Skip to main content

"Facebook, in particular, is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented, um, here we have the world's most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, their relatives. . .all sitting within the United States.   All accessible to U.S. intelligence.

Facebook, Google, Yahoo. . . all these major U.S. organizations have built in interfaces for U.S. intelligence.  Its not a matter of serving a subpoena.  They have an interface that they have developed for U.S. intelligence to use."

Julian Assange, Interview with Russia Times May 1, 2011.

link found here:  

http://www.youtube.com/...

see the historic video here:

kind of makes you realize why Zuckerberg became so nervous when asked about the "turning point" in Facebook's privacy history.

http://www.youtube.com/...

9:00 AM PT: Here is the image of the redesigned 2010 Facebook mission statement that was printed on the inside of Zuckerberg's hoodie.  It was recreated from the pictures of the hoodied graphic since the graphic had not been made public until it's unveiling. -- notice that the arrows go both ways. . .


9:16 AM PT: I have not seen this video before, it is absolutely stunning!!! I strongly recommend that you watch this video.   It is clear that the only possible way that this information is accessible under the fourth amendment is that all data including phone tracing and "checking in" location information is now no longer considered private information.

Originally posted to New Minas on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 08:19 AM PDT.

Also republished by The First and The Fourth.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  olde.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emelyn, duhban, Don midwest, MartyM

    And seriously.. Facebook is a spying machine?  Only because morons don't properly set their privacy settings.

  •  Could you please source the second video ? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Minas, Don midwest, Mr Robert

    I think dailykos should make it mandatory to source the videos commentators are displaying. Date, Place, Interviewer, Owner of the Material, Producer ... that sort of thing.

  •  How is it spying if people put it there willingly? (15+ / 0-)

    Seriously, I use Facebook. We talk about food, dogs, movies (did you like it? Should I go see it?) I don't upload photos of humans.

    It makes me nervous that friends upload photos of their kids who won't be able to revoke those permissions when they get old enough to understand.

    But Facebook is what you make of it. And Facebook tells you that it stores all that stuff on its servers.

    Go ahead, Facebook. Store my great photo of my perfect sourdough bread that I use as my avatar. I'm sure NSA is scanning all its databases trying to use facial recognition software trying to match that: "She's pasty white with has a doughy complexion. Terrible skin. Round head. No neck nor hair.  Match it."

    © grover


    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

    by grover on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 08:37:52 AM PDT

    •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      New Minas, glitterscale, blueoasis
      Teenager arrested at concert
      ...
      The boy, who attended the gig with two mates, had only been inside the venue for 10 minutes when security guards approached him.
      ...
      My question is, how did security manage to find the kid in the crowd?

      'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

      by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 08:58:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  1. Twitter isn't Facebook. (7+ / 0-)

        (Just so we're clear).

        He specified his location, second of all.
        His tweet had the location in the hashtag, third of all, which I'm sure security were monitoring. I can follow the same twitter feed.

        His smart phone has GPS. All of ours do. If you have an Apple phone, you can enable "find my iPhone" and see where your phone is, within a room or two of your house.

        Security probably asked LEOs for help in that regard.

        Or, just as likely, he bought a ticket in his name, and his twitter account has a photo with his mug. Two plus two, "sir, please come with us..."

        This happened in Melbourne, Australia. I don't know how they do things down there. I'm not going to generalize from Melbourne to Madison, nor visa versa.

        The kid is an idiot.

        I don't know what this has to do with Facebook, unless you're going to make bomb threats on your FB status. I trust you're smarter than that?

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:17:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "The kid is an idiot" (4+ / 0-)

          The kid is 16. A lot of kids do stupid things at 16 but it doesn't make them idiots. It's the heavy-handed approach of LE that is becoming idiotic.

          You don't even know this kid yet you feel comfortable calling him names. Read the linked article and comprehend the context of the offending tweet and then maybe you'll rethink who the idiots are.

          •  I read it jayden. (2+ / 0-)

            You don't think the tweet was pretty stupid?

            He wasn't simply shouting it out to the crowd that was there. He tweeted it out to the world that also wasn't there listening to Pink's music.

            The reaction of security was measured, I thought. He's lucky the concert wasn't in New York City.

            Kids do stupid things. But stupid things have audiences. Kids need parents (or other wise adults)  to explain that tweets especially resound far beyond where the child stands at the moment. (Actually now that Facebook has rolled out hashtags, it can be virtually as dangerous too)

            Fine, the kid may not be an idiot. But it was an incredibly stupid decision.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:08:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Well it wasn't with help from the NSA n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        New Minas

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:18:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  police work? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radiowalla, New Minas, Aquarius40

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:26:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Grover I got off of FB a long time ago when (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, Laurence Lewis

      I watched our government via trolling shut down lawful protest organizing online.

      I don't post pictures of people anywhere, but guess what. Every idget with cell phone is chomping at the bit to tag you or me or those cute kids and post their shit all over the place.

      I can control me, but I cannot control everyone else. I even have to have arguments with IDGETs with college degrees over this. They be college-edumacated you know and know way more than some dumb hick momma like me, so eff me and put pictures of my kids up.

      Well?

      Then What?

      I am just some stupid hick with a tin foil hat--and they be experts in all things social networking, besides, it's for my own good and my kid's own good don't ya know.

