Secret Chat Between Julian Assange and Eric Schmidt Published By WikiLeaks 212
New submitter milkasing writes "The Verge reports, 'Google chairman Eric Schmidt and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange secretly met in 2011 and held a lengthy interview, according to a transcript published on the whistleblowing site. The leak is surprisingly timely — Schmidt was apparently conducting research with Jared Cohen for the pair's book The New Digital Age, which is set to be released on Tuesday. Assange was under house arrest in England at the time the five-hour conversation took place. The conversation is a fascinating look into the minds of the two men, both of whom have had immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology over recent years."
fascinating look (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" - Eric Schmidt
What a great guy!
Re:fascinating look (Score:4, Insightful)
I write bad poetry/ am gay but not out/ have cancer. I can think of many different things that people don't necessarily want to tell the world but aren't amoral acts. "I'm ashamed of X because X is questionably moral" and "I don't want to announce X because I'm embarrassed" are not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't his meaning more "you shouldn't be doing it on the internet?".
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't his meaning more "you shouldn't be doing it on the internet?".
If so, we can agree that you shouldn't e.g. store pictures on a computer that is connected to the internet let alone upload it somewhere. However, this has little to do with the issue. People can upload photos of you without your consent, violating your privacy (the right to be left alone).
Re: (Score:2)
Would someone be violating your privacy if they just took the pictures and kept them for themself, or mailed them to friends? I don't even see the need to bring the internet into the conversation except as a medium for transfer, storage, and publicity. If there are problem with privacy, deal with them using rights and laws that already exist. Don't blame the tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Would someone be violating your privacy if they just took the pictures and kept them for themself, or mailed them to friends?
Depends. Am I the subject of the photos? Or am I just wandering by in the background? What are they doing with the photos? Why did they send the photos to their friends? Did it have anything to do with me, or am I again just incidentally in the frame?
If there are problem with privacy, deal with them using rights and laws that already exist. Don't blame the tool.
The problem isn't the
Re: (Score:3)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" - Eric Schmidt
So I guess he wishes that subversive who published Common Sense [wikipedia.org] should have been caught right away before leading to the overthrow of that government occupation of the new world?
Re:fascinating look (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, didn't you pick up ANY context of what he was saying?
Here we go:
"People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?"
"I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that, that information could be made available to the authorities."
You should really take that as a not-too-subtle reminder that the cops are looking over his shoulder and he's required by law to turn all your info over to the cops.
If all your little brain is capable of retaining is the bold section, then big issues like Internet privacy might not be for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, it ignores the obvious alternate solution: Destroy all the witnesses. That's why we should be pouring all our military assets into NASA. You think the aliens are going to let us take to the stars and tell all their friends about how they got drunk, buzzed Earth for grins, and crashed in Area 51?! They probably shouldn't have been doing it, but all the direct evidence of their involvement has been destroyed -- That is the lesson to learn.
Re:fascinating look (Score:5, Informative)
It's been something like three years since Schmidt said that, and people are still quoting it out of context (facepalm). The comment was in reference to activities performed using Google's services, and was qualified with "the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
People need to realize that spreading knee-jerk misconceptions like this is damaging to Internet activism. You aren't helping the privacy cause by building up straw men instead of attacking the actual problematic stuff. The members of congress who support this legislation and the corporations backing them must be loving that so many people are ignoring them to instead focus on telling everyone how bad Schmidt and Google are.
Re:fascinating look (Score:4, Insightful)
Your mother would have given you exactly the same advice.
Exactly, because no mother has ever been know to give anyone a bad advice.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not saying it's okay to violate people's privacy because only bad guys need it.
If you look at his quote in context, as a reply to people expressing concerns about privacy violations, it is pretty clear that he was indeed dismissing their concerns and saying that only bad guys need it.
I think he regrets making this statement, and I don't know if it currently represents his personal views, but it is pretty clear what he meant at the time.
In what way is this a 'leak'? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a publication. Assange reserved the right to view/review/approve the transcript and presumably is doing this for the benefit of both sides. It benefits Assange that he gets to publish the precise transcript to rebut any criticism that they talked about anything else. Schmidt gains the same protection (ZOMG Google Chief Talks To Known Criminal About... What?) and also some pre-launch publicity. This interview is presumably not the underpinning of his entire book, nor featured in entirety as an excerpt, so it's not a leak of the content of the book either.
