Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Julian Assange Says Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen Are "Witch Doctors"

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang dept.

Google 253

An anonymous reader writes "The Times publishes Assange's takedown of Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. From the article: 'New Digital Age is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas.'"

cancel ×

253 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

who cares (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year ago | (#43895397)

at one time, assange did a good think with wikileaks in this world

now he's just an entertainment "news" story figure

Re:who cares (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895459)

No shit.

Assange has become a parody of tin-foil-hat anti-US tripe.

Re:who cares (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895585)

Well, his bills are payed by Russia Today, the Kremlin's own TV Channel.

Re:who cares (-1, Troll)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#43895901)

Yes, Assange is yesterday's news. Frankly, I can't understand how they put up with his antics in the Uruguan (sp?) Embassy.

I actually like watching the shows that RT puts on. Sorry, have you ever watched the "Keiser Report" That guy is definitely doing Meth because he's constantly fidgeting and looks like he just woke up. I realize it's Pravda for the new Millennium but some of the other shows they put out are great, especially some of those that take a look at problems inside Russia or the ones that show some of the sites of the country.

Re:who cares (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896357)

You're dismissal of this article out of hand, with no explanation other than the fact that you don't seem to like him, is weak and suggestive of google shilling. Tell me, what exactly is there to like about an alliance between Google and US foreign policy? Anything? How can this be a "good thing"? I'm listening, which you apparently aren't.

Re:who cares (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43895463)

He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.

The "witch doctors" quote is taken completely out of context. All he is saying is that some companies are rushing ahead with new tech like Google Glass and Streetview and telling us everything is fine and its good for us.

Re:who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895529)

He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.

The "witch doctors" quote is taken completely out of context. All he is saying is that some companies are rushing ahead with new tech like Google Glass and Streetview and telling us everything is fine and its good for us.

No, Assange only needs enough Kool Aid-slurping worshippers to make his name click-bait.

"technocratic imperialism"?!?! LOL. Talk about the mundane reactionary hammering of square peg 19th century leftist dogma into the round hole of 21st century. ROFL.

Re:who cares (5, Interesting)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43895623)

NO, sorry, you should RTFA. He's quite a lot more, and a lot different from that. Just for starters;

"The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. "

It's an interesting read. Wish I had read the book myself first. Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives. In this way he's like Chomsky, and the problem with this is, he's liable to be right at least every so often (e.g. broken clocks being right twice a day). That is annoying. But it makes every individual argument less convincing as there's no evidence it's actually a nuanced or considered position.

Also, I don't believe the word 'banal' means what he thinks it does.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895655)

I don't agree, but it's a quite articulate and plausible PoV. +Interesting

Re:who cares (4, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#43895717)

He's paraphrasing "The banality of evil", the title of a report on the Eichmann trials.

Re:who cares (0, Troll)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43896393)

Yes, I got that, but what does it have to do with anything else in the piece? It's like quoting Star Wars in an article about (some other) war. Here's Websters:

banal: lacking originality, freshness, or novelty : trite

and here's Assange:

"The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler. “Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth."

His complaint is not that the Google technology of tomorrow will not be original or "fresh". But this is a minor quibble. I stand by my earlier assessment. Even though the book very well may be in some ways, as he writes, "But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major declaration designed to foster alliances" (though that's doubtful - why go to the trouble of publishing a book when a position paper would suffice?) His own absolutist position of presuming the worst motives always for American anything, and his precarious position holed up in an Ecuadorian embassy somewhere avoiding probable life incarceration, makes him an unreliable book reviewer.

Listen to this (Assange) : "In the book the authors happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire. " You know, that's pretty patronizing and dismissive of all these groups, just for starters. Those are real people with real needs, dignity, culture, volition, goals etc of their own - not props. Beyond that, can he describe what acceptable behavior for a technology corporation would be, within his own moral framework? I don't believe he has actually worked that out. Without his having included that in his scathing review of Google's ambitions, we have no real point of comparison, and he has no real argument. I don't believe "white guys should stay home, and not even attempt to interact with anyone else" is valid or reasonable. If Google's technology stopped at the border, you would bet there would be a huge outcry about that as well.