      •  with cell phone cameras (5+ / 0-)

        everyone is photographing everyone else all the time. panopticon. but anyone who puts any personal info on facebook or any other type of "cloud" is forfeiting personal privacy on that personal info. and it's not just the nsa- anything can be hacked.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:15:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh and uh--NOW! If you don't have a social network (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, Don midwest

        profile--the powers that be, along with their mouthpiece we used to call the free press, has pathologized that. It's a sign! There must be something wrong with you, seriously, medically, wrong, if you don't have a social network presence.

      •  I know. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreenMother, Caipirinha

        I once had a discussion with a photographer here on dailykos about posting photos of minors at Occupy rallies.

        I asked if he got model's releases? Nope. Don't need them.

        Yes, but they're kids, and sometimes, their familes are just standing and watching from a distance. They don't realize they are being made part of "news."

        Nope, don't need them.

        Sigh.

        And I know exactly what you're saying too. I totally get it. There is no respect for other people's privacy. Tagging is the worst idea ever.

        Facial recognition software is so good, my editing software uses it to manage photos. I scanned an old photo of me when I was 18 months old. It dropped that photo into the file with all my other photos. It didn't even ask to confirm if it were me. That's decades ago. It recognized toddler me. The next photo it has of me, I'm about 30.

        Kids today don't stand a chance.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:24:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why should I beleive ANYTHING Assange has to say? (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

    John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

    by Walt starr on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 08:39:10 AM PDT

      •  IMO, the government is more believable (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        New Minas, Gary Norton

        than Assange, certainly.

        John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

        by Walt starr on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 08:43:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't find either particularly convincing. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          New Minas

          I think it's not in Facebook et al's financial interests to give the US government that sort of access (Why not?  They depend on users trusting them, and have large international operations).

          There's no financial benefit to them for providing government access.  I rather doubt the government would pay them anything for such access, and even if it did, keeping and growing their user base so they can be advertised to is the primary way these companies make money.  They wouldn't want to do anything put that at risk.

          Of course, it's still possible some court order could force such a thing.

        •  Would you be so kind to elaborate as to what (7+ / 0-)

          informs your opinion?  I'll entertain the possibility that I MAY be wrong if you will offer, say 2 or 3, fact-checkable reasons why Assange should not be trusted vs. the verifiable myriad examples of the government's UN-trustworthiness.  Our government is founded, in its very Constitution, on the assumption that ALL governments are inherently UN-trustworthy.  To be an informed citizen is to know that with every fiber of your being.

          Ask any 76 year-old fart like myself, who remembers FDR's final election, all the way til now, and they will tell you about so much lying government shit that has gone down, about absolutely everything from war-motives to the economy, minorities, trade policies - at least one big lie daily (often more), that it is laughable to think that few, if any, individuals could compete with the government for the America's-Got-Liars prize.

          •  I cannot trust anything from a man (0+ / 0-)

            who refuses to face the music in a court of law and instead hides out for a year to avoid charges of sexual misconduct.

            Hiding out from justice is enough reason to dismiss anything he says.

            John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

            by Walt starr on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:43:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Friend, I'm no fan of sexual misconduct, but as (0+ / 0-)

              that whole thing has played out, it's quite possible to surmise at least, that it's a trumped up charge.   But considering how the govmt has distracted attention from its own misdeeds (google Snowden) in other cases. ...

              But, assuming he's guilty, as you seem to have concluded, of "sexual misconduct", that doesn't mean he's lying about what he's leaked.  That shit speaks for itself.  But if he's not guilty, do you honestly believe he has a snowball's chance in Hell of receiving a just trial.  (google Manning, etc.)  

              •  Just ignoring the trial thing... (0+ / 0-)

                Assange has been caught in lies over and over again.  He made a fake news website in the name of one of his critics and filled it with praise for himself, and then when caught, admitted to it and boasted about it.  He made all sorts of claims about breaking into military targeting systems when he was a teenager and finding a coverup about bombing a bunker which was supposedly the source for his desire to become a leaker - but the police officer who investigated and ultimately prosecuted Assange for that hacking spree says nothing even remotely like that ever happened, he was never in any sort of sensitive system and they had every line to his and his friends' house tapped.  He tells people all sorts of other absurd stories about his past, like how his hair is white because of gamma radiation from a home-built nuclear reactor he made when he was a child (directly stealing from the Radioactive Boy Scout story) and his grandfather was a taiwanese pirate.   He makes up stories about snipers following him around and the like when people who were with him on the claimed occasions say never happened.  And on and on and on; it's like the Secret Life of Walter Mitty.  He lied about Wikileaks spending $50,000 and three months to crack the Collateral Murder video (and tried to get the money), when it was actually given to them with its password, and for the people on his staff who actually travelled to Baghad to investigate the video, he refused to reimburse their tickets.  He made up "three independent sources" saying that they were wrong about Ralf Schneider - they didn't exist.  He's accused practically everyone he's ever worked with of lying about him when quoting him - reporters, whistleblowers, even his former roomate - the works, with rapidly shifting stories about the supposed "lies".  For example, when the account he always posted to the old Wikileaks mailing list from sent an email (aka, when he sent an email) saying that the US regime should be destroyed, he had no comment on the email.  Then later when criticized for wanting to destroy the US, he changed it to "he's not sure if he sent it, and the wording in the email was 'regime'".  In his most recent interview, he denied that the email existed at all and made fun of the questioner for even saying it did.  He does this with pretty much every negative thing that he ever said that he wishes he never did. He lies again and again about having never encouraged anyone to leak, when anyone who uses the Wayback Machine on wikileaks.org can see all kinds of articles like "A call for leakers" and the like which he himself posted on the site, expressly encouraging people in governments to leak.