Fasciniating indeed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascinating to know Julian Assange...his technical know how and philosophical underpinnings make him one of the foremost thinkers of our world. The way Assange connects geo-political issues, the ideas behind publishing, instant publishing to the basic design of Wikileaks is brilliant. (We have to put aside his issues in Sweden.)
Erich Schmidt comes across as a better version of Steve Ballmer. It would have been interesting if Larry Page / Sergey Brin had a conversation with Assange...they would be more interesting and the conversation would not be completely one sided.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Schmidt was the perfect type of person to talk to him. Schmidt is on the edge of being technical, because he runs technology companies, but not so technical that he's fixated on just the technical aspects. And so this allows Assange to both explain the technical details in layman's terms, and to talk about non-technical things, which is his philosophy and his insights into the way the world works. Those stories that he drops here and there are great food for thought too.
Re: (Score:2)
Schmidt is on the edge of being technical, because he runs technology companies
On the edge? He has a BS in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and an MS and a PhD in Computer Engineering (EECS) from Berkeley. He also wrote non-trivial amounts of code for several years, including being a coauthor of lex (if you don't know what lex is, turn in your geek card).
He's been primarily a businessman for quite a while now, but he didn't learn what he knows about technology by running technology companies.
Re:Fascinating indeed... (Score:2)
I guess Schmidt should turn in his geek card, and as a champion supporter you should also join.
Re: (Score:2)
TOR and the idea behind TOR - probably the most important invention in internet and communication methodologies
The most important invention in Internet and communication methodologies? You've got to be kidding. It's neither new (I ran a Mixmaster anonymous remailer for years; same concept, just a higher level in the stack), nor particularly influential.
Re: (Score:2)
Completed the first half of TFA. It is indeed fascinating.
Fascinating to know Julian Assange...his technical know how and philosophical underpinnings make him one of the foremost thinkers of our world. The way Assange connects geo-political issues, the ideas behind publishing, instant publishing to the basic design of Wikileaks is brilliant. (We have to put aside his issues in Sweden.)
Erich Schmidt comes across as a better version of Steve Ballmer. It would have been interesting if Larry Page / Sergey Brin had a conversation with Assange...they would be more interesting and the conversation would not be completely one sided.
His philosophical views are flawed. He bases his assumptions on assumptions. What has changed since the Cablegate leak? The answer is nothing. If anything they governments have cracked down harder. What good is the media if the media doesn't have any police powers or powers to arrest? So we find out that Silvio Berlusconi is accepting underage prostitution but what exactly was done about it? Governments abuse innocent people all the time and nothing is done about it because there is no police force with the
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm, those three groups are still from different fields; Politics, business, and technology. All three are forced to dable in each other's territory, but while Page and Brin would have more to say on the tech side, they wouldn't necessarily have anything more to say on politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm, those three groups are still from different fields; Politics, business, and technology. All three are forced to dable in each other's territory, but while Page and Brin would have more to say on the tech side, they wouldn't necessarily have anything more to say on politics.
I disagree. They support the Open agenda. That is all about politics, because being Open is a deeply philosophical and political decision.
Julian Assange... Bitcoin fanatic :) (Score:2)
It seems that Julian Assange is a hardcore Bitcoin fanboy... he spent about a third of his interview talking about it.
That said, if he took his own advice and invested heavily in Bitcoin back in 2011 when they were less than a $1 each, he'd be a wealthy guy right now.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that Julian Assange is a hardcore Bitcoin fanboy... he spent about a third of his interview talking about it.
That said, if he took his own advice and invested heavily in Bitcoin back in 2011 when they were less than a $1 each, he'd be a wealthy guy right now.
Yes, you are very correct, at least as of May 13th 2012.
...can estimate with our methodology that WikiLeaks owns at least 83 addresses, that it was involved in at least 1088 transactions, and that it had an accumulated income in all these addresses of 2605.25 BTC's.
Quantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph [iacr.org] page 5
--
--
Nothing is wrong with Bitcoin or his ideals (Score:2)
What went wrong with Julian Assange is his implementation and his naive conceptualizations.
The ideals are right, we do need a way to prevent human rights abuses, to save lives, to fight corruption. I just don't think Wikileaks is properly set up to do that.
I don't think the media or journalists can do that. I think giving that information to the general public who is completely powerless and can do nothing to stop it doesn't really change a damn thing but it makes governments paranoid and makes them crack d
Interruptions (Score:2)
The way he insensately interrupts other people is beyond belief.
