9 ms·

Transcript of meeting between Julian Assange and Google CEO Eric Schmidt

348 points by chasingtheflow 13y ago

generalseven 13y ago
Great discussion in there about Bitcoin, Namecoin, alternative CA system, anonymity, censorship, etc.
tomrod 13y ago
Well now I'm looking forward to the book. I greatly appreciate Julian Assange's views, even if his approach runs afoul of the law.
- arjie 13y ago
  I don't believe Julian Assange's approach to Wikileaks-related issues has put him on the wrong side of the law. He is charged with rape, not with publishing what people sent him, AFAIK.
  - archivator 13y ago
    When fighting the institutions that write these charges, you are implicitly a target. Wouldn't be the first time someone was put in jail for the wrong crime. (I'm not convinced he's innocent but I have no problem believing the charges are made up)
    - mtgx 13y ago
      Which is why "not being in accordance with the law" makes little sense in such cases, as the laws can be abused if the government really wants someone (i.e. Aaron Swartz & CFAA).
  - kkowalczyk 13y ago
    He wasn't charged with anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A... "Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence.[62] The prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations,[63] including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions.[64]"
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      So he is stuck in Trial? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
      - ben0x539 13y ago
        It's more like he's a fugitive.
        betterunix 13y ago
        Usually fugitives are at least charged with a crime...
        ben0x539 13y ago
        He'd have to show up to be charged.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        Perhaps not quite as extreme as Kafka's vision, but some parts of the case does seem about as ridiculous. (anyone who haven't read The Trial should, Kafka is fairly accessible)
- trevelyan 13y ago
  What has he done that is illegal?
  - dagw 13y ago
    We don't know. That's kind of why they want to have a trial and stuff.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    Does it matter? When your adversaries make the laws, it is not meaningful to debate legalities. Instead, ask, what has he done that is unjust? [Sorry, I accidentally downvoted you when I meant to hit reply.]
    - AlwaysBCoding 13y ago
      This is an awesome quote
      - FireBeyond 13y ago
        Which has the - entirely intentional - side-effect of making you out to be a martyr, whether or not you are deserving of such title.
rb2 13y ago
JA: " I have been told actually that VeriSign, by people who are in the know, although I am not yet willing to go on the public record, cause I only have one source, just between you and me, one source that says that VeriSign has actually given keys to the US government. Not all, but a particular key."
- ggamecrazy 13y ago
  Thats not surprising in the least bit, In fact if you're really paranoid you can assume most of the signing authorities have given up some of their private keys....
  - Pwnguinz 13y ago
    As a non-crypto-literate web denizen, does an individual (in this case, governmental organization) possessing the "root" CA private key mean they can decrypt messages that were encrypted by derived 'child' certificates/keys? I might be completely off base and confusing certificates and keys here, though...
    - samuelkadolph 13y ago
      Having the private key of a trusted root CA lets you create leaf certificates (or intermediate CAs) that your computer will trust implicitly (because the root is trusted). This would allow someone to man-in-the-middle your connection to, say, gmail (with help of your ISP) and you would not be able to easily detect it. Gibson Research Corporation created a page that shows the real signature for some common websites (and lets you check any site you want). You can then connect to them and view the signature in your browser and compare them. This is what you would have to do to know if you were being MITMed with a "real" certificate. https://www.grc.com/fingerprints.htm https://www.grc.com/fingerprints.htm
      - arjie 13y ago
        That's a nice enough idea, but how do I know I'm looking at the real grc.com? They use an SSL certificate from a US CA too.
bytefactory 13y ago
Very interesting. I'm curious about the role Eric Schmidt and Google play in this, however. From the looks of it, Eric definitely seemed to be a supporter (especially considering how he mentioned getting in trouble for being against Patriot I and Patriot II), yet Google hasn't spoken out against CISPA. Seeing as how Assange mentioned how important funding was for the movement, I would think it'd be very easy for Google to funnel a few million dollars to Wikileaks if they truly wanted to help. Too bad there's not more about those aspects being discussed.
- singularity2001 13y ago
  why would Google as an organization want to funnel money into WikiLeaks?
  - atx 13y ago
    For starters, they have the SolveForX project going.
- harryf 13y ago
  The impression I got from the interview is that Eric Schidt feels there is some common ground between what Google does and what Wikileaks does. Some of his reactions seem like "that's the missing idea we needed". That may also relate to the book they were working on, now called the "The New Digital Age" and to be released in 3 days apparently ( http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Digital-Age-Reshaping/dp/0307957136 http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Digital-Age-Reshaping/dp/03079... ) - this interview is great marketing for the book then. The Draw Shop has a nice summary of what's in the book - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39tvjOATrCA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39tvjOATrCA
  - arthurrr 13y ago
    After reading the interview, I have zero interest in reading any book from Eric Schmidt, but I am thoroughly fascinated by what Assange has to say. This interview is probably going to be much more insightful than any book Schmidt will write.
aray 13y ago
Pretty good summary by the Verge, but definitely worth reading the whole thing: http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4241486/eric-schmidt-and-julian-assange-conversation-published-on-wikileaks http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4241486/eric-schmidt-and-j...
stevep98 13y ago