Re:who cares (3, Interesting)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43896433)

Let me cap my argument by reminding that Assange's whole enterprise (Wikileaks) depends absolutely on the kinds of technology produced by Google and similar companies. Before the internet, Julian Assange would be some guy somewhere Xeroxing small runs of a paranoid zine. It's very likely that without Google and its peers, no one would know about Julian Assange or Wikileaks.

Re:who cares (5, Insightful)

plopez (54068) | about a year ago | (#43895765)

The fact the book was endorsed by Kissenger is enough for me. The man is an authoritarian nightmare; he helped craft the concept of the unitary executive, bombed neutral nations into the dirt, and overthrew legally elected governments to name just a few things. If Kissenger likes it it smells like imperialism to me.

Re:who cares (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895817)

> Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives.

Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you. For all the talk of "If I someone tried to attack me, I'd shoot them because I'm a hard scary person" in your country you don't have cry like a bunch of pussies each time someone talks bad of you and you don't half seem unable to consider how you might use your own physical form to defend yourselves if your guns were taken away as if the idea of punching someone attempting to attack you is too much for your feeble existences.

There's no doubt his organisation's biggest leak was embarrassing to the US but he leaked things about plenty of other countries prior to that. The only way he's started to focus on the US is in the way that it's been turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy where paranoid Americans like yourself and your government have cried "He's out to get us!" and attacked him in the media and so forth, to which he responds and points out the hypocrisy of your country and your countrymen which you then cry "He's out to get us!" again and so the cycle repeats.

He's not out to get you beyond the fact that your country and it's people have made it an us vs. him thing such that the media always asks about that US complaining against him such that another feedback loop commences about "how he's always on about the US because he just mentioned us! (even though he was asked about us and was just answering the question)" type scenario.

If he has started to pursue the US specifically then that's entirely you're nation's own doing. He only gives a toss about transparency and corruption and if you want him to focus on exposing that in other countries then you know what? Just shut up, and give it up with your attempt at extraordinary rendition via Sweden on trumped up rape charges against him so he can get on with exactly that.

Re:who cares (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43896059)

Please, don't forget that Julian became something of a minor hero, when his leaks concerned mostly Arab nations that we disapproved of, or approved of very little. It wasn't until Manning's stuff was published that Julian became "Public Enemy #xx". Congress critters and the White House gave him praise, even if it was faint, as long as he seemed to be focusing on Arab nations. How quickly the tables turned when we became the focus of attention!

Re:who cares (4, Funny)

Crashmarik (635988) | about a year ago | (#43896127)

Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you. For all the talk of "If I someone tried to attack me, I'd shoot them because I'm a hard scary person" in your country

I am a hard scary person, but it looks like someone needs a hug

Re:who cares (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#43896271)

> Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives.

Why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You have all the guns you want, a massive military yet you're still so utterly shit scared that everyone's out to get you.

You turn things around. They have guns because they are scared. The scared-thing doesn't go away if they have the most of the most powerful guns. It's the same with rich people. Once they have all this money they are scared shit that they will lose it once in the future.

Re:who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895925)

Assange has always been anti-west-governments to the point of supporting, if only by his silence, the various dictatorship of the world, he's been working for RT (Russia Today: propaganda news channel from mother Russia). You can take someone like this seriously, there is a lot of things wrong in the west governments, but they are still far better than most other governments.

"reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not" : that is the argument dictatorships like to use : freedom/democracy is nice but it's not our culture.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895937)

I don't believe the word 'banal' means what he thinks it does.

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896381)

"Knee jerk reaction" or on-the-mark analysis? You haven't read the book so how are you in a position to dismiss Assange's criticism so easily?

Re:who cares (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896427)

... to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives. In this way he's like Chomsky...

