They haven't "filed charges" because of a quirk in Swedish law, it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence and everything to do with his flight from prosecution

That's bullshit. He had a follow-up interview scheduled with the police before he fled Sweden

The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October.

http://www.theguardian.com/med...

I don't know if they still do it with all the nude scanners but the old metal detectors would randomly decide if you get subjected to secondary search by flashing a different light when you go through

In this case, the email provider is the 3rd party, not blackberry, so it is analogous. You go to the blackberry system via their website or OS and you give them (blackberry) all your email username, passwords and servers so they can go and get your email from a 3rd party. It works the same way that mint.com collects account information from 3rd party sites, for example. You get the email from BIS directly, which in turn gets it from a 3rd party using the account info you provided.

He doesn't need a passport to return to the US. Or any other country that decides to let him, like you said. It is simply a measure to make things more difficult for him. Regarding the extradition point, his passport was revoked while he was still in Hong Kong.

My point wasn't really whether or not the move makes sense, just that nothing in the regulations say he has to be in the country to revoke his passport (your original claim)

You're conflating the two procedures described in that document. One is for active felony arrest warrants (Snowden's case), and the other is for when there is no active warrant, but leaving the country would result in one due to an existing court order. The actual regulation that the fact sheet is based on also distinguishes between the two:

(1) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding Federal warrant of arrest for a felony, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073); or

(2) The applicant is subject to a criminal court order, condition of probation, or condition of parole, any of which forbids departure from the United States and the violation of which could result in the issuance of a Federal warrant of arrest, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act; or

In fact, it goes on to list extradition proceedings as another valid reason:

(5) The applicant is the subject of a request for extradition or provisional request for extradition which has been presented to the government of a foreign country; or

There is nothing extreme about it, it is entirely routine:

The principal law enforcement reasons for the U.S. State Department to deny
or revoke a passport are the existence of (1) a valid federal or state felony arrest warrant; or (2) a
criminal court order, condition of parole or condition of probation that forbids departure from the
United States (See 22 C.F.R. 51.60-51.62)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/passport_fact_sheet.pdf

This pdf is about sex offenders, but that isn't relevant to the regulations they cite (and I'm just demonstrating that it is standard procedure). 22 C.F.R. 51.62 allows them to revoke a passport if the bearer would not be eligible to get a new passport:

51.62 Revocation or limitation of passports.

(a) The Department may revoke or limit a passport when

(1) The bearer of the passport may be denied a passport under 22 CFR 51.60 or 51.61 ; or 51.28 ; or any other provision contained in this part; or,

22 C.F.R. 51.60 allows for denying a new passport based on outstanding arrest warrants:

(b) The Department may refuse to issue a passport in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that:

(1) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding Federal warrant of arrest for a felony, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073); or

Put together, they can and do revoke passports based simply on having an outstanding arrest warrant, without a specific court order

No, PS3 is the most used "TV-connected" Netflix client.

DUI in NJ is a traffic offense, like a speeding ticket. It is not a criminal offense

The article is based almost entirely on rumors and bad information, but that's what you get from these "Forbes Contributor" articles. They're not from the Forbes staff, they're basically a curated set of blogs hosted by Forbes.

Waiting? We've been through this before for almost the exact same issue when Yahoo! was sued by a French group for allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia on their auction site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!

Yahoo lost, btw

I'm not arguing whether or not it is theft, but the contents of the act do make it criminal which the parent argues otherwise. I was additionally simply pointing out that while he argues it is not Theft simply because it is not a criminal offense, the very bill that does make it a criminal offense contains Theft in the title

According to the NET act, copyright infringement is a criminal offense in some cases which is what I was replying to.

I take it you haven't read the No Electronic Theft Act? (Yes, Theft is right there in the title). IP violation can be a criminal offense in the US

VISA Europe is a membership association owned entirely by its membership (which are European Banks, including Swedish banks)

FWIW, they are not the same company as VISA, Inc. which operates in the US. The US division was sold off in an IPO years ago