[LS spills water all over her note taking laptop] [JA quickly grabs her laptop and turns it upside down] JC: Ha ha ha! Why do I feel that has happened before? LS: Did you see how fast he was? It was like an impulse.
mrmaddog 13y ago
This is incredibly fascinating. If you are trying to figure out whether this is worth a read or not, I don't think you'll be disappointed spending an hour or two following along through the interview. For those of you that are tight on time, here are some heavily paraphrased notes I've been taking, referencing some of the more thought provoking parts of the interview. (And I'm only half way through! I'll need to finish reading this tomorrow): - We should create human readable (memorable) hashes to map names to specific data, so people can trust the documents they have are not tampered with and so that such documents can't be removed from the public record. Sort of an immutable DNS system for data built on hashes. Readability is important so the keys can be transmitted independently of computer networks. Bitcoins may be a good reference technology for this. (See: "So this Bitcoin replacement" and passages leading up to that) - We need secure, robust communication systems for medium sized groups of people (think revolutionaries) that don't need to rely on centralized (government owned) networks. Possibly use UDP to message someone (since without ACKs you can send to many hosts, and a listening host looks the same to the network as an unrelated host). More ideas about this in passage: "Right, so you send it to random internet hosts" - The internet lets one hear their own beliefs echoed back with such force that it drowns out any other input. It reinforces (makes extreme?) the person's original thought. This creates a "radicalization of internet educated youth," makes us highly political. - The US doesn't need to care as much about free speech since free speech won't change the fiscal outlook of those at the top (US is in a "rigid fiscalized structure"). China and Egypt are a more political society though, so they still need to control free speech. (See passage:"I am not going to say governments") - "censorship is always cause for celebration. It is always an opportunity, because it reveals fear of reform. It means that the power position is so weak that you have got to care about what people think." - Censorers don't care what information exists in darknets. They only care that their bosses don't find out about the darknets. (See: "Even the censors in China" passage) - There is a second type of censorship beyond overt government censorship: "Censorship through complexity." Harkens back to the earlier discussion in the interview about the 'self-censorship' pyramid for journalists. - Journalists should give all of their source data, not just choice quotes, so that people can make up their own minds. (See: "scientific journalism") - "Most wars in the 20th century have started as a result of lies. Amplified and spread by the mainstream press. And you go, well that is a horrible circumstance, that is terrible that all these wars start with lies. And I say no, this is a tremendous opportunity, because it means that populations basically don't like wars and they have to be lied into it. And that means we can be truthed into peace."
stevep98 13y ago
JA: there was this fantastic video that came out of Stanford in about '69 on nuclear synthesis of DNA. Have you seen it? It's on youtube. It's great. A wonderful thing. So it is explaining nuclear synthesis through interpretive dance. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww Skip to 3:30 and, um take something to get in the mood of the era...
- jaredmcateer 13y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww#t=3m30s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww#t=3m30s
dreen 13y ago
Is there a recording of the talk? I would much prefer that to the transcript.
- andybak 13y ago
  How odd. I usually find myself thinking exactly the opposite when someone posts a video or audio clip.
  - dreen 13y ago
    I wish I had time to read but I don't. I listen to everything I can though; books news etc. while commuting and working.
    - andybak 13y ago
      I wish I had the time to watch and listen to things but I don't. I skim read everything I can though; books, news etc. It's much quicker for me than listening watching!
redthrowaway 13y ago
Say whatever you will about Assange; it's clear he puts a great deal of thought and effort into what he does. I highly recommend his essay on the nature, structure, and weaknesses of conspiracies he wrote shortly after starting Wikileaks: http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/conspiracies.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/cons... It's not exactly a pg classic, but it does give good insight into his motivations and thought processes.
kybernetyk 13y ago
Ugh, is Eric Schmidt really that non-technical that he can't remember the right name for TOR? I mean I don't expect him to write code or know the implementation details of TCP/IP but as Google CEO he should at least know a little about the field his company is playing in and the right names for the more important technologies. Or is this some kind of practical joke I don't get?
- scotth 13y ago
  Give the guy a break.
  - kybernetyk 13y ago
    Why? Because expecting a tech CEO to know about tech is unreasonable?
    - JanezStupar 13y ago
      And he probably knows detailed stuff about things you have no idea about. The guy has been an (excellent?) engineer, then a CTO and later on a CEO of a major multinational corporation. And AFAIK, he did each of his jobs vastly better than the norm. Who are you with your pretentiousness? Edit: With your original post you clearly displayed your ignorance in the open, the ignorance of not even being bothered to check the background of the person you are attacking for their background. Am I ignorant of tech, because I barely know anything about electronics and bitcoin?
      - kybernetyk 13y ago
        > Am I ignorant of tech, because I barely know anything about electronics and bitcoin? If you want to write a book about it then yes. > Who are you with your pretentiousness? Also please let's keep the discussion polite and non-personal.
        JanezStupar 13y ago
junto 13y ago