Have you read any Chomsky? Chomsky explictly refrains from discussing the motives of American foreign policy. This is because, he says, it is impossible to determine what the actual motives behind any particular decision are, to try and do so would just be speculation. Instead, he confines himself to pointing discrepancies between what the govt. and the media say US foreign policy is doing, or trying to do, and what they are actually doing, or trying to do.

He makes this disclaimer prominently in many, if not all of his books (on foreign policy and media hegemony).

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896435)

With recent modern history, it is naive to assume that information technology will not be used in the most abusive way possible.

Assange assumes the worst because we are GETTING the worst - we're all spied on, our data is all being compiled - and if you dare expose the lies and crimes of government you'll be disappeared at worst, or Assanged at best.

Look guys - if you don't realize what is going on perhaps you should read Cypherpunks - take off the Rose tinted glasses and start paying attention.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896447)

Assange's knee-jerk reaction is to presume the worst, and hidden, motives for anything related to American interests and motives.

And this differs from your garden-variety, run-of-the-mill vocal Slashdotter how, exactly?

Very good point (5, Insightful)

Weezul (52464) | about a year ago | (#43895665)

Assange has an awful lot of very astute writing and work leading up to Wikileaks, technically he's no Jacob Appelbaum, but his philosophical writing nails it.

Wikileaks was based upon that philosophy and changed our world by starting this "leaking culture", certainly leaking existed long before, but social factors preventing it were more powerful. Assange created a framework proving that leaking often works where internal reforms fail.

Assange has obviously been driven a little batty by the U.S. government's pursuit via Sweden, U.K., etc., but historians will continue talking about Assange long after they've forgotten about Bush, Clinton, etc. Anyone who can actually push all the way from new philosophy to real political change is a certified genius.

Re:Very good point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896145)

but historians will continue talking about Assange long after they've forgotten about Bush, Clinton, etc.

This I really doubt. Forgetting about Bush would be a tragedy. We should not forget less we want a repeat performance. Clinton? He is no more irrelevant than Assange. Bradley Manning is the one that history should remember. Assange just soap boxed on others backs.

Re:Very good point (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year ago | (#43896409)

changed our world by starting this "leaking culture"

Internal Memos predated WL by some years. They just never achieved notoriety before they were shut down.

Re:who cares (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#43896229)

He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.

If you think they are that bad just wait till the people who posted his bail wade in :D

Re:who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896467)

He is clearly more than that or the media would not feel the need to smear him like this.

Comments in a slashdot article are not "the media". The story linked to is an article written by Assange himself.

The "witch doctors" quote is taken completely out of context.

No, it's not. It's the lead-in sentence to his "book review", which is a summary of whatever point the essay is going to attempt to address.

All he is saying is that some companies are rushing ahead with new tech like

No that's not what he's saying at all. He's not talking about tech, he's talking about world politics. He's just using them as a whipping boy to blast out another round of his usual anti-US sentiment, complete with vague accusations of Corporate misdeeds and an extremely naive and limited view of world history over the last 100 years.

But since this is slashdot, any posts amounting to "OMFG I LOVE ASSANGE" gets +5 Insightful and any posts not worshipping the ground he hovers over receives an immediate -1.

Re:who cares (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about a year ago | (#43895707)

He is also trapped in an embassy, and making occasional news outlet is the only thing that keeps him alive and this is not an hyperbole. He did wikileaks, and is now trying to fight for his right to remain free even after that. That is indeed a commendable effort.

Re:who cares (0, Troll)

DeathToBill (601486) | about a year ago | (#43895839)

Bah. He "did" two girls in Sweden and doesn't want to face the music. Let's look at his options:

1. He could be in Sweden, where there is absolutely zero chance he'll be extradited to the US. Sweden's law doesn't allow extradition if there is a chance of the death penalty and even without it extradition looks legally unlikely. But he'd have to face up to charges about those girls.
2. He decided he'd rather stay in the UK, which has an extradition treaty with the USA so one-sided it makes the Gestapo look balanced.
3. When the UK looked like extraditing him to Sweden, he went to Ecuador for asylum, a country whose president says he thinks the CIA are going to try to assassinate him.