                I could keep going on and on, but you get the picture.  I like the response of Domscheit-Berg when Assange announced he was going to write a book: he laughed and then said that it should go in the fiction section.  ;)

            •  dispaying your ignorance of the subject (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              New Minas, El Zmuenga, Occulus, farmerhunt

              Jeez, what a fool. Your post is pure ignorant BS. Let's get this straight - Assange was charged with not using a condom. The charges were dismissed once, for lack of evidence, delay in filing, and the fact that A stayed with the women after the alleged event took place. Even had breakfast afterwards. IOW, they were happy to have him hang out. Now ask yourself, if a prosecutor sees someone bringing a complaint like this and sees that the complainant and the supposed offender hung out, happily, after the fact, would you wonder about the veracity of the complainant? Like, maybe there was another motivation for filing charges?

              Then another prosecutor stepped up and, with no prompting from the original complainants, refiled the charges. Then Assange, before he left the country, offered to come have an interview, but they declined.

              Then the prosecutor tries to extradite Assange for an offense that carries a small fine, at the worst. Then the prosecutor refuses to to allow a remote interview, something that is done often when the interview is for a minor charge. Like this one. Even refused to do it at the request of the embassy, using the embassy's secure system. This should be the red flag, right there.

              Assange has offered to return for an interview, if the government will guarantee they will not turn him over to the US, but the prosecutor refuses to do this. In fact, the prosecutor's mouth gets full of weasel words when pressed on this issue.

              Wake your ass up  - The prosecutor is attempting to extradite Assange, with no guarantee that he will be handed over to the US, for an interview regarding an minor offense of not using a condom, based upon an investigation that was once dismissed, due to lack of evidence.

              "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

              by azureblue on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:41:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Walt pulled that crap over on DU (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                farmerhunt

                all the time. As with many of its other most obvious trolls (Whisp, Prosense, Boston Bean, Sid Dithers, and many, many others) and as he did here, Walt's primary tactic there was to seize on something else to deflect the conversation from the real issue. He doesn't want to acknowledge any truth to anything Assange says, and he can't argue the merits of the actual issues at hand (and never has been able to), so he goes for the tried-and-true propaganda tactic of character assassination.

                SO glad I left that fully-compromised cesspool of a site. NOT so glad to see its trolls stinking up this site, too.

              •  The irony, it burns (0+ / 0-)
                dispaying your ignorance of the subject
                Ignorance?  Alright, let's fact-check your post!
                Assange was charged with not using a condom.
                False.  Assange has been charged / anklagad for the following:
                1.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

                2.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

                3.  On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

                4.  On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

                Charge 1 is unlawful sexual coersion.  Charges 2 and 3 are molestation.  Charge 4 is rape.

                The most serious two charges involve condoms only tangentially.  In #1, he is charged with pinning down and trying to pry open a girl's legs to force sex with her.  Yes, the reason she was resisting is that she didn't want unprotected sex, but that's completely tangential to the charge.  In #4, he's charged with F*ing a sleeping girl.  It's an aggravating factor that he did so unprotected when she'd spent the entire previous evening explicitly refusing unprotected sex, but the charge is for F*ing a sleeping girl.  And of the two molestation charges, only one has to do with condoms.

                The charges were dismissed once, for lack of evidence, delay in filing, and the fact that A stayed with the women after the alleged event took place.
                False.  "The charges" were never dismissed.  

                The case was brought to the Stockholm Police Station where three officers were on duty - Krans, Gehlen, and Wassgren.  From the information collected, Wassgren and Gehlen considered that both women had been raped.  Krans considered that only SW had, but there were other sex crimes against AA.  This launched the investigation.  The only available prosecutor at the time, Eva Finne, was brought onboard.  In a move widely criticized by Assange supporters, Finne ordered the arrest of Assange even though he had neither attempted to flee nor refused to come in, on charge of rape.  Immediately after the blowback, she withdrew the warrant and terminated the investigation into the events around SW (not with any of the justifications that you listed), but not around AA; the investigation continued.  AA and SW's legal representative, Claes Borgström appealed to a police review board, which sided with the initial investigating officers (not surprising, as Finne closed the case before SW's statement was even in the computer!).  A new prosecutor was brought in to investigate the case.  She sided with Gehlen and Wassgren and resumed investigation for what would become five counts.  After failing to get Assange to come back for two months, she went to court and a warrant was again issued for his arrest.  Assange appealed to the Svea Court of Appeals, where a full hearing was held, including analysis of all of the evidence and testimony from Assange's attorney.  He lost on four of five counts - the rape charge concerning AA was dropped but all others were upheld upon the standard of probable cause of having committed the crimes.  Assange appealed to the Supreme Court.  He lost there too.  He then challenged his warrants in the British lower court, alleging malicious prosecution and flaws in the Swedish case.  He lost.  He appealed to the British High Court.  He lost there too.  He appealed to the British Supreme Court.  He lost there too.

                So in short, there's been a tremendous amount of judicial review, and the following bodies have supported, upheld, or otherwise found no fault with what  was or would become the following:

                Wassgren: 2x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Gehlen: 2x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Krans: 1x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Finne: 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Review board: 1-2x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Ny: 2x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Judge which granted the warrant: 2x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Svea court of appeals: 1x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Svea supreme court: 1x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Br. lower court: 1x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Br. high court: 1x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.
                Br. supreme court: 1x rape, 1x u.s.c., 2x mol.