Re: (Score:2)
To some degree, I read that as a product of this being a transcript of a conversation. It's tough to capture a conversational setting in writing (even good written dialogue rarely makes for realistic spoken conversation). Also, Schmidt actively pursued setting this meeting up to talk with Assange directly, and based on a lot of the informal banter during the conversation, it definitely seemed like no one minded about being interrupted.
I was especially amused when Lisa Shields spilled water on her laptop, an
The flaws with Wikileaks and Julian's philosophy (Score:2)
He assumes that journalism and the media can solve problems. This is a flaw because just revealing problems doesn't solve it and sometimes revealing problems causes only more problems.
He assumes everyone can do something about the problems once they are revealed when in actuality only certain people can do anything about these sorts of problems.
He assumes that information should be used to create just behavior but just behavior is subjective, and we cannot always agree on that.
So perhaps he has the right in
Immeasurable impact (Score:2)
Immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology over recent years
I suppose you could say that - I certainly haven't been able to measure the impact mr Assange has had on technology. He was in the news, but so were the "megastars" from Big Brothel. And like them, he has now faded away into obscurity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he created Wikileaks and was featured in many news headlines by fleeing Sweden.
Oh wait, that's not technology is it... Paris Hilton can also claim the same thing. Okay the summary is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't he one of the inventors or early players in deniable encryption, like what can TrueCrypt use?
part bullshit (Score:2)
I'll grant you that Assange thinks he's reinventing the wheel and high off his own 'innovation' fumes...but that doesn't justify your flame/troll tone...
It's obvious Assange overestimates himself. He talks about Wikileaks like it is the new internet and Neo from the Matrix.
From a technical perspective, innovation rhetoric aside, Assange is a journalist. Nothing more nothing less. He distributes information to a general audience chosen to be of particular interest.
Assange himself is probably best described a
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pity the Bank of America stuff was all deleted.
Re: (Score:2)
Innocent until proven guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rapists! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And he may be a coward, but being courageous and being stupid are often one and the same. No collection of international lawyers would likely be able to defend him in the same place where piratebay trial happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Interpol said to the Swedish Polisen "Ok, the US wants him, find something"
The Polisen found a broad [guardian.co.uk] with an axe to grind on Assange. End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rapists! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And how can they prove his guilt if he's hiding out like a common criminal?
Damn straight! He needs to be present to be bound, rocks attached, and thrown in a river to see if he's guilty and floats!
I'm sure Giles Corey wished he had a place to hide instead of having his innocence proven-to-death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey).
Re: (Score:2)
Go read the extradition rulings by the various British judges - the answer most questions, including the fabled "they can interview Assange in the UK" one much vaunted here on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm not n my iPad later I will post you the direct link - the reason the extradition rulings have everything to do with the points in question, because basically every argument that is raised here on Slashdot was also used by Assanges lawyers and the judges responded to every single one of them detailing why they were not valid or did not present a reason to dismiss the extradition warrant.
The fact that he is a "guest" of Ecuador has no bearing on this at all - he can't leave the embassy without being
Re: (Score:2)
You can't post a direct link from an iPad?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Assange has fled from the law enforcement over rape accusations. Like it or not, that is a factual statement. I think people support him out of blind partisanship ("he called out the US government, so I have to be on his side for life regardless of anything else!") which is foolish.
If you support the actual ideals of transparency and accountability, then it should apply to Assange as well. He shouldn't flee law enforcement over rape accusations. (Even though it isn't rape by American standards, he seems to
Re:Rapists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your second "accusations" is basically hearsay, and your third accusation is ridiculous and completely false.
Governments feel entitled to secrecy. They are not, and it is past time for them to be accountable for their acts. Assange is not a hero or a saint, just a man who likely did both good and bad things throughout his life as all men, but one of those things happened to be something very useful for mankind.
Re:Rapists! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a motive for hearsay be unusable in court. That is because it means absolutely nothing. It is irrelevant.
The third accusation isn't bullshit. It was widely reported.
It was reported that the data leaked had the names. Nowhere there it is said that he asked for money to take the names of it, as you falsely accuse him of. He only asked help from the Amnesty to edit the names.
