Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 1) 137 137

Back to TFA: molestation isn't rape. Without reading the article, I'd guess based on the sentence that the offense of the guy in question was pretty small. Maybe a grope on the train or something, happens pretty often on those crowded Japanese commuter trains. Is that also worth murder?

Well, without reading the article, you don't know if what they call molestation would be called child rape in our part of the world. To enlighten the debate a little: "The Japanese Penal Code sets a minimal age of consent of 13" (from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) - which to means that the court would be biased towards assuming consent, unless the girl was very young. Japan is also a society that still has a great deal of sympathy towards the rights of men is realtion to women.

From the article:

"He harbors remorse over the incident and is leading a new life. The search results prevent him from rehabilitating himself," the man's defense counsel claimed, adding, "Publicizing past criminal information with a person's real name doesn't serve the public's needs, and is therefore illegal."

Google had earlier refuted the plaintiff's claim, saying, "It was a vicious crime exploiting a child in order to satisfy his own sexual desire. The crime has attracted much criticism from the international community as well as a great deal of interest from parents."

What is interesting here is Google's statement; they are normally very competent when it comes to covering their own arse, so they would not come out with such a harsh statement unless they fellt sure it would stand up to scrutiny. The defence lawyer's statement, on the other hand, is vapid nonsense, as far as I can see. Just imagine anybody else getting away from their past with that excuse, even if all they had done was shoplifting a bottle of cheap wine. When we do something wrong, it stays with us; criminal cases are public: justice must be SEEN to be done.

Comment: Re:Sweden's case won't really matter (Score 1) 61 61

There is one thing where the UK would have had a role even if he hadn't fled bail, in that the UK would have been the EAW "sending state". Under an EAW surrender, the sending state has certain rights and responsibilities - for example, if a request comes for extradition to a third party, it has to not only go through the receiving state's judiciary system, but also the sending state's judiciary system; the receiving state can't just hand off someone that they received under an EAW at will. Which is one of the things that makes the whole thing even more ridiculous - Assange had so much faith in Sweden's independence against the UK (such as their ban on extradition for intelligence crimes and 2006 Swedish special forces raids to shut down the US's rendition flights secretly moving through their territory) that he called it his "shield" and was applying for a residence permit there. But suddenly, practically overnight, Sweden transformed into Evil US Lackeys(TM) when he was accused of rape. So then he went to the UK where he talked about his great respect for their independence and impartiality and promised to abide by whatever rulings their judicial system made. Until he ran out of appeals, wherein the UK also turned into Evil US Lackeys(TM). Funny how he felt just fine walking around freely in both of these countries all this time, having only one of the two countries as barriers against US extradition, but adamantly fought the situation that would make them both be barriers to extradition.

Comment: Re:Competent Authorities (Score 1) 61 61

Which is, of course, false. AA has accused Assange of lesser sexual crimes, and SW has accused him of rape. There are no counts of rape against Assange concerning AA on the EAW, only three lesser counts (2x molestation and 1x unlawful sexual coersion). There is one count of rape on the EAW (count #4) concerning SW, in line with what the women have accused him of and also in line with what the Svea Court of Appeals has found probable cause for. Both women sought and retained legal representatives who have pushed the case forward for them (initially, both of them retained Claes Borgström, who was the one whose appeal got the closed portion of the investigation re-opened. More recently AA fired Claes because she thought he wasn't doing a good enough of a job with the case and was more focused on self aggrandizement; her new legal representative since started a new push to get Assange handed over to Sweden).

There's a lot more detail on these topics and more here.

The Assange-echo-chamber meme "Neither of the women involved have ever accused Assange of rape" is based on a simple distortion of a key element. SW (the one who the rape charge is concerned) didn't want to have to file charges - she only wanted to force Assange to take a STD test. She didn't want the thing to turn into a giant media circus that basically ruined her life and forced her into hiding from angry Assange fans. But there's a difference between not wanting to file charges and not accusing Assange of rape. She did accuse Assange of rape - first in conversations with her friends while coming to grips with what happened, and then went to the police station, where they told the officer on duty that they wanted advice on how to report a rape (see the statement by Linda Wassgren, the on-duty officer on the 20th). They were then interviewed separately where she described being raped, and after the interview she took a rape kit and sought a legal advocate (getting, ultimately, Claes). Since the leak of the Memoria file (a scummy act on Assange's side, I should add, as it's full of identifying personal details about his accusers and their families that have been used to harrass them - and we know it came from Assange's side because the cover page has a note to Assange's attorney telling him that it's confidential and must not be released), there have been a number of other followup interviews and investigations, and at no point have any objections from AA or SW been recorded. There is absolutely nothing in the record supporting a claim "Neither of the women involved have ever accused Assange of rape". SW has pretty much had to disappear after the event; AA went into hiding for a while but has since resumed taking part in some of the old forums that she used to; last fall she mentioned the case for the first time since the one brief statement she had given to the press after going to the police, mentioning offhand in an unrelated thread that a couple years ago she was the victim of a sex crime and that the perpetrator still hasn't been brought to justice, but rather she's still attacked by his fans for daring to report it. She didn't mention Assange by name, but it's obvious who she was referring to.

Most people who are raped don't want to file charges. They don't want the viscious attacks that come with it and want to shove the event in the past and not have to keep reliving it. A hundred times over when the accused is someone famous who has a lot of loyal fans. But claiming "not wanting to file charges" means "wasn't raped" is a massive distortion.

Comment: Just a toy for the rich? (Score 1) 61 61

One of the things that immediately puts me in alert mode is that name 'Liquid Metal', capitalised, no less. Understanding of what a glass actually is, is realtively new, of course, and something that is likely to become very useful in the future, but why make a phone with frame made of it? If it is indeed as good and durable as all that, is it actually going to be relevant? Smartphones are 'old' almost as soon as they go on sale, since the technology is still developing quickly, and unless the hardware etc can be upgraded easily, having an expensive phone like this is no more than a toy for the rich and stupid.