                But I guess you know more than them?

                delay in filing
                The statute of limitations doesn't run out until 2020.  And SW filed pretty much immediately.  The only delay was in the case of AA (who there are no rape charges about, the rape charge is about SW).  This has essentially zero bearing on the case.  
                and the fact that A stayed with the women after the alleged event took place.
                First off, you're mixing the two events together.  Assange stayed with AA after the events in question there.  He did not stay with SW after the event in question concerning her - according to the testimony, he quickly left after trying to reassure here that everything would be fine, and then she freaked out and started calling her freinds seeking support.

                Secondly, believe it or not, most sex crimes victims don't go immediately running half-naked through the streets crying straight to the police.  Most rape crimes victims never go to the police at all.  Heck, I've known rape victims - plural - who even dated their rapist afterwards, just to make it feel less like rape.  I let my rapist walk me back to my car and even waited for him while he peed on the street .  Why?  Hell if I know, I was in shock - I didn't exactly have "get raped" at the top of my TODO list for the night.

                Even had breakfast afterwards.
                Again, you're confusing the two cases (has it not occurred to you that there were not precisely the same events in each location with each women?  Then why are you acting like they are?).

                Since Assange was living with AA (it was her responsibility to house him while he was in Sweden until he could establish longer-term arrangements), one can presume that they ate breakfast together on multiple occasions, but this plays no role in the police report.  The breakfast of relevance concerns SW.  It occurred before what Assange has been anklagad for rape over, not after.  To be more specific, the charge is that he spent all night with her.  They both wanted to sleep together, but she adimantly did not want unprotected sex and he adimantly did.  She, according to the report, spent the entire previous night refusing unprotected sex with him over and over.  He reluctantly agreed to protected sex once or twice.  The following morning she wanted him to leave but he wanted breakfast and told her to go out and buy some.  While she was out she texted and chatted with a friend over the phone, complaining about how mad she was at Assange that he kept trying to have unprotected sex with her and how he's now possing her around.  She also ran into her brother, who described her as looking shaken when the topic turned to Assange.  She went home with the breakfast, they ate, and she fell asleep.  THEN is when, according to the report, she awoke to Assange penetrating her unprotected.  She felt it was too late to stop him and went into shock when he said he was unprotected, not knowing what to do.

                It should be mentioned that everyone interviewed by the police stated that she was incredibly paranoid about unprotected sex.  Her ex boyfriend even testified that in their 2 1/2 years together she never once allowed it and even made him get STD tested anyway - to her, unprotected sex was simply "unthinkable".  What Assange has been asking courts to accept is that she woke up and consented to unprotected sex for the first time in her life to a guy who, right before she went to sleep, she was documented in her texts complaining about him trying to have unprotected sex with her and how mad she was with him.

                Is it any wonder he keeps losing these cases?

                IOW, they were happy to have him hang out.
                Once again, you're mixing up cases.  You're referring to the tweets from AA at the crawfish party, where she said she's hanging out with some of the world's coolest people (plural).  It should be noted that, first off, again, there are no rape charges concerning AA, and nor does she herself allege she was raped - there are only lesser charges.  Secondly, the testimony from one person who was at the party says that AA told her there about the "violent" sex with Assange and how uncomfortable she felt.  
                Now ask yourself, if a prosecutor sees someone bringing a complaint like this
                Actually, Finne never saw SW's statement at all because it wasn't even in the computer when she closed the case on SW (to reiterate, the case concerning AA was never closed)
                Then another prosecutor stepped up and, with no prompting from the original complainants, refiled the charges.
                False.  As mentioned earlier, the womens' shared legal represenative, Claes Borgström, appealed Finne's decision concerning SW to a police review board (not a rare event in Sweden), where he won, causing a new prosecutor to be brought in.
                Then the prosecutor tries to extradite Assange for an offense that carries a small fine, at the worst.
                What sort of person would be so daft to believe that the penalty for rape is "a small fine"?  

                Assange is facing a potential sentence of four years.

                Then the prosecutor refuses to to allow a remote interview, something that is done often when the interview is for a minor charge.
                Seriously, what sort of person calls felony rape "a minor charge"?

                As per the sworn statement of the prosecutor to the British lower court:

                Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                It is illegal to indict (åtala) someone remotely in Sweden, because once åtalad, the trial most commence within two weeks.  Assange must be surrendered for a legally required second questioning and be in Swedish custody before he can be åtalad.
                Assange has offered to return for an interview,  if the government will guarantee they will not turn him over to the US, but the prosecutor refuses to do this.
                First off, the prosecutor is not "the government", and nor can they speak for the government.  Secondly, Swedish extradition law spells out explicitly the order in which everything must happen: A request for extradition is made, then the courts take up the case, then the government issues a nonbinding opinion on the case, then the courts rule, then the government "may" extradite (or may refuse) if the courts allow it.  The government is explicitly banned from even giving a nonbinding opinion on an extradition case before it is taken up by the courts.  And there has been no extradition request.  

                Swedish legal scholars have been pointing out again and again that what is being demanded by Assange would be flatly illegal under Swedish law, and likely a violation of the Swedish constitution's separation of powers rules to boot.