His partner outlined how the entire purpose of Wikileaks was to funnel money to Assange
Again hearsay. You seem to like it a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you have to be a hero-worshipper of Assange to believe that there's a difference between facing criminal charges in Sweden, and being rendered off to Gitmo to face a US kangaroo court. Personally, I don't like Assange, I think his strategy re: wikileaks has been misguided and harmful, and he handled the revelation of the US cables badly. I have no opinion on his guilt or innocence with regard to the rape accusations, and under normal circumstances I'd agree that he should have to appear and an
Re: (Score:2)
But Assange insists the only reason he can't defend himself against the rape accusation is that Sweden would immediately send him off to the US. There are three problems with that statement.
1. The US hasn't charged him with a crime or filed an extradition request for him.
2. Before the rape accusation, he felt Sweden was a safe location. Now magically it isn't.
3. Sweden doesn't have a history of extraditing people to the US.
Re: (Score:3)
That wasn't done with the last person "rendered" out of Sweden to the USA either. That should also answer your history question.
Re:Rapists! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Law" is not an objective measure of morality. If it were incorruptable, that may be arguable. But considering the nature of the charges, how the case was prosecuted, and the fact that one of his two accusers was kicked out of Cuba for being a CIA asset, the likelihood of his prosecution representing actual justice is very small. The government of Ecuador seems to concur.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
His accuser hates Castro? That must mean she works for the CIA!
Everyone who opposes Castro definitively works for the CIA! She worked with a group, who is connected to one member who hates Castro, and thusly was backed by the CIA! It's all proof!
Obama had fundraiser meetings with Bill Ayer, which clearly proves that Obama is secretly working for a terrorist organization!
Drawing a lose connection between two lines to support confirmation bias is the tool of a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't represent reality
Re: (Score:3)
"His accuser hates Castro? That must mean she works for the CIA!
Everyone who opposes Castro definitively works for the CIA! She worked with a group, who is connected to one member who hates Castro, and thusly was backed by the CIA! It's all proof!"
Um, no. Read his post again. This wasn't some tenuous link, this was the government of Cuba kicking her out as they determined her to be a CIA asset. Millions of holiday makers from the West go to Cuba as a holiday destination each year (outside the US it has a ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "rape" he is being accused of is a radical feminist definition. He is a male being prosecuted by a society where males are subject to discrimination. Not fair.
He is in a similar situation to a black man accused of rape in Alabama during the 1920s.
Re: (Score:2)
The term rape is probably not applicable, but that's the problem with redefining terms.
However, the principle that he is calling for total transparency and accountability of others, while acting like a hypocrite still applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm not sure how people can look at this track record and honestly consider him a hero or saint.
Because people are tribal, and as Assange said early on in the transcript (I'm only halfway through it), people today are not any more intellectually evolved than people from several thousand years ago.
It also means that people still seek perfection (that pesky thing that gave birth to modern religions), and try to attribute it to others that they admire.
Assange is brilliant. He's also human, just like everyone else.
Amnesty International calls out human rights violation and government corruption as a transparent charity that operates within the law.
Within the law? Within what law? Within who's laws? To remain lawful, you have to trust the
Re: (Score:3)
Assange has fled from the law enforcement over trumped up, politically motivated rape accusations. Like it or not, that is a factual statement.
Provide a guarantee that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the US, and Assange would be in Sweden tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange has fled from the law enforcement over trumped up, politically motivated rape accusations. Like it or not, that is a factual statement.
Provide a guarantee that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the US, and Assange would be in Sweden tomorrow.
Journalists have limited power. That is my argument. Police on the other hand seem to have nearly unlimited power.
The solution isn't the fourth estate or revealing the crimes to the public who can't do anything about it and who if they try may get labeled rapists or sex offenders themselves. The solution is to come up with a legal plan of action to create an international law enforcement organization and make that organization the Wikileaks 2.0. When you can make arrests then people are going to be more lik
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Assange has fled from the law enforcement over rape accusations. Like it or not, that is a factual statement.
There is an ongoing grand jury investigation of Wikileaks by an administration that has relied on the Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers more than all the previous uses of the act combined, from a country two recent independent reports say has engaged in systematic torture of detainees. Like it or not, those are also factual statements.
I think people support him out of blind partisanship ("he called out the US government, so I have to be on his side for life regardless of anything else!") which is foolish.
Strawman. I think people support Gesualdo da Venosa out of blind appreciation of chromaticism ("he used such colorful harmonies, so I have to support wife murdering!