So, what do you think he's really afraid of? Persecution by the USA? Or facing charges in Sweden? If he's really worried about the USA, Sweden is about the safest place he could be. A hell of a lot better than either the UK or Ecuador.

Re:who cares (4, Interesting)

Shompol (1690084) | about a year ago | (#43895971)

While being in UK someone asked Swedish authorities directly: is there a guarantee that he will not be extradited to US upon return to Sweden -- and there was no guarantee. This rape charges theater staged by Swedish authorities means they are completely on the leash with US, so I would not call it "safest place".

Re:who cares (1, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43896009)

While being in UK someone asked Swedish authorities directly: is there a guarantee that he will not be extradited to US upon return to Sweden -- and there was no guarantee. This rape charges theater staged by Swedish authorities means they are completely on the leash with US, so I would not call it "safest place".

Why would anyone be willing to sign "we guarantee there will be no extradition"? It would probably be illegal to do so. The only situation where a guarantee could be made is if the USA asks Sweden for an extradition, and a Swedish court says "no". Unless and until a Swedish court has looked at it, nobody can say there will be no extradition.

Re:who cares (4, Insightful)

DeathToBill (601486) | about a year ago | (#43896131)

That hardly answers the question. Why does he think he'd be in so much more danger in Sweden? Why is being in the UK, where extradition is easy, better than being in Sweden, where extradition is hard? Why is being in Ecuador, where the CIA doesn't mind sending in assassins, better than being in Sweden? And it's not me that says assassination might happen in Ecuador - it's the president of the country that's just granted him asylum.

Calling the rape charges theatre directed by the US makes no sense. It would have been terribly easy for the USA to extradite him directly from Britain. Going to Sweden makes it much harder. The only way it makes sense is if it is Julian directing the theatre - all this rubbish about US conspiracies is diverting attention from the sex charges against him.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896311)

What, one moment he's in Sweden applying for citizenship and a very short time later he's in the __UK__ refusing to go back to answer accusations of rape because he's afraid of being being deported to the US ? Something doesn't add up there does it ?

The guy is clearly a delusional narcissist everything he does is one big publicity stunt.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896423)

I'm sure he's more worried about being "plane crashed" while being transported/shipped between countries/etc. Conspiracy theory? Yeah, pretty much. But it's a surprisingly common way for inconvenient people to meet their ultimate fate. The more control he has over his life/schedule/transportation the better.

As for his recent comments, he's not really calling out these "witch doctors" personally. He's saying something more along the lines of the "Conspiracy of the Normals" that the Church of the SubGenius talks about so often. Some thing to the effect of that true evil comes from the complacency and mediocrity of the ordinary individual, because it allows people like these "which doctors" to manipulate them easily.

Re:who cares (1, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43896437)

You dont get to respond to an arrest warrant with "Ill come along, but only if you accept these terms."

Re:who cares (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43896221)

Your 1. has a flaw. What you mean is, you BELIEVE that there is zero chance that Assange would be extradited from Sweden. In fact, the "charges" aren't even charges - he has NOT been charged with any crime involving those women. Sweden has an ulterior motive for dragging Assange back into their jurisdiction. What could that motive be? Well - an arrangement with the US to permit Assange to be extradited or "rendered" seems most likely to me.

Do we need to revisit the two women involved?
1. Both women came on to Julian, and seduced him - not the other way around.
2. Both women, in interviews, have flatly stated that he did NOT rape or assault them.
3. Both women make exactly the same claim - on the "morning after" Julian had a second helping, WITHOUT a condom.
4. Neither woman made any complaint until AFTER they coincidentally met, and discussed their encounters with Julian.

It is important to note, that after one judge dismissed warrants for Assange's arrest, a DIFFERENT judge took over, and issued warrants on greater crimes than anyone had previously considered.