                In fact, the prosecutor's mouth gets full of weasel words when pressed on this issue.
                That would be quite a remarkable trick, given that the prosecutor has not talked about extradition and has no authority to talk about extradition.  The prosecutor has talked about surrender.  To Sweden.
                Wake your ass up  - The prosecutor is attempting to extradite Assange, with no guarantee that he will be handed over to the US
                Except, of course, it is illegal in Sweden to extradite for military or intelligence charges.  It's never happened.  Sweden is home to hundreds of US defectors.  Even Edward Lee Howard, the CIA defector who basically unraveled the US's whole spy op in the USSR, couldn't be handed over to the US.  And you know who was the prime minister at the time of that case?  The same Carl Bildt who Assange has  been railing against who's know foreign minister.  

                Assange personally chose Sweden as the country with the best whistleblower protections in the world.  That's why he was there - after alienating most of his team in Iceland, he was looking to relocate Wikileaks' primary base of operations to Sweden. He referred to it as his "shield" and was applying for residence there.  Indeed, their whistleblower laws are really incredible - it's illegal to even try to figure out who leaked something, much less prosecute them.  And they have the #1 judiciary in the world for fundamental rights of the accused according to the latest peer-reviewed World Justice Project report.  And it is, after all, the country that according to Wikileaks, in 2006 had their special forces disguise themselves as airport workers to outright seize a CIA jet to stop the US extradition program from going through their territory, creating a diplomatic rift.  

                Then when Assange fled, he fled to the UK, the country that wouldn't even hand off the foremost hacker of US military systems in history, Gary McKinney, because (like Assange) he has Aspergers.  Not a bad choice.  Because under EAW surrender rules, both Sweden and the UK would approve.  And he could appeal to the ECHR, which is often regarded as the world's greatest refuge for people fleeing extradition requests, to the point that detractors call it a haven for criminals.

                So lets see if I've got the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy(TM) down pat.  For reasons only beknownst to them, they can only nab Assange from Sweden, not the the UK, or any of the vast numbers of far-easier actually-plausible countries that Assange regularly globetrots to.  No, it has to be Sweden, one of the few places where it'd simply be outright illegal to extradite him.  Let's just take that as a given for some Unknown Shadowy CIA Reason.  Now, Assange was applying to live in Sweden when the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy decided, "Instead of waiting until we're ready to nab him for our charges, since he's planning to live here, wouldn't it be so much more fun to absurdly complicate the issue by framing him for a crime?  Yeah!  And let's pick a crime that has a pathetically low conviction rate!  Let's not only frame him for rape, but let's frame him for rape but use a case that involves the women having consented to certain acts but not others and other things that could complicate the case, just like in real rape situations where victims don't live their lives as though they're about to be judged in a trial, instead of a phony "knife to the throat" Hollywood-style rape case." Why?  Because the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy just rolls that way, stop asking questions.  And because our CIA psychics have foreseen this event for decades in advance, we can now activate Sleeper Agent SW who we've had spend decades misleadingly cultivating herself as a young Swedish museum worker of no particular significance with a lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex.  Now, let's install our CIA Plant, Ms. Ny, to prosecute him - because of course, we at the CIA have infiltrated the top levels of all of the major governments' of the world's judicial systems just for this purpose, as well as all of their courts, up to and including supreme courts.  But let's have the prosecutor take several weeks to get him, and let's let the news totally leak out during the time that they're getting ready to arrest him so that Assange can run.  And let's just let him flee the country, and not tell Sweden so that they can stop him.  Then when he exhausts his legal options in the UK and jumps bail to run into the embassy of a country with an anti-western leader who's a fan of his, let's do absolutely nothing to stop him or let anyone who could stop him know.  Muahaha!

                Is this how it went down, in your mind?  Great job, Shadowy CIA Conspiracy. Who's heading the CIA these days, Bozo the Clown?

      •  Come on... (0+ / 0-)

        Do you really believe the Government is that sinister that "anything" it says should not be believed?

        •  Hold on, let me consult my magic uterus--oh wait (5+ / 0-)

          it's hysterical--should have expected that. Well I think I shall have to ask a Native American or  Whale--they ought to know if my government is to be trusted. Or a Wounded Vet! Or maybe a Fracking Protester? A recently homeless person with a handful of quarters and a sore ass ought to know--especially after all that crap about predatory lending and fraudulent mortgage paperwork.

          Lets ask that guy that was threatened with 13 years for a chalk drawing.

          Should I go on?

          •  You hit on my point in the crappy immigration bill (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GreenMother, Don midwest, YucatanMan

            being anything more than a boondoggle and bribe to Texas and AZ for their votes.   What illegal immigrant would voluntarily identify themselves to these bunch of liars and crooks for a "promise" that maybe in 10 years if I still feel like it, I'll let you apply for citizenship.    That would be as nuts as signing up for a medical pot card in Michigan.

            I don't trust our gov't as far as I can throw it.   First because it is made up of stupid, greedy human beings; and second, money.   Did anybody see the Koch donors chart diary posted by WOE?   Bill Gates is no more a humanitarian than Bush is a rocket scientist.

            What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren/Spitzer 2016

            by dkmich on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:07:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Great--but what about how this pertains to this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              New Minas

              topic here and now?

              What about our privacy?
              our civil rights?
              Our due process
              Our first freedoms?

              Basically this crap--this domestic spying list making boondoggle has turned our entire nation into a "Right to Work" state. And wait til you see what's on my diary about the Patriot Act.

              That will make your sphincter slam shut like doubled leaded doors on a fall out shelter.

              •  Are you kidding? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                New Minas, turn blue, wasatch

                Anybody who denies the corporations own the place and all of this spying is aimed at controlling Americans - not terrorists needs to find a brain.  Terrorists are just handy excuses to give Haliburton billions.  

