Icelandic MP out herself that her Twitter account information was going to be handed over to the US Government's investigation of Assange? Unfortunately the conspiracy nuts don't really understand what they see. ;-) [Hint... if you want to find the answer, flip the coin and pursue the investigation from the reverse angle.] Maybe there is a conspiracy. Only its not on the part of the US Government, but on the part of Wikileaks, Assange, and some of his 'followers'?

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

Sorry, your post doesn't make sense?

Are you saying that the classified documents expressing opinions of the consular staff violate the rights of those mentioned in the cables?

Or are you suggesting that Wikileaks violated the privacy rights to those mentioned in the cables by illegally obtaining them and then dumping them on the world causing embarrassment?