There are some interesting comments in here, namely: "So, on the one hand we have live dynamic services and organizations... well there's three things. Live dynamic services. Organizations that run those services, so that you are referring to a hierarchy. You are referring to a system of control. An organization, a government, that represents an organized evolving group. And on the other hand you have artefacts. You have human intellectual artefacts that have the ability to be completely independent from any system of human control. They are out there in the Platonic realm somehow. And shouldn't in fact be referred to by an organization. They should be referred to in a way that is intrinsic to the intellectual content, that arises out of the intellectual content! I think that is an inevitable and very important way forward, and where this... where I saw that this was a problem was dealing with a man by the name of Nahdmi Auchi. A few years ago was listed by one of the big business magazines in the UK as the fifth richest man in the UK. In 1980 left Iraq. He'd grown rich under Saddam Hussein's oil industry. And is alleged by the Italian press to be involved in a load of arms trading there, he has over two hundred companies run out of his Luxembourg holding unit. And several that we discovered in Panama. He had infiltrated the British Labour political establishment to the degree that the 20th business birthday in London he was given a painting signed by 146 members Commons including Tony Blair. He's the same guy who was the principal financier of Tony Rezko. Tony Rezko was the financier and fundraiser of Rod Blagoyevich, from Chicago. Convicted of corruption. Tony Rezko has been convicted of corruption. And Barack Obama. He was the intermediary who helped Barack Obama buy one of his houses and then the money not directly for the house but it bouyed up Tony Rezko's finances came from that... [indistinct]. So during the - this is detail, but it will get to a point. During the 2008 presidential primaries a lot of attention was turned to Barack Obama by the US press, unsurprisingly. And so it started to look into his fundraisers, and discovered Tony Rezko, and then they just started to turn their eyes towards Nadhmi Auchi. Auchi then hired Carter Ruck, a rather notorious firm of London libel solicitors, whose founder, Carter Ruck, has been described as doing for freedom of speech what the Boston strangler did for door to door salesmen. And he started writing letters to all of the London papers who had records of his 2003 extradition to France and conviction for corruption in France over the Elf-Acquitaine scandal. Where he had been involved in taking kickbacks on selling the invaded Kuwaiti governments' oil refineries in order to fund their operations while Iraq had occupied it. So the Guardian pulled three articles from 2003. So they were five years old. They had been in the Guardian's archive for 5 years. Without saying anything. If you go to those URLs you will not see "removed due to legal threats." You will see "page not found." And one from the Telegraph. And a bunch from some American publications. And bloggers, and so on. Important bits of history, recent history, that were relevant to an ongoing presidential campaign in the United States were pulled out of the intellectal record. They were also pulled out of the Guardian's index of articles. So why? The Guardian's published in print, and you can go to the library and look up those articles. They are still there in the library. How would you know that they were there in the library? To look up, because they are not there in the Guardian's index. Not only have they ceased to exist, they have ceased to have ever existed. Which is the modern implementation of Orwell's dictum that he controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future. Because the past is stored physically in the present. All records of the past. This issue of preserving politically salient intellectual content while it is under attack is central to what WikiLeaks does -- because that is what we are after! We are after those bits that people are trying to suppress, because we suspect, usually rightly, that they're expending economic work on suppressing those bits because they perceive that they are going to induce some change."
shakiba 13y ago
TL;DR!
belorn 13y ago
I wonder if one could automate a process to find articles that has been removed (censured) from news papers, but which still exist in libraries. Is there any project which digital store some index of news articles outside the control the publishing newspaper? Maybe Google could give such index (and only index), so as to enable investigating reports and citizens to notice when articles get pulled.
guybrushT 13y ago
Definitely worth a read. Its like reading a wonderful short story that just works on so many levels. It has many layers - interesting ideas on technology, free-speech, values & idealism, information flow, bitcoin - plus the personalities involved themselves (JA, ES). Fascinating indeed. In particular, I am intrigued by JA's thoughts on a peer-to-peer mobile network. For those who understand this well, can you explain how feasible it is to do this today? What are the challenges involved? Why isn't a startup doing this? It would be nice to one day, bypass the telecom company towers to transmit data directly to another person/phone.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  > Why isn't a startup doing this? There is no financial incentive. A recurring theme throughout the interview.
mz1988 13y ago
Eric Schmidt is not google ceo, he is google chairman
- waqf 13y ago
  I was about to reply that when this meeting took place in 2011 Schmidt was still CEO. But in fact you're right, he was not: he'd stepped down a couple of months previously.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
tmanx 13y ago
SC: This is a fantastic tree. It keeps us totally dry. LOL
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
On "putting people at risk": -- So if we look at the attacks on us, they always talk about the words "placed people at risk." But risk relative to what? Is it a proportionate risk? Is it a risk that is significant enough that it is even worth speaking about? So these rhetorical tricks are often used by people who are making their argument in relation to security. What has to be done is people need to engage in an intellectual defense against manipulation by rhetoric by understanding that if someone mentions that there is a risk without saying the risk is higher than crossing the road, or the risk is twice that of being stung by a bee, then you must ignore it. Similarly with possibility versus probability. --
navs 13y ago
I can't get over the Fiji comment. I'm from there you see and I'd never heard of this particular theory regarding the CIA.