It's political, and if Sweden gets their hands on Assange, he will be sacrificed to the US Justice department.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_political_refugee [wikipedia.org]

If making yourself a political target is a crime, then Assange is most assuredly guilty of a crime. But he's hardly guilty of any gross sexual offense.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896405)

Bah. He "did" two girls in Sweden and doesn't want to face the music.

I stopped reading right there. This "doing" of two girls as you put it would very likely be 100% legal where you are. He's been set up on extreme feminist "ooh I changed my mind and decided to say no just as you ejaculated"-type definitions of "rape". These women had already had sex with him; they already were sleeping with him.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895861)

While you are actually fairly correct on that, the really funny part is how many people think that it's the USA waiting for a chance to kill him.

His life is also a bit of an object lesson, there is no freedom for the famous. Either you live a lie so enough people like you, or you remain yourself and have to lock yourself away from your enemies.

Freedom comes from being forgotten. Not the EU's idiotic 'right to be forgotten' scam, but actually being forgotten, overlooked, and ignored.

--Anonymous and free, downmod me all you like, I'll just laugh

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896051)

While you are actually fairly correct on that, the really funny part is how many people think that it's the USA waiting for a chance to kill him

A bit of a "poetical licence" (aka "gross exaggeration") in asserting that many people think "USA waiting a chance to kill Assange", don't you think?

Other than that, I feel Assange has legitimate reasons to be worried given that, as of Jan 2013, the US Dept of "Justice" is still "criminally investigating" Wikileaks. A reluctant admission [typepad.com] - EPIC tried to get it by a FOIA and subsequent lawsuit since June 2011 [epic.org] , seeking:

* All records regarding any individuals targeted for surveillance for support for or interest in WikiLeaks;
* All records regarding lists of names of individuals who have demonstrated support for or interest in WikiLeaks;
* All records of any agency communications with Internet and social media companies including, but not limited to Facebook and Google, regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through advocacy or other means, support for or interest in WikiLeaks; and
* All records of any agency communications with financial services companies including, but not limited to Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal, regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through monetary donations or other means, support or interest in WikiLeaks

Quoting from DoJ "admission" - in effect, a motion for a summary judgement in EPIC's lawsuit:

On November 28, 2010, the organization WikiLeaks published numerous documents that it contended were Department of State embassy cables. The following day, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. stated that the Department of Justice had initiated a criminal investigation into the potential unauthorized release of classified information. Compl. 15-16. That investigation continues to this day.

Re:who cares (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#43895815)

It takes an excessively paranoid person to dedicate themselves to something like Wikileaks. I didn't think the fact he was crazy was ever in question. That doesn't mean we don't benefit from it.

Re:who cares (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43896367)

There is likely some truth there. I remember reading about David Chaum and the original attempt at an internet currency "DigiCash".... which was based on a wonderfully anonymity protecting digital cash protocol that had some real possibilities and might have worked.

Why did it fail? Apparently there were multiple moments where they were close to having major deals worked out with early online retailers, but, each time it fell apart partially due to paranoia. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone that becomes such an expert in hiding data and security is...well... a bit paranoid. It kinda goes with the territory: http://cryptome.org/jya/digicrash.htm [cryptome.org]

Re:who cares (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | about a year ago | (#43896091)

Now, now... From a weasel's perspective, they might very well look like witch doctors.

Re:who cares (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year ago | (#43896345)

Because you read the article and the book.....

The TinFoil... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895423)

Is strong withing this one.

Assange = Goldstein (1)

Iskender (1040286) | about a year ago | (#43896049)

Whatever you think about Assange, you pretty much have to admit he does a splendid Emmanuel Goldstein impression! All that's missing is the two-minute government-sponsored Youtube video of hate. You can't even meet him in person anymore, he can only be reached through teles^Hphone and email!

and...? (0)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#43895435)

And Assange is a witch... Not sure where he is going with that analogy.

Re:and...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895549)

Is he? How did he escape the burning?

BURN ALL WITCHES!!!