Comment: A real problem (Score 1) 251 251

I think we are facing a real problem, and I don't think we can solve it by waving lofty ideals about from the comfort of our armchairs. Fundamental right like privacy and freedom of speech are too important to be used frivolously. If they get pulled out again and again as a knee-jerk reaction every time somebody can't have it all their own way, then they will get watered down to the point where people in general get sick enough to allow them to be taken away completely - or at least severely restricted.

So, instead of automatically whining, try to come up with a better way tol solve the problems: organised crime and terrorist organisations, just to mention two, are very good at using communications that are difficult to trace, and our best weapons are hampered by having to follow the law. Shall we simply roll over and take it on the chin, let internal gangs do what they like and terrorists organise ever bolder attacks on civilians?

Amongst the readers of Slashdot are some, at least, who aspire to be clever and able to solve problems; so contribute constructively, if you think you can.

Comment: Re:Competent Authorities (Score 2) 61 61

It's not an "IF" as to whether Assange cherry picks things for political reasons. He does. There are lots of things he's deliberately kept back with threats to release if certain things happen that he doesn't want (unredacted cables, files against NewsCorp, etc). The most famous was his "insurance file" which was to be released "should anything happen to him", which was left vague enough that it wasn't clear whether he was talking about "being killed" or simply "being sent to Sweden" (the statement being made during his fight to avoid surrender to Sweden). The scummiest blackmail on his part, IMHO, was his threatening to release unredacted documents that could get various aid/human rights organizations' employees killed if said organizations didn't provide him money (most famously his $700k shakedown of Amnesty International).

He refers to the leaks in Wikileaks' possession as his "property", and made all Wikileaks staffers sign an onerous NDA imposing ridiculous fines if they do anything to reduce the monetary value of said property, such as by leaking it.

Comment: Mozilla Foundation now works for Microsoft? (Score 1) 124 124

"remember back when Google used to be behind Firefox?"

Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 0) 313 313

Christ, try being original with your trolling

?

It's been repeatedly proven that the "harassment" has been the professional victims using alternate accounts to send themselves messages - and it's also why none of these supposed "threats" have ever been reported to the police.

That's a complete lie. But it is what Gamergaters tell newcomers so they can feel good about supporting a campaign of harassment.

Do you feel good about not merely ignoring the high profile threats and harassment prominent women in tech are experiencing, but also smearing the victims as liars, and spreading false stories to try to get people to disbelieve them?

Comment: Re:Penalty for obvious false claims (Score 1) 82 82

How would that help? Barratry is only relevant when suits are being filed, and that's not the case with DMCA abuse. They don't take you to court: they just threaten to take the host to court, and the host folds because they don't see it as their fight.

Comment: Re:Copyright trolls are rampant on YouTube, making (Score 3, Interesting) 82 82

Reading your comment brings back the memories of when I was briefly working on a Drupal project. The firm impression I came away with is that the Drupal community prefers to document things by making a half-hour video rather than by writing a page of text, even though written documentation could be read and re-read several times in the time it takes to watch the video.

Comment: Re:Harrassment and frivolity (Score 1) 82 82

OK, but the settlement is unlikely to be for more than pennies (we're talking Youtube royalties here), so what lawyer is likely to take on the case?

Despite the view of many that the legal system is some kind of lottery where you can win arbitrary amounts of cash, the reality is that the civil system generally works on the basis of damages with any punitive element being small or non-existent. Most of the time the high awards you hear about for some injury or another are a product of high medical bills being involved, not because a judge wanted to make Macy's pay for having slippery floors (or whatever.)

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 4, Insightful) 313 313

Got any evidence ?

Plenty. You can start here.

Nobody's trying to "smear" GamerGate, we read what you write in your own words on 8chan, /r/KIA, and under the #gamergate hashtag.

Your entire movement started when Adam Baldwin tweeted links to YouTube videos smearing a female game dev's sex life because her ex-boyfriend wanted to run a hate campaign against her. That information is public domain. It's not something I just made up. It's the ORIGINS OF GAMERGATE. It's where the hashtag came from.

Forget the links I point to you above, take a look at the last few articles on Slashdot concerning gender - concerning subjects as minor and unthreatening as whether marketing a chemistry set specifically at girls might have the opposite affect to that intended (ie doing so might decrease interest by girls.) Something many of us would like to discuss, but can't, because you fuckers SHITPOST over EVERY. SINGLE. DISCUSSION, doing your absolute best to discourage anyone from even discussing the subject by flooding the comments section with misogynist trolls and off topic bullshit.

If you really are so stupid as to think that GamerGate is something to do with Ethics in Gaming Journalism, you might want to actually look into the movement. You might even want to look at the "journalists" it allies itself with.

Because if it did, it wouldn't:

- Do everything possible to prevent discussions of women in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Harass female game devs constantly, because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Talk non stop about so-called "SJWs" and never mention journalists. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Demand Slashdot ban discussions related to diversity in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Call JACK THOMPSON "BASED DAD", a lawyer who has actually tried to ban games, while calling Anita Sarkeesian a "censor" or "authoritarian", because she produced a video identifying tropes she feels are sexist in various video games. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Support the "journalism" of Milo Yiannopoulos, because he certainly has NOTHING to do with "ethics in (ANY) journalism" FFS.

- Pretend a mass harassment campaign against prominent women in journalism is not going on, pretending instead it's some kind of fund raising stunt (even though it doesn't apparently help any of the targets that it's going on), because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Do you get the picture?

The star of riches is shining upon you.

Working...