348 points by chasingtheflow 13y ago

Great discussion in there about Bitcoin, Namecoin, alternative CA system, anonymity, censorship, etc.

Well now I'm looking forward to the book. I greatly appreciate Julian Assange's views, even if his approach runs afoul of the law.

arjie 13y ago
I don't believe Julian Assange's approach to Wikileaks-related issues has put him on the wrong side of the law. He is charged with rape, not with publishing what people sent him, AFAIK.
- archivator 13y ago
  When fighting the institutions that write these charges, you are implicitly a target. Wouldn't be the first time someone was put in jail for the wrong crime. (I'm not convinced he's innocent but I have no problem believing the charges are made up)
  - mtgx 13y ago
    Which is why "not being in accordance with the law" makes little sense in such cases, as the laws can be abused if the government really wants someone (i.e. Aaron Swartz & CFAA).
- kkowalczyk 13y ago
  He wasn't charged with anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A... "Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence.[62] The prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations,[63] including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions.[64]"
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    So he is stuck in Trial? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
    - ben0x539 13y ago
      It's more like he's a fugitive.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        Usually fugitives are at least charged with a crime...
        ben0x539 13y ago
        He'd have to show up to be charged.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      Perhaps not quite as extreme as Kafka's vision, but some parts of the case does seem about as ridiculous. (anyone who haven't read The Trial should, Kafka is fairly accessible)
trevelyan 13y ago
What has he done that is illegal?
- dagw 13y ago
  We don't know. That's kind of why they want to have a trial and stuff.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Does it matter? When your adversaries make the laws, it is not meaningful to debate legalities. Instead, ask, what has he done that is unjust? [Sorry, I accidentally downvoted you when I meant to hit reply.]
  - AlwaysBCoding 13y ago
    This is an awesome quote
    - FireBeyond 13y ago
      Which has the - entirely intentional - side-effect of making you out to be a martyr, whether or not you are deserving of such title.

rb2 13y ago

JA: " I have been told actually that VeriSign, by people who are in the know, although I am not yet willing to go on the public record, cause I only have one source, just between you and me, one source that says that VeriSign has actually given keys to the US government. Not all, but a particular key."