Re:and...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896243)

He weighs the same as a duck?

Re:and...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895621)

It's warlock, you insensitive clod!

Witchdoctors?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895439)

I didn't know that they were also chiropractors!

Re:Witchdoctors?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895943)

nobody got that reference, sorry

great review (5, Insightful)

silversoft (2716463) | about a year ago | (#43895443)

i think he might just be right... the world has already lost its privacy to google

Re:great review (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895691)

i think he might just be right... the world has already lost its privacy to google

For some nebulous, highly in flux definition of "privacy" that we need to keep being reminded is both real and scaryscary, because fuck all if anyone outside the tinfoil hat community has the slightest clue how this is so horribly evil.

Re:great review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895977)

so you're saying that all the tinfoil hats think this is evil, and that should worry us why?

Re:great review (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43896253)

So, you're suggesting that there are only two schools of thought: That of the tinfoil hat community, and that of the sheeple.

Well, if I must choose between the two, I'll go with the tin foil hat bunch. I don't want every government agency spying on me through their corporate proxies. And, that is precisely what we would see if congress passes their various cyber security bills - all major corporations would be sharing everything they can learn about every citizen with the government. AND, the government will return the favor, granting corporations access to that same database.

Re:great review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896141)

Indeed! I am pretty sure this was already obvious.

Eric Schmidt has already come out about UAVs (makes me want to put one above his house) but is okay with google street view vans looking into people's windows.
Sure, sure, but it's google, so they "don't do evil" but the average citizen must be saved from themselves.

He has also said people should be so free that they don't have to worry about the privacy concerns. This seems all well and good if we are to believe that the world is purely good, but as we have known for centuries, the "good" people are not the ones attracted to power or trite enough to deal with it's antics.

In short, I can't tell if his is just a head-in-the-clouds retard or an evil dick cheney like figure, cloaked in a nerdy disguise.

Re:great review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896247)

i think he might just be right... the world has already lost its privacy to google

Perhaps. For those who choose to use Google products.

(a.k.a. the hundreds of millions of entitled children who have the audacity to demand every internet service for free, and then bitch about the true costs.)

Re:great review (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43896329)

i think he might just be right... the world has already lost its privacy to google

For which "the world" has most of the responsibility. Google has only what you allow them to have through your need for free stuff.

Julian Assange (-1, Flamebait)

zakeria (1031430) | about a year ago | (#43895449)

is a nut job, sooner you accept it the sooner we can stop reading about him

Wait.. what.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895457)

The summary makes it sound like Hillary Clinton is a Director at Google.

"Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas" - I tried to check I hadn't missed anything major, but this is just a case of bad editing???

Re: Wait.. what.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895503)

It is bad editing. There should have been a comma after Clinton. Restructuring the sentence would be better.

Re: Wait.. what.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895577)

Your comma would have made it worse.

Why give this man air time? (-1, Flamebait)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#43895465)

He's a freak, and a paranoid treacherous loony who is desperately overdue for his date with karma. Why are you giving this hand-flapping, self-aggrandizing tosser airtime?

Cheap click bait?

Re:Why give this man air time? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43895509)

He's a freak, and a paranoid treacherous loony

Treacherous? Nothing Assange has done constitutes treason. You're conflating Assange and Manning, shock amazement.

Re:Why give this man air time? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895559)

Treacherous. It's not a synonym for treasonous.

Re:Why give this man air time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895561)

Correct. He's the treacherous foreign entity that is the subject for Manning's treason. It's two completely different things.

Re:Why give this man air time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896035)

that's right, manning is treasonous and the man who made his treason possible is totally innocent

this is such utter bullshit

wait, i'm being told by an anonymous white house source, who is speaking under condition of anonymity because it would be illegal for him to speak openly, that this isn't bullshit /bullshit

Re:Why give this man air time? (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#43896101)

How has Assange committed treachery, exactly?

He may not be on your side -- but he's not exactly betrayed the side he's on. That's treachery, and he's not committed it.

