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!
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.
Re:Rapists! (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 believe he is above the law) His organization should be more transparent.
We also know that Assange's former partner accused Assange of threating to kill him once, and said Assange is purely financially motivated.
We know that when Assange released a bunch of civilian volunteer names unredacted, some of them received death threats. Amnesty International called out Assange for being irresponsible, to which Assange responded that if people wanted civilian volunteer names redacted in the future, they need to give him $200,000.
Amnesty International calls out human rights violation and government corruption as a transparent charity that operates within the law. They protect people rather than putting them in danger.
Honestly, I'm not sure how people can look at this track record and honestly consider him a hero or saint.
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.
Re:Rapists! (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
"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: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:Rapists! (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: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: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: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:Rapists! (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!"). That _is_ foolish logic. Nobody has ever claimed it, just like nobody has ever claimed what you quoted about Assange.
If you support the actual ideals of transparency and accountability, then it should apply to Assange as well.
Assange isn't a democratic government that is required to follow the law as outlined in the constitution. Or do you think every journalist who publishes a story based on leaked sources should disclose the name, address, and transcripts of communication with every one of those sources?
I can believe that Wikileaks ought to be more transparent without having to being bound by some simplistic notion of all-or-nothing disclosure.
We also know that Assange's former partner accused Assange of threating to kill him once, and said Assange is purely financially motivated.
And we trust the veracity his former partner's statements... why?
How many significant leaks has Openleaks released again?
some of them received death threats.
Citation, please. Preferably with the same amount of detail as Amnesty outlined the inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning in its letter to Defense Secretary Gates.
Amnesty International calls out human rights violation and government corruption as a transparent charity that operates within the law. They protect people rather than putting them in danger.
Yes, it is a completely different type of organization whose main focus isn't on leaking documents from confidential sources who could receive prolonged inhumane treatment if their identity is revealed, but rather reporting on and demanding access to such sources when they are detained for record amounts of time and treated inhumanely. One might say that ideally these two types of organizations work in tandem to fight against the same general injustices. In the real world organizations don't agree 100% on every single issue.
Honestly, I'm not sure how people can look at this track record and honestly consider him a hero or saint.
Does every fucking musicologist who writes a paper on Gesualdo need to start with a statement of moral outrage about murder? I could understand your point if there were as much silence over the accusations against Assange as there was over Manning's inhumane treatment. But instead there is a _years_ long effort to extradite him to Sweden for questioning over the rape accusation, an accusation that is rightly repeated without fail in every news account of the situation I've seen or read.
If you cannot see how people can show support for some actions of an individual without having to take complete moral responsibility for all their actions then you must lead a very narrow and ineffectual life.