ggamecrazy 13y ago
Thats not surprising in the least bit, In fact if you're really paranoid you can assume most of the signing authorities have given up some of their private keys....
- Pwnguinz 13y ago
  As a non-crypto-literate web denizen, does an individual (in this case, governmental organization) possessing the "root" CA private key mean they can decrypt messages that were encrypted by derived 'child' certificates/keys? I might be completely off base and confusing certificates and keys here, though...
  - samuelkadolph 13y ago
    Having the private key of a trusted root CA lets you create leaf certificates (or intermediate CAs) that your computer will trust implicitly (because the root is trusted). This would allow someone to man-in-the-middle your connection to, say, gmail (with help of your ISP) and you would not be able to easily detect it. Gibson Research Corporation created a page that shows the real signature for some common websites (and lets you check any site you want). You can then connect to them and view the signature in your browser and compare them. This is what you would have to do to know if you were being MITMed with a "real" certificate. https://www.grc.com/fingerprints.htm https://www.grc.com/fingerprints.htm
    - arjie 13y ago
      That's a nice enough idea, but how do I know I'm looking at the real grc.com? They use an SSL certificate from a US CA too.

bytefactory 13y ago

Very interesting. I'm curious about the role Eric Schmidt and Google play in this, however. From the looks of it, Eric definitely seemed to be a supporter (especially considering how he mentioned getting in trouble for being against Patriot I and Patriot II), yet Google hasn't spoken out against CISPA. Seeing as how Assange mentioned how important funding was for the movement, I would think it'd be very easy for Google to funnel a few million dollars to Wikileaks if they truly wanted to help. Too bad there's not more about those aspects being discussed.

singularity2001 13y ago
why would Google as an organization want to funnel money into WikiLeaks?
- atx 13y ago
  For starters, they have the SolveForX project going.
harryf 13y ago
The impression I got from the interview is that Eric Schidt feels there is some common ground between what Google does and what Wikileaks does. Some of his reactions seem like "that's the missing idea we needed". That may also relate to the book they were working on, now called the "The New Digital Age" and to be released in 3 days apparently ( http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Digital-Age-Reshaping/dp/0307957136 http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Digital-Age-Reshaping/dp/03079... ) - this interview is great marketing for the book then. The Draw Shop has a nice summary of what's in the book - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39tvjOATrCA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39tvjOATrCA
- arthurrr 13y ago
  After reading the interview, I have zero interest in reading any book from Eric Schmidt, but I am thoroughly fascinated by what Assange has to say. This interview is probably going to be much more insightful than any book Schmidt will write.

aray 13y ago

Pretty good summary by the Verge, but definitely worth reading the whole thing: http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4241486/eric-schmidt-and-julian-assange-conversation-published-on-wikileaks http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4241486/eric-schmidt-and-j...

stevep98 13y ago

[LS spills water all over her note taking laptop] [JA quickly grabs her laptop and turns it upside down] JC: Ha ha ha! Why do I feel that has happened before? LS: Did you see how fast he was? It was like an impulse.

mrmaddog 13y ago

This is incredibly fascinating. If you are trying to figure out whether this is worth a read or not, I don't think you'll be disappointed spending an hour or two following along through the interview. For those of you that are tight on time, here are some heavily paraphrased notes I've been taking, referencing some of the more thought provoking parts of the interview. (And I'm only half way through! I'll need to finish reading this tomorrow): - We should create human readable (memorable) hashes to map names to specific data, so people can trust the documents they have are not tampered with and so that such documents can't be removed from the public record. Sort of an immutable DNS system for data built on hashes. Readability is important so the keys can be transmitted independently of computer networks. Bitcoins may be a good reference technology for this. (See: "So this Bitcoin replacement" and passages leading up to that) - We need secure, robust communication systems for medium sized groups of people (think revolutionaries) that don't need to rely on centralized (government owned) networks. Possibly use UDP to message someone (since without ACKs you can send to many hosts, and a listening host looks the same to the network as an unrelated host). More ideas about this in passage: "Right, so you send it to random internet hosts" - The internet lets one hear their own beliefs echoed back with such force that it drowns out any other input. It reinforces (makes extreme?) the person's original thought. This creates a "radicalization of internet educated youth," makes us highly political. - The US doesn't need to care as much about free speech since free speech won't change the fiscal outlook of those at the top (US is in a "rigid fiscalized structure"). China and Egypt are a more political society though, so they still need to control free speech. (See passage:"I am not going to say governments") - "censorship is always cause for celebration. It is always an opportunity, because it reveals fear of reform. It means that the power position is so weak that you have got to care about what people think." - Censorers don't care what information exists in darknets. They only care that their bosses don't find out about the darknets. (See: "Even the censors in China" passage) - There is a second type of censorship beyond overt government censorship: "Censorship through complexity." Harkens back to the earlier discussion in the interview about the 'self-censorship' pyramid for journalists. - Journalists should give all of their source data, not just choice quotes, so that people can make up their own minds. (See: "scientific journalism") - "Most wars in the 20th century have started as a result of lies. Amplified and spread by the mainstream press. And you go, well that is a horrible circumstance, that is terrible that all these wars start with lies. And I say no, this is a tremendous opportunity, because it means that populations basically don't like wars and they have to be lied into it. And that means we can be truthed into peace."