Re:Why give this man air time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896287)

USA consists of its people, not its government.
What Manning did was to reveal what the government did for the people, that is in no way treason.

Re:Why give this man air time? (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#43895521)

He's a freak, and a paranoid treacherous loony who is desperately overdue for his date with karma. Why are you giving this hand-flapping, self-aggrandizing tosser airtime?

Cheap click bait?

A very elaborate point, i see. Do they pay you to spread hate and discredit at least?

Re:Why give this man air time? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43895787)

Why are you giving this hand-flapping, self-aggrandizing tosser airtime?

Because Batboy retired and John McAfee is on vacation this week.

Predictions (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895489)

A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.”

Wait, that's in the future? Wasn't that the 2008 election?

Not using google anymore. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895499)

I stopped using google and any service provided by them a while back.

All of this was being expected from the start. "google is not evil".

Re:Not using google anymore. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895589)

For what it's worth, Schmidt has virtually disappeared inside Google (I work there). Once Larry took over Eric's influence - never actually high at the best of times - appears to have dropped to somewhere near absolute zero. He rarely appears in internal events anymore and doesn't seem to have any impact on priorities or staffing decisions. He was always something of a caretaker leader even in the years he was CEO ... the real drive and product direction was always coming from back seat driving by L&S.

Assange's article makes him sound like he's been locked up in that embassy for too long, to be honest. Schmidt and Cohen may well have an unhealthily close relationship with the US Government, but as neither of them are in charge any more it makes little difference. The idea that "Google is trying to position itself as America's geopolitical visionary" is silly. I can't imagine anything that must interest Page less than geopolitics.

Re:Not using google anymore. (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about a year ago | (#43895823)

I stopped using slashdot.

D'oh!

Book review (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895517)

In case it's not clear from the article, it's Assange doing a book review.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1480542288

"“The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings"

Difficult to believe Schmidt put his name to that crap, there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers.

"The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself. "

Yeh CALEA and CALEA II coming soon. American.

He pans the books.

Well written review, and insightful ending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896279)

I wasn't at all surprised to see Schmidt put his name to a book full of pro-authoritarian scaremongering, since he's been the leading purveyor of the "Do Evil" meme at Google in recent years. We've become accustomed to his every public pronouncement showing total disdain for people's rights or desire for protection from an ever more totalitarian machine.

Assange wraps up his review with a nice turn of phrase that sums up the whole situation and the book very poignantly:

But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy.

Yes indeed.

Re:Book review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896281)

Difficult to believe Schmidt put his name to that crap, there's no reason to open Air Traffic control to hackers.

Just because Air Traffic control is not connected directly to the internet does not mean its safe from Hackers. There is a movement towards open source software in this industry which opens up a lot of potential issues.

There was an excellent talk on this (and other issues like Flame and Stuxnet) at my local techmeetup by one of the professors. It was very interesting and although it doesn't seem to be a current issue it is something that should be taken very seriously and not disregarded.

Summary of book review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895555)

"I definitely not a fan of Google.
And I most definitely NOT a fan of the US government.

Two of them got together and wrote a book? Whoa! *head starts throbbing*

WHOOOOAAAA!!! *thumbs uncontrollably through book*

This is SUCH...."

Awww, that's cute. (-1, Flamebait)

DeathToBill (601486) | about a year ago | (#43895583)

Julian learnt a new word. "Idiom." Etymologically so close to another word that often appears in sentences with Julian's name.

Re:Awww, that's cute. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895761)

Julian learnt a new word. "Idiom." Etymologically so close to another word that often appears in sentences with Julian's name.

That word... etymologically... it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Prove me wrong and write down the other word you alude

Re:Awww, that's cute. (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about a year ago | (#43895897)

"Idiot." Both derived from the common Greek idios (I'd put it in here in Greek, but /. hasn't discovered Unicode yet) meaning "of or pertaining to one's self." Hence the English terms "Idiom" meaning a figure of speech peculiar to a person or group of people and "Idiot" meaning (originally) someone whose behaviour is very peculiar to themselves, since developed to mean, well, idiot. You see? The have very similar etymology, making them etymologically similar. What did you think it meant?

