Aussie PM's computer hacked.

Spy agency ASIO remained tight-lipped about the security breach this morning, but Dr McKinley said ASIO would be involved in investigating the security breach, along with federal police and DSD.

Aussie Pm is a bit upset, "Whether we green-light projects is of critical importance. I would not understate the possibility of that, given Australia's resources boom and its importance to a number of our key trading partners."

Don't the Chinese hackers have the same rights as Julian Assange? Or is this some strange kind of outback Karma at work.

I don't really understand. Did the Chinese hack the computer or was the hacker just a Chinese national? What does hacking the computer have to do with green-lighting projects?

And what, pray tell, does this have to with Julian Assange?

I don't really understand. Did the Chinese hack the computer or was the hacker just a Chinese national? What does hacking the computer have to do with green-lighting projects?

And what, pray tell, does this have to with Julian Assange?

The Chinese guy got secrets from the computer of the Aussie PM and I would imagine has made them public to certain Chinese people.

The information was private information of the Australian government.

Julian Assange got secrets from the US government and made them public.

The information was private information of the US government.

Thanks Marky....it's a little too late in the evening for me to connect the dots!

There's no dots to connect. It's comparing apples to carrots.

"Made public to certain people" is an oxymoron.

Hacking is criminal and in this case possibly espionage to boot, while Assange has not committed any criminal act (rape charges aside...they're just not pertinant here).

Thanks Harcourt, now I know why the dots didn't connect after a good nights sleep.

Assange has been a hacker before so it is perfectly reasonable to assume a connection.

Assange has been a hacker before so it is perfectly reasonable to assume a connection.

Not reasonable at all.....that is not what the OP is referring to.......unless you are alleging that Assange hacked a US government site, which as far as we all know he did not.

Two governments lost sensitive data that was shared with persons they did not want it shared with. Assange was one step removed from the theft of the information.

Yes or no?

Two governments lost sensitive data that was shared with persons they did not want it shared with. Assange was one step removed from the theft of the information.

Yes or no?

Yes...and there is the answer to your question, "what is the difference?"........they are one step (and a significant step) apart.

Two governments lost sensitive data that was shared with persons they did not want it shared with. Assange was one step removed from the theft of the information.

Yes or no?

Yes...and there is the answer to your question, "what is the difference?"........they are one step (and a significant step) apart.

I agree with you and there's the rub. What Assange did was legal but it bothers me as much as the Chinese guy stealing Aussie secrets. I guess I am alone in my moral outrage.

Assange has been a hacker before so it is perfectly reasonable to assume a connection.

...and the Aussie PM has been involved in shady in the past. Reasonable to assume a connection.

I agree with you and there's the rub. What Assange did was legal but it bothers me as much as the Chinese guy stealing Aussie secrets. I guess I am alone in my moral outrage.

You are far from being alone. Both are dealing in stolen property and profiting from it.

For the record...

"Assange's career as a computer hacker, dating back to the late 1980s, resulted in him pleading guilty to 24 charges of hacking in 1992."

http://worldnews.about.com/od/warandconflict/p/Julian-Assange.htm

Assange has been a hacker before so it is perfectly reasonable to assume a connection.

...and the Aussie PM has been involved in shady in the past. Reasonable to assume a connection.

The PM's predecessor and current FA minister, Kevin Rudd, is fluent in Mandarin....there's a definite connection with the Chinese there.

I agree with you and there's the rub. What Assange did was legal but it bothers me as much as the Chinese guy stealing Aussie secrets. I guess I am alone in my moral outrage.

You are far from being alone. Both are dealing in stolen property and profiting from it.

For the record...

"Assange's career as a computer hacker, dating back to the late 1980s, resulted in him pleading guilty to 24 charges of hacking in 1992."

http://worldnews.abo...ian-Assange.htm

So, anyone who has read any of the Wikileaks releases should therefore be guilty of recieving stolen property?

I agree with you and there's the rub. What Assange did was legal but it bothers me as much as the Chinese guy stealing Aussie secrets. I guess I am alone in my moral outrage.

You are far from being alone. Both are dealing in stolen property and profiting from it.

For the record...

"Assange's career as a computer hacker, dating back to the late 1980s, resulted in him pleading guilty to 24 charges of hacking in 1992."

http://worldnews.abo...ian-Assange.htm

So, anyone who has read any of the Wikileaks releases should therefore be guilty of recieving stolen property?

Good question. It is illegal to make kiddy porn. It is illegal to look at it?

I agree with you and there's the rub. What Assange did was legal but it bothers me as much as the Chinese guy stealing Aussie secrets. I guess I am alone in my moral outrage.

You are far from being alone. Both are dealing in stolen property and profiting from it.

For the record...