stevep98 13y ago

JA: there was this fantastic video that came out of Stanford in about '69 on nuclear synthesis of DNA. Have you seen it? It's on youtube. It's great. A wonderful thing. So it is explaining nuclear synthesis through interpretive dance. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww Skip to 3:30 and, um take something to get in the mood of the era...

jaredmcateer 13y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww#t=3m30s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww#t=3m30s

dreen 13y ago

Is there a recording of the talk? I would much prefer that to the transcript.

andybak 13y ago
How odd. I usually find myself thinking exactly the opposite when someone posts a video or audio clip.
- dreen 13y ago
  I wish I had time to read but I don't. I listen to everything I can though; books news etc. while commuting and working.
  - andybak 13y ago
    I wish I had the time to watch and listen to things but I don't. I skim read everything I can though; books, news etc. It's much quicker for me than listening watching!

redthrowaway 13y ago

Say whatever you will about Assange; it's clear he puts a great deal of thought and effort into what he does. I highly recommend his essay on the nature, structure, and weaknesses of conspiracies he wrote shortly after starting Wikileaks: http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/conspiracies.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20070129125831/http://iq.org/cons... It's not exactly a pg classic, but it does give good insight into his motivations and thought processes.

kybernetyk 13y ago

Ugh, is Eric Schmidt really that non-technical that he can't remember the right name for TOR? I mean I don't expect him to write code or know the implementation details of TCP/IP but as Google CEO he should at least know a little about the field his company is playing in and the right names for the more important technologies. Or is this some kind of practical joke I don't get?

scotth 13y ago
Give the guy a break.
- kybernetyk 13y ago
  Why? Because expecting a tech CEO to know about tech is unreasonable?
  - JanezStupar 13y ago
    And he probably knows detailed stuff about things you have no idea about. The guy has been an (excellent?) engineer, then a CTO and later on a CEO of a major multinational corporation. And AFAIK, he did each of his jobs vastly better than the norm. Who are you with your pretentiousness? Edit: With your original post you clearly displayed your ignorance in the open, the ignorance of not even being bothered to check the background of the person you are attacking for their background. Am I ignorant of tech, because I barely know anything about electronics and bitcoin?
    - kybernetyk 13y ago
      > Am I ignorant of tech, because I barely know anything about electronics and bitcoin? If you want to write a book about it then yes. > Who are you with your pretentiousness? Also please let's keep the discussion polite and non-personal.
      - JanezStupar 13y ago