Any more questions?

Re:Awww, that's cute. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896201)

Hmmm... cherry picking and you may be right... this doesn't make it relevant though (but, again, this is not a strong requirement for a geek, is it now?).

Idiot etimology [wikipedia.org] - idiotes ("person lacking professional skill", "a private citizen", "individual"), from (greek), idios ("private", "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person".[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person")

Idiom's ethimology [wikipedia.org] - An idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", f. Greek: – idioma, "special feature, special phrasing", f. Greek: – idios, "one’s own") is a combination of words that has a figurative meaning, due to its common usage.

After all, even kimono is rooted from greek [quotefully.com]

Which Doctors? (4, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43895601)

As opposed to David Tennent , Matt Smith, and now John Hurt who are Who Doctors...

Re:Which Doctors? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895639)

John Hurt? When, doctor?

Not The Doctor! Not the Doctor! (4, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#43895859)

He specifically said John Hurt NOT Doctor!

Jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895609)

They're both Jews. Jews control all of the major internet services companies, all of the media, and the government.

Re:Jews (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895679)

They're both Jews. Jews control all of the major internet services companies, all of the media, and the government.

Which-government?

Re:Jews (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896347)

All of the government. Except, presumably, the Arab ones. And even then, you can't be absolutely sure. It could all be just a conspiracy concocted to garner sympathy for them.

Or you know, this could be all tin foil hat stupidity and antisemitism.

Wait (0, Troll)

cfulton (543949) | about a year ago | (#43895673)

Who cares what Julian Assange Says again? He may have had a hand in some events that I am glad took place, but some good leaks and a little rape does not make one an expert on anything.

Re:Wait (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year ago | (#43896361)

And none of what you said has anything to do with his argument. Why not comment on the point and not the person. Or do you prefer to ride Google's dick....

This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43895799)

The world has been screaming "technocratic imperialism" ever since ICANN and IANA were established. Every time a US government alphabet agency shows up in the news with a +"internet" search it's involved in messing with foreign powers' policies, intercepting Internet traffic, or forcefully arguing why the US's legal jurisdiction is global now thanks to the reach of ICANN/IANA. Indirectly, social media developed in the US is currently causing major turmoil for governments across the globe. Of course, this can all be politely attributed to people in countries with smaller R&D budgets with technology lagging behind that of the US.

Ever get the sinking feeling that the reason internet access in the US is lagging behind the rest of the world for very, very specific intelligence-related reasons? I think it's tinfoil hat time.

Re:This is news? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#43896395)

Internet access is lagging in the US? What US do you live in?

Granted, access may be missing in rural areas, and it may be slower than other countries, but as far as I can tell, it's perfectly sufficient for anything that a three letter agency would care about. No need for tin foil hats, that's just normal greed, incompetence, and lack of vision.

let's face it, (2)

houbou (1097327) | about a year ago | (#43895835)

we can't be surprised when people in power want to attract other people in power. Sadly, it is how it goes, whether it is for the greater good or not.

That's an insult to witch doctors! (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#43895931)

My friend the Google search, it taught me what to say
My friend the Google search, it taught me what to do
It knew what I would buy when said what I liked, by typing:

Ooh, ee, ooh ah ah
Ting tang walla-walla bing bang
Ooh, ee, ooh ah ah
Ting tang walla-walla bing bang

NEWS FLASH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896263)

Julian Assange posts something in a desperate attempt to get Julian Assange back in the public eye.

Re:NEWS FLASH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43896341)

If you read the reviewed book, you'll discover that it mentions Assange quite significantly.

Re:NEWS FLASH (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a year ago | (#43896369)

and trolls post blather in order to protect Google....

Advice to Assange (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43896469)

Don't upset a witch doctor.

...."Ribbit"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>