                I am a Socialist Democrat, and all I've got to say is a pox on both their houses.  

                Sheldon Wolin's notion of "inverted totalitariansim"":

                Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.[9]

                What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren/Spitzer 2016

                by dkmich on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:31:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Hysterical? What are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

            I don't believe I said anything close to how you have mischaracterized.

            Par for the course around here to twist what people say into something else.

            •  I don't know how to put this more succinctly. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              New Minas

              I don't trust the government.

              The government, like a corporation is not an individual person. It is a conglomerate of agencies stuck together that are supposed to serve the people but haven't been doing that for a long long time. The Checks and Balances have been done away with, the legislative, Executive branch and the Judicial Branch all answer to big corporations and not to us little people.

              If I interject a little bit of gallows humor into my posts, it is because this is so goddamn depressing for me, and more than a bit scary.

              •  I am no fan of government... (0+ / 0-)

                as it is evolving, but cannot say I do not trust it either.

                And to say "anything" it says should not be believed is silly, which was the point being made.

                I guarantee you that if it was a Tea Party supporter saying that, then all of a sudden there would be voices of support for the government.

                •  Oh my ---so now I am a teabagger? (0+ / 0-)

                  But would that make me an American citizen in your eyes?

                  Would you be willing to throw my voice under the bus [in this hypothetical alt universe where I am allegedly a bagger] just because of this?

                  You assume that there are no genuine, direct, personal reasoning for this, and not just emotive reactionary politics that baggers are famous for, but actual interaction with the government that has mistreated a person.

                  Lots of things offend me about Baggers. Their inherent misogyny, and the racism, and their obvious theocratic bent, but--At the end of the day, even though they make me want to chew my own limbs off like an animal in a steel trap, they are still citizens.

                  And every once in a while, they do point out things worth taking note of--

                  I am unaware of any American Citizen, child or adult, that I have personally talked to, who is happy with the notion of the government spying on them without a warrant or without due process and under the aegis of secret courts.

                  To me, that is a wonderful, and important development.

                  It means that there just might be enough of us, to turn this bullshit around.

                  If you want to trust the government, then be my guest. I don't. I have direct experiences that have caused me to adjust how I see and interact with the government on every level.

                  I hope that never happens to you.

                  •  I did not say that at all! (0+ / 0-)

                    Get real!!

                    And please, do not tell me what I am assuming because you seem not to have a clue.

                    What is wrong with this site that there is so little reading comprehension and so much twisting what people say?

                    If I wanted to say you were a Tea Party supporter, I would have. All I said is that it depends on who is mistrusting the government when it comes to the statements of support or criticism that many make.

                     

                    •  What do you do then when the left and the right (0+ / 0-)

                      agree on any little thing?

                      Do you automatically throw it out? Or do you examine the agreement for deeper connections?

                      •  It depends on the matter at hand... (0+ / 0-)

                        as to what I do.

                        In any event, all I said was that I find the view that "anything" the  government says should not be believed to be a stretch.

                        Do you believe that to government is wholly untrustworthy as the statement implied?

                         

                        •  Right now-- About 90 percent of the government- (0+ / 0-)

                          YES, and the other agencies such as NOAA, and USGS, etc., I mostly trust them, but always scrutinize what they put out because I know that there have been internal turf wars going on for a while within those agencies, trying not to go the way of the EPA.

                          I DO NOT TRUST the Executive Branch.

                          Here we have a legal scholar who has handed us over on a silver platter to big corporations and has broadened the scope and application of domestic spying even when he ran on a platform that stated the opposite. Same with torture and the Gitmo.

                          I do not trust the legislature--I am a woman and a vet and an environmentalist--need I say more? Because I can.

                          I do not trust the Judicial branch, because look--John Roberts is basically the sole individual responsible for appointing judges for 7 year stints on a secret court that cannot be challenged, a court that rubber stamps 90 day permission slips to spy on every American via their electronic and wireless communications.

                          I do not trust any agency sanctified by the Patriot Act, to oversee critical infrastructure, because that document completely guts their regulatory powers and forces them to remain silent about abuses and broken laws, via a gag rule.

                          I do not trust the police right now--they are highly militarized and beholden to the same corporations that call the shots with our federal government via the Patriot Act.

                          If you trust these agencies and these branches, you haven't been paying attention. I don't care who you voted for or what party or political stripe you identify with.

                          These intrusive, violations of our unalienable rights is a direct threat to all citizens period. It's a threat to our country and our way of life.

                          So no, I don't trust them. And I don't have to pretend to trust them.

                          Call me whatever names you want. I can read the writing on the wall.

                          There is work to be done.

                          •  Did I call you any names? (0+ / 0-)

                            You have made several assumptions about me and not a one is correct.

                            That may be standard fare here, to engage in name calling, but it is not mine.

                            This assuming the worst in other people is tiresome to deal with.

                            Do not assume that I don't have concerns about intrusions and other problems with government. Some have to do with how progressive ideology places too much reliance on the state to dictate over our lives, as if it has the key to creating a well-functioning society. When theory meets practice, it too often doesn't.

                            There is also corruption and incompetence. That said, my point of departure is not to pre-judge as the comment I originally answered did, asking why should we EVER believe the government.

                            I believe our government, warts and all, stands on a level that exceeds most others on the planet.

                            It is not our government that causes individuals to see their compatriots as enemies. To me, that is a larger problem.