"Assange's career as a computer hacker, dating back to the late 1980s, resulted in him pleading guilty to 24 charges of hacking in 1992."

http://worldnews.abo...ian-Assange.htm

So, anyone who has read any of the Wikileaks releases should therefore be guilty of recieving stolen property?

Good question. It is illegal to make kiddy porn. It is illegal to look at it?

Yep, of course it is.

So should it be illegal to look at stolen secrets? The secrets are illegal for the thief to look at? Yes? But somehow one person removed the illegality is removed? It is not just stealing them that is illegal. If a hacker looks at secrets he is violating a law. So are both illegal, breaking into a computer and looking at the contents?

I agree with you and there's the rub. What Assange did was legal but it bothers me as much as the Chinese guy stealing Aussie secrets. I guess I am alone in my moral outrage.

You are far from being alone. Both are dealing in stolen property and profiting from it.

For the record...

"Assange's career as a computer hacker, dating back to the late 1980s, resulted in him pleading guilty to 24 charges of hacking in 1992."

http://worldnews.about.com/od/warandconflict/p/Julian-Assange.htm

I am repeating my previous post so our astute members can read it completely.

Specifically this sentence...'Both are dealing in stolen property and profiting from it.'

By being "one step removed" Assange is just a fence for stolen goods. That's not a crime in Australia.

By being "one step removed" Assange is just a fence for stolen goods. That's not a crime in Australia.

Are you saying Assange buys then sells the information?

By being "one step removed" Assange is just a fence for stolen goods. That's not a crime in Australia.

Are you saying Assange buys then sells the information?

I know you did not ask me but I have got a second so if you don't mind I will answer too.

It depends on what you use as currency. Some people use money, some fame and some accept payment in pats on the head.

It is obvious that money is the only legal means of paying someone but there are all sorts of other currencies in use in a real world.

I pay women to smile. Women frown until I pay them. Women make me feel good and I pay them. They feel good when I pay them and smile.

They pay me with a smile to pay them with hard currency. What is the difference between a smile and the hard currency in emotional, ethical terms?

I would smile at my students when they did a good job. I would compliment them when they studied. I could have given them a candy or a smile. Same result. One cost money the other cost an emotion.

I used to live in God's country close to Ian. My wife from Texas blackmailed me every day to move back to her home. She made my life a living hell so that all the beauties of the Pacific North West paled in comparison to one days peace and quiet. There are a lot of different forms of currency.

Forgive the side bar but to answer your question, yes I think Assange buys and sells information. Is what he does illegal? I don't think so. Immoral yes and unpatriotic depending on ones leanings yes.

I don't see any difference between stealing information and publishing stolen information except in a legal sense. The cat is still dead. I didn't kill the cat. But the cat is still dead.

So should it be illegal to look at stolen secrets? The secrets are illegal for the thief to look at? Yes? But somehow one person removed the illegality is removed? It is not just stealing them that is illegal. If a hacker looks at secrets he is violating a law. So are both illegal, breaking into a computer and looking at the contents?

The German government bought CDs containing inforamtion about a bank's customers and not only looked at the information but used it to bring in revenues in taxes and fines.

So, I guess every country makes their own laws.

So should it be illegal to look at stolen secrets? The secrets are illegal for the thief to look at? Yes? But somehow one person removed the illegality is removed? It is not just stealing them that is illegal. If a hacker looks at secrets he is violating a law. So are both illegal, breaking into a computer and looking at the contents?

The German government bought CDs containing inforamtion about a bank's customers and not only looked at the information but used it to bring in revenues in taxes and fines.

So, I guess every country makes their own laws.

Cops shoot people. I can't shoot people. Heck they won't even let me mount a 50 cal machine gun on my tuk tuk. That countries make there own laws is a given.

Julian Assange has been missing from my sights lately.

What's new?

Julian Assange has been missing from my sights lately.

What's new?

Wikileaks' Julian Assange extradition appeal date set

Julian Assange denies allegations of sexual assault in Sweden

Continue reading the main story

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange's appeal against extradition from the UK to Sweden on sexual assault allegations is to begin on 12 July.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12988646

LaoPo

So should it be illegal to look at stolen secrets? The secrets are illegal for the thief to look at? Yes? But somehow one person removed the illegality is removed? It is not just stealing them that is illegal. If a hacker looks at secrets he is violating a law. So are both illegal, breaking into a computer and looking at the contents?

The German government bought CDs containing inforamtion about a bank's customers and not only looked at the information but used it to bring in revenues in taxes and fines.

So, I guess every country makes their own laws.

Cops shoot people. I can't shoot people. Heck they won't even let me mount a 50 cal machine gun on my tuk tuk. That countries make there own laws is a given.

I understand what you are saying. But they didn't say that this was of National Security interest (at least I don't remember that), but they just shrug off any ethical questions and said that buying the CDs versus the additional revenue ion taxes and penalties makes it a good deal. There you go.