junto 13y ago

There are some interesting comments in here, namely: "So, on the one hand we have live dynamic services and organizations... well there's three things. Live dynamic services. Organizations that run those services, so that you are referring to a hierarchy. You are referring to a system of control. An organization, a government, that represents an organized evolving group. And on the other hand you have artefacts. You have human intellectual artefacts that have the ability to be completely independent from any system of human control. They are out there in the Platonic realm somehow. And shouldn't in fact be referred to by an organization. They should be referred to in a way that is intrinsic to the intellectual content, that arises out of the intellectual content! I think that is an inevitable and very important way forward, and where this... where I saw that this was a problem was dealing with a man by the name of Nahdmi Auchi. A few years ago was listed by one of the big business magazines in the UK as the fifth richest man in the UK. In 1980 left Iraq. He'd grown rich under Saddam Hussein's oil industry. And is alleged by the Italian press to be involved in a load of arms trading there, he has over two hundred companies run out of his Luxembourg holding unit. And several that we discovered in Panama. He had infiltrated the British Labour political establishment to the degree that the 20th business birthday in London he was given a painting signed by 146 members Commons including Tony Blair. He's the same guy who was the principal financier of Tony Rezko. Tony Rezko was the financier and fundraiser of Rod Blagoyevich, from Chicago. Convicted of corruption. Tony Rezko has been convicted of corruption. And Barack Obama. He was the intermediary who helped Barack Obama buy one of his houses and then the money not directly for the house but it bouyed up Tony Rezko's finances came from that... [indistinct]. So during the - this is detail, but it will get to a point. During the 2008 presidential primaries a lot of attention was turned to Barack Obama by the US press, unsurprisingly. And so it started to look into his fundraisers, and discovered Tony Rezko, and then they just started to turn their eyes towards Nadhmi Auchi. Auchi then hired Carter Ruck, a rather notorious firm of London libel solicitors, whose founder, Carter Ruck, has been described as doing for freedom of speech what the Boston strangler did for door to door salesmen. And he started writing letters to all of the London papers who had records of his 2003 extradition to France and conviction for corruption in France over the Elf-Acquitaine scandal. Where he had been involved in taking kickbacks on selling the invaded Kuwaiti governments' oil refineries in order to fund their operations while Iraq had occupied it. So the Guardian pulled three articles from 2003. So they were five years old. They had been in the Guardian's archive for 5 years. Without saying anything. If you go to those URLs you will not see "removed due to legal threats." You will see "page not found." And one from the Telegraph. And a bunch from some American publications. And bloggers, and so on. Important bits of history, recent history, that were relevant to an ongoing presidential campaign in the United States were pulled out of the intellectal record. They were also pulled out of the Guardian's index of articles. So why? The Guardian's published in print, and you can go to the library and look up those articles. They are still there in the library. How would you know that they were there in the library? To look up, because they are not there in the Guardian's index. Not only have they ceased to exist, they have ceased to have ever existed. Which is the modern implementation of Orwell's dictum that he controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future. Because the past is stored physically in the present. All records of the past. This issue of preserving politically salient intellectual content while it is under attack is central to what WikiLeaks does -- because that is what we are after! We are after those bits that people are trying to suppress, because we suspect, usually rightly, that they're expending economic work on suppressing those bits because they perceive that they are going to induce some change."

shakiba 13y ago

TL;DR!

belorn 13y ago

I wonder if one could automate a process to find articles that has been removed (censured) from news papers, but which still exist in libraries. Is there any project which digital store some index of news articles outside the control the publishing newspaper? Maybe Google could give such index (and only index), so as to enable investigating reports and citizens to notice when articles get pulled.

guybrushT 13y ago

Definitely worth a read. Its like reading a wonderful short story that just works on so many levels. It has many layers - interesting ideas on technology, free-speech, values & idealism, information flow, bitcoin - plus the personalities involved themselves (JA, ES). Fascinating indeed. In particular, I am intrigued by JA's thoughts on a peer-to-peer mobile network. For those who understand this well, can you explain how feasible it is to do this today? What are the challenges involved? Why isn't a startup doing this? It would be nice to one day, bypass the telecom company towers to transmit data directly to another person/phone.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
> Why isn't a startup doing this? There is no financial incentive. A recurring theme throughout the interview.

mz1988 13y ago

Eric Schmidt is not google ceo, he is google chairman

waqf 13y ago
I was about to reply that when this meeting took place in 2011 Schmidt was still CEO. But in fact you're right, he was not: he'd stepped down a couple of months previously.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

tmanx 13y ago

SC: This is a fantastic tree. It keeps us totally dry. LOL

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

On "putting people at risk": -- So if we look at the attacks on us, they always talk about the words "placed people at risk." But risk relative to what? Is it a proportionate risk? Is it a risk that is significant enough that it is even worth speaking about? So these rhetorical tricks are often used by people who are making their argument in relation to security. What has to be done is people need to engage in an intellectual defense against manipulation by rhetoric by understanding that if someone mentions that there is a risk without saying the risk is higher than crossing the road, or the risk is twice that of being stung by a bee, then you must ignore it. Similarly with possibility versus probability. --

navs 13y ago

I can't get over the Fiji comment. I'm from there you see and I'd never heard of this particular theory regarding the CIA.