The Situation with Julian Assange

In case you don't know the Julian Assange story, or you need a quick refresher, here's a concise summary.

Assange is an Australian computer programmer who created the website WikiLeaks back in 2006, with the intent of publishing classified information and news leaks.

WikiLeaks received international attention in early 2010 after it published a series of leaks that included:

Following the leaks, the US government launched a criminal investigation. Later that year, Sweden issued an international warrant for Assange's arrest for sexual assault and rape.

Assange denied the allegations and said that if he went back to Sweden, they would hand his ass over to the United States.

A month after the warrant was issued, he was arrested in London, but released on bail.

Then, in 2012, the United Kingdom ruled that Assange could be extradited to Sweden, to face the allegations in court.

Shortly after that announcement, Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador and went to live in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

And, because Embassies are considered sovereign parts of the countries they represent, they are given immunity from the laws of the countries that they're based in.

So, as long as Assange didn't leave the Ecuadorian Embassy's property, he couldn't be arrested. That is, of course, under the condition that the Ecuadorian government continue to give him asylum. Which, on that note, according to some reports, as the years went on, some thought that Assange was starting to overstay his welcome.

For example, back in 2018, the Ecuadorian Embassy laid out a set of house rules for Assange—if he wanted to keep his asylum. This included things like not engaging in political comments online. They also reportedly told him (and I'm not making this up) he had to quote 'clean his bathroom and take better care of his cat, or risk losing his pet.'

Assange then responded by firing a lawsuit against Ecuador for quote 'violating his fundamental rights and freedoms.'

His lawyer also made this affirmation:

But, it turns out that biting the hand that gives you asylum might have been a bad idea, because on Thursday, April 11, 2019, Ecuador's president, Lenin Moreno, announced in a video posted on Twitter, that he was revoking Assange's asylum.

In that video, Moreno said that Assange repeatedly violated the provisions of his asylum by meddling in internal affairs of other countries—this despite being asked multiple times to play by the rules.

Following that announcement, the British Metropolitan Police (BMP) were invited to the Embassy where they finally arrested Julian Assange.

With the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) saying in a press release that Assange was arrested on a warrant from 2012, for failing to surrender to the court.

Then Assange was sent to the Westminster Magistrates' Court and there he was found guilty of failing to surrender to the court back in 2012.

That charge is really the least of his worries, if you ask me. The police are issuing an updated statement that said he had been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities on an extradition warrant.

Interestingly, a few hours after his arrest, a US federal court unsealed an indictment from 2017, charging Assange with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

And according to a statement from the US Department of Justice:

The statement went on to refer to the leak as…

…and adding that Assange will face:

Now, of note, the indictment doesn't actually include evidence that Assange and Manning were successful in cracking the password, but, according to the indictment, before the password cracking, Manning gave Assange hundreds of thousands of classified records.

And those materials reportedly included 90,000 reports from the Afghanistan war, 400,000 reports from the Iraq war and 250,000 State Department cables.

Which is why, back in 2010, Manning was charged with violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses for giving those materials to WikiLeaks and was sent to prison for seven good years.

But, regarding that, the fact that Assange wasn't given an Espionage charge is pretty significant—which will likely come as a relief for his staunchest supporters and the press freedom advocates.

Consequently, a lot of people have come out in support of Assange and criticizing his arrest. Most notably, Edward Snowden.

Edward Snowden, of course, the former CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) employee who leaked classified information from the NSA (National Security Agency), tweeted this:

Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU’s (American Civil Liberties Union) Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, gave a statement saying that if the US decided to prosecute Assange, it would be quote…

…and adding…

…and I saw WikiLeaks themselves tweet:

WikiLeaks also went on to say:

At the same time, you have some applauding the arrest.

For example, you have UK Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, taking to Twitter to say:

Even Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, also had this to say:

Additionally, US Senator, Ben Sasse, tweeted this:

Looking at the situation, it appears Assange's legal problems are just beginning. And based off of what's happening, it seems more than likely that he is going to be extradited to the United States. Can't wait to see what comes out of all of this. God, I smell torture already. Waterboarding, anyone?

Just to mention a few things other than the conspiracy charge, although the sexual assault and rape charges in Sweden were dropped back in 2017, according to NPR (National Public Radio), the lawyer representing the woman who had accused Assange, told them that she and her client would do everything they can to get the Swedish police to reopen the investigation.

And, of course, it's worth mentioning that Assange is one of the many people involved with the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 US elections.