    •  why (7+ / 0-)

      should you believe what Assange said?

      how about because it was confirmed by leaked internal documents via Edward Snowden a few years later. . .

      or does your dislike of Assange make you doubt the veracity of these claims even in the face of undeniable proof?

  •  Well then, I have to ask...what about here? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, New Minas

    I doubt there's an interface built in, but subscriber info linking username to address and real name--is that given to the government wholesale or is a warrant required on a case-by-case basis?

  •  How silly to ask Mark Zukerberg (9+ / 0-)

    a serious, adult question.  He is clearly neither.

    He who would trade liberty for security deserves great customer service.

    by Publius2008 on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 08:52:37 AM PDT

  •  Assange and others have an agenda... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover, Aquarius40

    and have assumed that they know best, when there is not much evidence that they do.

    When these people start to expose the wrongs of closed societies, then I may be more supportive of their doings.

    •  Same with Zuckerberg. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40

      I really have no use for either of these arrogant men, both who are convinced they are the truth-tellers who will lead society to the next Renassaince .. Or something.

      I'd love to put both in the same room and see their egos battle it out.

      They'd probable emerge best friends, which would spell doom for all of us...

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:49:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Spelling: Renaissance (0+ / 0-)

        I had a wandering "I."

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:53:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Important diary, thanks. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover, GreenMother, kovie, wasatch

    We should note, Mark Zuckerberg himself is a political conservative. He's given money, lots of it, to Republicans.

    I don't use FB much. I have only a skeletal account. At one point, setting up my access, I think I was prompted for my full birth date, and there was no way I could get by this prompt without entering something. (This was before the real shitstorm hit, regarding FB's abuse of privacy.) At that point, I entered the year of my birth as "1905." Folks, I may be old, but I'm not that old :)

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

    •  I have a fake birthday I enter for Facebook (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, PsychoSavannah, wasatch

      And a yahoo email account. I try to use the same one, in case I forget my password.

      Pretty exciting: I can start drinking next year.

      Woohoo!!!!

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:55:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't he more of a "libertarian"? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, wasatch

      Meaning, by the ironic quotes, the selfish and opportunistic type that views liberty as a license to be an asshole without consequences.

      Also, such revelations are part (but only a part) of why I refuse to post on FB despite having an account on it (that I only reluctantly set up after my sister died to be able to see her page, which ironically had already been taken down by her widower). I don't trust FB or Zuckerberg because I believe that they deliberately and knowingly lie about their privacy practices, in this and other ways, and they do it to make more money, period. How legit can a web site possibly be that was originally set up to allow cowardly creeps to trash fellow students in secret? Even for a creep, Zuckerberg apparently has no standards.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:39:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let us all apply for jobs at the NSA... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wasatch

    ...through Facebook;

    https://www.facebook.com/...

    At least "Like" these poor fellows who need love so much.

    And download their own crypto app;

    Tired of seeing all the ‎#Candy ‎#Crush ‎#Saga updates? Sounds like you need more of a challenge! Hone your ‎#cyptography skills with ‎#NSA's ‎#CryptoChallenge app!

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:18:40 AM PDT

  •  OFA has a pretty good database as well (6+ / 0-)

    as do any number of marketeers. There sure is a lot of data out there ... unleash the hounds ... [sorry I just love that meme]

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:27:23 AM PDT

  •  if people choose to set their data out there (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, Gary Norton

    and I've seen some very open profiles is it any real surprise it will be used?

    Seriously this is not news

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am

    by duhban on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 09:54:33 AM PDT

    •  Again with the lies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisePiper

      We're talking about postings people have made on FB and other such sites that they have deliberately set as private, that none of us can legally get without a subpoena, that the government is still grabbing w/o targeted warrants or subpoenas. It's as if they started poking into your laptop that you left on your cafe table when you went to the bathroom. That's criminal trespass, whether done physically or virtually.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:34:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it's so much easier to virtually snoop. And (0+ / 0-)

        it can be done by a private person who has the time and contacts.

        On-going personal experience.

        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

        by 88kathy on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:55:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Easier, perhaps, legal, no (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          88kathy

          We're talking about what's legal here, not what's possible or easy.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:04:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So if someone got information from a 3rd party (0+ / 0-)

            they had 'no idea' was stolen, would that be legal?

            give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

            by 88kathy on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:09:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not a lawyer, criminal or otherwise (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              88kathy

              But I suspect that acquiring illegally gotten materials can be a crime in certain cases even if you didn't know it was illegally gotten, if it's something that it's hard to believe was legally gotten. I mean, if someone gave you a recording of what appears to be a private phone call between two other people, that it's hard to believe those two people made and gave this person, and this person tells you this was the case, what court would believe you?

              So the "Sorry, I didn't know" defense is a very weak one, often.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:16:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Still I think the illegally gotten information (0+ / 0-)

                by someone in my small circle would have more impact on my life than the high level government sorts.

                That's just me.

                And yes right now there is someone who is hot to have family information from my family and it's way easier to get than NSA has it. We are really hanging out there with our bare asses for everyone to see.

                give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

                by 88kathy on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:37:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  read my comment again kovie (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        New Minas

        this time intelligently

        If you choose to put your information out there you  risk it being compromised. Whether that's by the government or a hacker who breaks your weak ass password or just plain resets it.

        I would ask for an apology but doubt you are capable of it.

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:15:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You literally have no shame, do you? (0+ / 0-)

          This is a sport for you, something you enjoy doing. Lying, that is.