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus christ ... if the US gave half as much about Assange as you loonies think, we would have just fucking shot him and made it look like some random fanboy such as yourself did it. There are clearly enough loonies out there to make it plausible.
HE's not a whistleblower, he's a jackass who prays on the morality of others to gain power and influence over others. He is, in fact, EXACTLY like the governments you think he's 'outting'. You're just to blinded by your love for the ideals to see the reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assume the police are correct, what now? (Score:3)
Wikileaks wants to release information to the media under the false assumption that there are some good guy heroes somewhere who can do something about it.
The problem is there aren't any organizations who can do anything about it. First in order to build such an organization you need to go to the UN and find a way to get it funded. When you do that the bad people in the US, China, Russia and other nations will join forces to prevent you from being able to fund your International enforcement organization.
Wit
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent, if there's any other rapists hiding from the law I hope Slashdot lets us know when he releases promotional material on his website.
I heard there was one in Lincoln Park.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Google Translate was not "new", in the sense that others had multi-language translation sites long before them (Prompt for example). But Google DID put new technology behind their translator, and they should get credit for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I know there are people on Slashdot who don't like me that's just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, damn auto-correct. If you don't like having words put in your mouth, use spell-check instead."
I would tend to agree, but my system auto-correct pops up at the damnedest times, and I don't always notice. And I can't just turn it off for one thing and not another... it's system-wide.
I could just turn it off entirely, but it is useful now and then.
Re: (Score:3)
By that logic, nothing is ever impressive.
Everything around you was built on the shoulders of giants.
Hell, the entire solar system is itself born of Supernova ... how the hell do you plan to top that?
Google doing it 'better' is what they get credit for and thats the impressive part. They turned silly little things no one had heard of before into industry changing powerhouses.
If you don't think Google changed anything, ask anyone in advertising for the last 20 years. The last 10 years have been one hell of
Re: (Score:2)
"By that logic, nothing is ever impressive."
Nonsense. Take a look at patent regulations. 2 major rules are: (A) it must not be obvious to someone "knowledgeable of the industry", and (B) it cannot be just putting existing inventions together. It must be something unique; more than just the melding of previously known things (e.g., my example of can opener + pliers).
Google made a search engine based on new measurement ideas. That was an invention with a big impact. They also put similar technology behind their translator. A nice improvement, but ag
Re: (Score:2)
Google didn't make Android, they bought a company who did.
Re: (Score:2)
"Immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology". Not "inventions".
As a "good guy", Google's contribution to any part of many peoples lifestyles with regard to the technology used is indisputable. (Google search > competition, Android market share > competition, Chrome performance and stability > competition, NaCL, Play store, etc etc. They're not perfect, but they are certainly usable and viable, and often better, alternatives to their competitors.)
As a "bad guy", Google's stereotypical cred
Re: (Score:2)
"'Immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology'. Not 'inventions'."
But if that is the criterion, you could say the Creationist Museum has had an "immeasurable impact on technology".
Google Android and Google Chrome (Score:2)
Both are excellent. Google drive is excellent too.
Re: (Score:2)
Android is your example of new technology? It's Linux with a GUI designed for small screens.
Their search technology was fairly innovative, as was the stuff they did with translate.
Re:I wondered (Score:5, Insightful)
When Lee Iacocca built Chrysler into a powerhouse, he said he didn't know anything about how to build a car.
You may be shocked to discover that CEOs specialize in running companies. They don't have to be expert engineers. And given Schmidt's previous statements (that people with nothing to hide shouldn't be so worried about privacy) I can understand why he'd never have an interest in TOR.
false equivalence altert (Score:2)
They **do** have to have a working knowledge of the product of the company.
You're giving Eric Schmidt a pass...he doesn't deserve it. He should have a grasp of these concepts enough to make decisions about resource allocation. That means a systemic-level understanding, not all details.
We need to demand CEO's have core competency...weird as it is to say that, it's true. "management" is only part of the picture of leading a company.
Re: (Score:2)
First, google isn't in the anonymizing-proxy business.
Second, this is for an interview. In order to get the subject to explain things, it's often a good move to play yourself down, give a terse summary, and let the subject elaborate on things.
Third, depending on what he meant by "the recipient needs to be replicated," i'd say he gets the gist of the tor network. There are multiple recipients in the routing chain. "Replicated'' isn't the best word to use, but it's not completely wrong.