WikiLeaks was responsible for leaking DNC (Democratic National Committee) documents as well as emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, during the campaign.

An investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III alleges that WikiLeaks worked with Russian officials to do so.

There's also a serious allegation that former Trump strategist, Roger Stone, who was indicted on Mueller's probe, spoke directly with Assange on the phone about the leaks—further implying that Stone relayed that information to Donald Trump.

Regardless, Stone and Assange deny that they ever had a phone conversation about this.

Still and all, it is pretty important to note that as of right now, Assange is not facing charges pertaining to 2016. A lot of things could change, though, and charges could be added. Time will tell, eventually.

Before I forget, on the note of Trump, Trump spoke in a press briefing about Assange's arrest. It might interest you to know that in the past, Trump had praised WikiLeaks—specifically after they released Podesta's emails. It was also reported that he had mentioned WikiLeaks one hundred and sixty four times; just in the month leading up to the election.

Fast-forward to Assange's arrest, when a reporter asked him if he still liked WikiLeaks, he responded in typical Trump fashion: “Err, I know nothing about WikiLeaks—it's not my thing.”

Yeah, so that is where I am as of typing this blogpost. Keep in mind that this is still a developing situation. It's most certainly going to be really interesting and quite honestly, historic, to see what happens from here.

With that said, I am very very interested in what your thoughts are around this. Are you happy he's arrested? No? You think this is incredibly concerning? Why? Why not? Any and all thoughts, lemme know in those comments down below.

And while you're down there, don't forget to hit that share button.

Conclusively, if you wanna see the full versions of everything I just talked about on this topic, here are the links:

Washington Post

BBC

NPR

New York Times

FOX

#GoogleWalkout

Google is in the news for news they'd probably rather not be in the news for.



Very recently, on Thursday, November 1st—to be solidly specific—there was a scheduled walkout for Google employees that started at 11:10 AM (local time) for any Google officers worldwide.



Further, according to a Twitter account aptly called @GoogleWalkout, employees are seeking five meaningful changes.



One:



Two:



Three:



Four:



And five:



Consequently, a great number of officers across the world ended up participating. You have Singapore,



Dublin,



New York City,



Austin,



London,



Zurich,



Tokyo.



In addition to what precedes, Google’s chief executive, Sundai Pichai, stated via email that he actually supported the protest.



Reportedly, this is what he said per se:



He also added:




However, this show of support seems to mean very little to many employees who want to most certainly see things change for real, instead of a frigging PR response.

As far as why the walkout is happening, it was actually organized after a New York Times report came out detailing the wonderful ways Google has protected executives that are accused of sexual misconduct.

Essentially, the organizers of the walkout said in a statement:



Adding:



So, that brings us to the very vital question: What was really in the report? Well, frankly, in it there were multiple examples.

Firstly, we have a David C. Drummond. He began working as a general counsel for Google in 2002.



He had an extramarital affair with Jennifer Blakely who was a senior contract manager in the legal department.



They had a relationship that began in 2004. They had a son in 2007—after which Drummond disclosed the relationship to Google.

According to Blakely:




She was then transferred to the sales department. She left the company a year later after reportedly signing a document that she was departing voluntarily.

But Blakely also affirmed that the way Drummond was treated…




Secondly, we have a Richard DeVaul, a director at Google X.



So, there's this incident in 2013 when he interviewed Star Simpson, a hardware engineer.



Reportedly, during the interview, DeVaul told Simpson that he and his wife were polyamorous and then he invited her to an annual festival in the Nevada desert tentatively titled Burning Man. Clearly not your typical interview, but because Simpson said she was interested in discussing the position more, she attended albeit with a conservative attire and also with her mother in tow.

At the festival, DeVaul asked her to take her top off, so he could give her a back rub. When she refused, he insisted and ultimately, she relented into letting him rub her neck.



Simpson told the New York Times she didn't have enough spine or backbone to shut that down as a 24-year-old. She's 30 now, so it is perfectly understandable. Sadly, though, she was told a few weeks later that she didn't get the job, or more correctly speaking, didn't qualify for the job. She then waited two depressingly long years to report it to Google and when she did, according to a HR employee, appropriate action was taken. Also saying she was asked to stay quiet about the incident.

Douchebag DeVaul at an unspecified later time apologized for what he called an error of judgment—also adding that the company had already decided not to hire Simpson before the festival and he was utterly unaware that she hadn't been informed yet. He resigned eventually.



Thirdly, we have Amit Singhal, a senior vice president who headed search.