          As I made quite clear, I'm not talking about the ease with which private data could be acquired by someone who's not entitled to it, be it government or some hacker, but the LEGALITY of it, troll. If I put my bike on my front porch and someone steals it when I'm not home because it's easy, that doesn't make it in the SLIGHTEST BIT legal.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:20:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you can't be that dense (0+ / 0-)

            there were 2 points in my comment kovie and since you need them in crayon let's do it that way

            1. If you put your information out there public or private it WILL get out. It's one of the reasons I do not really have a facebook account. It doesn't matter if it's the government or some hacker. Facebook is a freaken treasure trove of information especially if you are fishing for answers to challenge questions

            2. People generally are pretty dumb about setting privacy settings anyways so I wouldn't be surprised you could find out quite a bit just by looking at information out to the public.

            Keep smearing me kovie, you just keep looking pathetic and  idiotic

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:27:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You smear yourself with your lies (0+ / 0-)

              You continue to claim that the practical and legal limits of privacy are one and the same and then pretend to not have said precisely that.

              You can continue to troll with such comments till the cows come home but you're still a troll for doing it. Why you're doing it is anyone's guess.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 01:23:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  If a pretty woman wears sexy clothes in public... (0+ / 0-)

      Just giving you a taste of the despicable logic you display here regularly.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:21:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Its amazing how many people don't get it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, Gary Norton, wasatch

    There seems to be this pervading myth that Facebook and sites like that are extensions of your personal space subject to the 4th amendment. I don't know where that comes from. If you store your stuff at my house - I then have complete control over whether to show the Govt  your stuff. I could ask them for a warrant or  I could just show it them but by leaving your stuff at my house you no longer have any expectation of privacy. In this digital case, it's up to Facebook to decide what to do with the data that you knowingly stored on their servers - whether they have an interface for the NSA to tap into or not is immaterial. They can do anything they want with it because you gave it to them.  At best you may have a civil action for breach of contract against Facebook if what they do with your data doesn't match the terms of service but in the end there is no Constitutional protection for the data you store on  Facebook's servers.  Its hard to have an intelligent discussion about the application of the 4th amendment in cyberspace when there are so many  false assumptions.

  •  God This is Embarassing n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Minas

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 10:20:10 AM PDT

  •  How many times can the same beans be spilled? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, PsychoSavannah

    Every "free" and "anonymous" survey, quiz, poll, petition, psych test, brain game, favorite list, every map request, every amazon query, every single interaction done online is matched with IP data and becomes data.

    Data, like oil, water, guns, and food, is a commodity for sale and a  source of personal information aggregated, sold, used, stored, summarized, and archived.

    Nothing is free. Thinking Facebook or Gmail is "free" is as naive as borrowing money from a loan shark wearing a T-shirt that says, MAFIA 'R US.

    Thinking that global intelligence communities are not connected to all data on request and payment is stupid.

    •  I guess no one here has ever used (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kck, wasatch, New Minas

      Facebook's marketing dept.  It's pretty fuckin' creepy....how many people and who they are clicked on your ad, if they went to the website, if they place an order, where it was shipped to.....the information is thorough.  And it's perfectly legal and just fine.

      Zuckerberg owns your info....that is what the terms of service says....anything you put on Facebook is not yours anymore....yes, there's been a lawsuit to stop using someone else's kids in an ad, but the piddly little settlement was just the cost of doing business....

      The way FB can narrow down a target audience?  Holy smokes....go look into it......you want a 40-45 year old man, who lives in PA, and owns a shredder?  FB can find that fucker for you....and send him an ad on his FB page.  FB pulls info from all over the internet to find him too....Linked In, Amazon, Yelp, et.c, etc., etc.

      "Social Networking" doesn't mean you gettin' together with your friends.....

      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

      by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:39:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I imagine a guy in a park on a soap box yelling... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        New Minas

        The proverbial public square. People milling around, through, in and out, some paying attention, some not. All hear him. Some see him. Some remember what they see on him, in the background, who else is in the park... Some have faulty memories, others very precise. All of the memories exist.

        Can he stop yelling and take it back? Can he leave the park and pretend he never said what he said? Well, he can pretend but he can't ever take it back.

        Does what he yelled exist once he stops? Yes and no. It depends on if someone chooses to think about him and remember,. Then their recall makes it exist in a new form. Like an echo.

        Imagine if he was recorded while yelling in the park. A digital audio-video recording.

        That's how I teach my kids about their internet use.

  •  People sign their privacy rights away (0+ / 0-)

    on a daily basis, not just to government but especially to corporations.  Willingly.  With both hands.

    So I'm developing little patience for people who scream about losing their privacy rights when they do nothing themselves to protect it.

    btw, I'm not on facebook and avoid it like the plague.

    We needs laws to limit what information companies can share with government and corporations. We need to act.  Endless ranting here in the echo chamber about it is pointless.

  •  Please provide some background info (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Minas

    on the third video at the end of the diary.

    Who produced it? Is this an NSA training video, or what?

    What is RIOT?

    The only trouble with retirement is...I never get a day off!

    by Mr Robert on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 11:02:46 AM PDT

  •  These are networks and servers (0+ / 0-)

    that you do not own.  The data you helped create exists on these networks and servers.  You do not own this data.  The Fourth Amendment does not apply, it would appear.

    If your phone or computer was searched, then that would be a violation.  Stop and Frisk, in my opinion, is a violation.  

    If you don't want your information accessible, don't put it on or through entities you don't own.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site