Agreed (Score:2)
Despite the comments who pick on the Iacocca example (not familiar with that) Schmidt is remarkably technical for a CEO (former Sun CTO with a T) which is really rare. TOR was not something that would be interesting to him, they are doing big data, search mobile and many other things that he needs to understand. TOR would be just general knowledge for a guy who does more than most of us do every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Schmidt is remarkably technical for a CEO (former Sun CTO with a T) which is really rare.
Yes [compilertools.net], he is [mit.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
When Lee Iacocca built Chrysler into a powerhouse, he said he didn't know anything about how to build a car.
I thought Walter Chrysler built Chrysler into a powerhouse.
Re:I wondered (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Eric Schmidt just doesn't get anonymity or privacy as applied to individuals (except when it applies to himself — then he's an expert lobbyist [slashdot.org]).
Re: (Score:3)
He was their CEO, not a programmer or engineer. His job was to secure funding, set goals and directions, manage his fellow executives, and shield his underlings who are programmers and engineers from boardroom politics.
That having been said, he should know on a high level some of the key issues pertinent to his company, including and especially matters of privacy.
decisions (Score:3)
You are giving the CEO position a pass on their core responsibility. He has to make decisions...among competing groups within Google. Different divisions **all want more** and he has to allocate that scarcity.
If he does not have the basic competency to think critically about what his advisors tell him, he's a figurehead idiot. He will be at the whims of whoever holds his attention more not who needs the resources.
Just because many CEO's operate like this doesn't mean we should accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wondered (Score:4, Insightful)
...how long it would take before Eric Schmidt said something that made me facepalm. Accidentally referring to TOR as "Thor" in the very first topic he brought up was bad, but not bad enough. Admitting right after that that he doesn't really understand what it is or how it works? In 2011? Just two months after stepping down as the CEO of Google? Facepalm.
The other simple explanation is that Eric, as an investigator, wants Assange to share as much information as possible. The best way to do that is to make your audience feel knowledgeable, as if he was an authority on the topic at hand. People do this all the time--not just investigators, but anyone who wants to have their audience participate in the fullest. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is an excellent read and may give you a different perspective as to why Eric behaved the way he did during the interview. It is very possible he does not know much about TOR, etc. Or, it may very well be the case that he is deferring authority to the person he wants to have speak freely in the interview.
Re: (Score:2)
Accidentally referring to TOR as "Thor"
Thor, the god, is spelled Tor in Nordic languages, so this only proves that Eric Schmidt is well educated and knows this.
Re: (Score:2)
...how long it would take before Eric Schmidt said something that made me facepalm. Accidentally referring to TOR as "Thor" in the very first topic he brought up was bad, but not bad enough. Admitting right after that that he doesn't really understand what it is or how it works? In 2011? Just two months after stepping down as the CEO of Google? Facepalm.
Eric is primarily a business man and political insider. But as a businessman he's smart enough to meet with Julian Assange so give him credit for that.
Re:Wouldn't have gotten caught if he'd used HOST f (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Used it and shown how it can be used.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't really read anything into Schmidt's lack of knowledge of bitcoin; they really didn't take off until roughly the same time as this interview.
Regarding his actual technical prowess, keep in mind he's essentially been a manager in some fashion for 30 years, albeit for very technical companies. As to whether or not he's qualified to run Google, I'd probably bring that up with Brin and Page, and then check out the success of the company over the last 12 years.
"I didn't read..." (Score:2)
You should have read more. First, bitcoin's workings were just one of a litany of things that Assange elucidated that got Schmidt all fanboi
Second. You didn't read the basics of Bitcoin that's for sure:
"In 2009, the bitcoin network came into existence with the release of the first open source bitcoin client and the issuance of the first bitcoins.[9][22][23][24]
2010
The initial prices for bitcoins were set by individuals on the bitcointalk forums. The most significant transaction involved a 10,000 BTC pizza.[
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, he's got an actual business to run in the real world. Playing with a toy fantasy isn't probably on his high priority list.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's good for him then that he's a business suit rather than an engineer. Do you know anything about Google?
false dichotomy (Score:2)
See, this is what gets my hackles up!
Those are not the only two options. You can have core competency and still be a manager. Also, it'd be nice if a good number of management came up from production...
Used to be in America, in high level business you could expect your manager knew the basics of the entire system, and had probably done your job at some point.