An employee alleged that he had groped her at an off-site event where alcohol was served. After investigations, the company confirmed that Mr. Singhal was inebriated and that there were no witnesses, but found her claim credible. In spite of that, Google didn't fire him, but they did accept his resignation and gave him an exit package.

Still and all, the big standout story out of all of these that most people have been talking about, is with the $350 million man himself: Andy Rubin!



In case it's unclear, Mr. Rubin is the proud creator of the Android mobile software!

Regardless, there was a woman in his division—at Google—that he began an extramarital relationship with. Reportedly, the two started the relationship in 2012 and by 2013, she wanted to end it, but she feared for her job (naturally).

In March of 2013, the woman apparently agreed to meet Rubin in a hotel room where he pressured her into performing oral sex—an incident that she said ended the relationship.

The woman waited until 2014 to report the incident and an investigation conducted by Google concluded that her allegations were credible.

According to two unnamed company executives, Rubin was duly notified of the findings and was then asked for his resignation. Preposterously, instead of firing him in 2014, Google CEO at the time, Larry Page, asked for Rubin to resign and then the company gave him a whopping $90 million exit package! And reportedly, that was set up to be paid out in monthly installments over the course of four sweet years! The final payment should basically be this month! Oh yes you have my express permission to faint!

Now, on the other side of this, Rubin does maintain that he left Google on his own accord and his spokesperson said that he has actually never been told of these accusations!

Contradictorily, Rubin dished out an assertion of innocence:




On that note, his ex-wife, Rie Rubin (who he met at Google as well), is alleging that he had multiple ownership relationships with other women while they were married! And in the New York Times report, they say—according to four people who worked with him—he dated other women at Google, including one woman who was on the Android team.

Regarding the ownership relationship thingy, screenshots released from their civil suit showed Rubin telling one woman she'll be happy being taken care of. Adding that he sort of owned her and since she was his property, he could loan her to other people.



Furthermore, some really interesting information came out after the New York Times piece was released. Google CEO, Sundar Pichai and Google’s vice president for people operations, Eileen Naughton, stated in an email to staff that Google had fired 48 people—including 13 senior managers—for sexual harassment over the past two years and that none of them received an exit package. They also added:





Proportionately, a bunch of former executives have hammered home that Google does weigh out all (of) the possible negative outcomes of firing executives moreso than when considering to fire a low level employee. This is basically because executives are surpassingly synonymous with stocks, or their stock compensation and how much they would leave behind—these things are always often considered. That's along with the possibility that there's a wrongful termination lawsuit if they're fired, which could also lead to unwanted media attention for Google.

Substantially, Larry Page, the former CEO of Google, made these asseverations to employees:





However, for many, it just wasn't enough especially as Google is currently facing lawsuits alleging that they're underpaying women. There's even a Department of Labor investigation into this alleged pay gap. Subsequently, this frosty feeling was summed up in a question display during the weekly staff meeting at Google after the report came out reading:




In view of the foregoing, Liz Fong-Jones, a Google engineer, stated that “When Google covers up harassment and passes the trash, it contributes to an environment where people don’t feel safe reporting misconduct. They suspect that nothing will happen or, worse, that the men will be paid and the women will be pushed aside.”



Similarly, Jaana B. Dogan, a Google cloud employee tweeted out:




What she's likely referencing there are reports Google has a prototype of a censored search platform for China, that links phone numbers to searches.



And while the inclusion of that can come off (as) out of left field, I think it really goes to show that there's tons of issues! It's not just one thing and it seems like for a good number of people, it's all somewhat steadily stacking up!

From a pretty personal perspective, as far as what happens from here, it will most certainly be very interesting, because looking at all these pictures from the walkout—more specifically seeing how many people are actually walking out—you can crystal clearly, tell how hefty of a problem it is!





Ultimately, the question at hand is: Will it be effective? What happens tomorrow? The week after? A month after? A year after? Only time will tell. And there's not an iota of doubt regarding that.

Notwithstanding, what we've seen so far is a massive show of numbers, but based off of what we've seen from Google’s current chief executive, Mr. Sundar Pichai, systematically separating his leadership from the actions of the past hasn't availed anyone anything in the least.



One again, looking at the entirety of the situation, with the truckloads of complaints and demands, this is so not a one-point issue. My guess is that we'll have to wait to see.

In the meantime, with this story of course, I pass the question off to you, though. What are your thoughts around it? Does it sound like Google’s trying to do the right thing? Or is it PR BS to you?