Julian Assange's Online Dating Profile Leaked 334
Ponca City writes "The Telegraph reports that an online dating profile created by Julian Assange in 2006 has been unearthed from OKCupid disclosing that the WikiLeaks editor sought 'spirited, erotic' women 'from countries that have sustained political turmoil.' Writing under the pseudonym of British science fiction author Harry Harrison, Assange described himself as a 'passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual.' Assange said he was seeking a 'siren for [a] love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy' adding that he was 'directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project which is, as you might expect, male dominated' and added enigmatically: 'I am DANGER, ACHTUNG.' Among Assange's listed interests were the 'structure of reality' and 'chopping up human brains' – although he added the caveat '(neuroscience background)' lest the latter put off potential admirers. 'I like women from countries that have sustained political turmoil,' Assange wrote. 'Western culture seems to forge women that are valueless and inane. OK. Not only women!'"
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
That actually sounds like a fairly accurate representation of the man. Honesty in an online dating profile? Whodathunkit???
Re: (Score:3)
makes me want to make sure I delete my dating profile from POF. It doesn't work anyhow.... :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Go on...
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
try having some interests other than computers
I did try, and failed. Whats my next move?
Re: (Score:2)
Fake it.
Pretend you enjoy dancing at the clubs. Or maybe try some other things like taking a Health class at the local school. There's 30 girls for 1 guy in that major. (Basically the inverse of engineering.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Sell cocaine. There is literally no way you can fail.
Re: (Score:3)
Sell cocaine. There is literally no way you can fail.
But you can definitely fail figuratively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
John and George opposed the killing... Ringo didn't give a shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are the average dimensions of the women in your coven?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I find that difference both necessary and sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I met my wife on American Singles. We've been married for 13 years this past summer. We've got two kids. We're both busy professionals that don't go clubbing, have different hobbies, and had bad luck dating people based on what they looked like.
YMMV, but if you don't have a car or put gas in the tank don't expect much.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the pay sites are confidence game scams for the most part. OKCupid, which is free to use, and offers value add on an otherwise useful site (that is, rather than a broken, useless site that you pay to make work) that is free.
Anyway, their blog ripped apart the pay sites with their own numbers. The end conclusion... paying for online dating is for suckers.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating/ [okcupid.com]
Its absolutely scathing. Ok, they are a competing site, but, their assessment seems quite strong and correct.
-Steve
Re: (Score:3)
I agree actually. I did the Match.com thing for ages and soon came to realise that this was a scam to defraud me out of my money. They were letting me waste hours sending emails to girls who are unlikely to be paid up members who can even read my emails, to say nothing of responding to them. I wonder how that guy's lawsuit ended up, I'm hoping to get included in the class if it becomes class action. OKCupid is way better, at least there are systems in place to let you know how real a person is.
The idea tha
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
eHarmony rejected me.
Seriously, Im not joking (even though its fucking funny).
Re: (Score:3)
Haha, me too. Apparently we're not alone either: In 20% of cases it was unable to find a match for people who registered. [marketingweek.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. An 80% success rate would be much better than I would have thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Were I a suspicious person by nature, I'd say that EH was salting the mine trying to keep me on the hook. I wriggled free, though.
I think the only relevant qualification that EH looks at is the credit rating and credit line on your credit card.
Re: (Score:3)
Eharmony happily accepted me, but never found a match until just a day or two before the monthly bill came due. For almost every one, by the time I got to the site to check them out, they'd unilaterally closed the contact.
Were I a suspicious person by nature, I'd say that EH was salting the mine trying to keep me on the hook. I wriggled free, though.
I think the only relevant qualification that EH looks at is the credit rating and credit line on your credit card.
Same thing with match.com. Not a single response from anyone until just before it was time to pay up and renew. Odd, that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's designed to eliminate men who are depressed and women who are impossible to please. Congratulations, you are depressed so no one wants to date you and anyone who will will f you up. Try to feel better about yourself somehow. (and next time lie.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
makes me want to make sure I delete my dating profile from POF. It doesn't work anyhow.... :(
Didn't work for Julian. He had to start an international NGO to get chicks.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Then I shall too! Mine's gonna be "RubberLeaks".
Crap, he's already done that one too :-/
Re: (Score:2)
POF used to be decent, then they started requiring you to put up more and more information which had no relevance to anything other than to the people they were marketing the information to.
When I left, I told them exactly why (not that it mattered). I had also seen others who left for the same reason.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it, actually - the profile seems to almost be a parody of itself, and the article says absolutely nothing about how they know the profile is actually Mr. Assange's. How do they know it's his, exactly?
(I've been wondering the same thing about the diplomatic cables honestly)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly!
What would stop you, or me, or anybody from faking classified documents by making stuff up, then "leaking" them to an outfit like Wikileaks?
Which of course raises the counter-conspirasy theory conspiracy theory:
What would stop a government from faking classified documents ny making stuff up then "leaking" it to Wikileaks or a similar group? /me adjusts tin-foil hat.
Re: (Score:2)
China, Iran, and Australia believe the USA did just that. that Wikileaks is a CIA operation to throw the diplomatic community into a fenzy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I approve of lying, but I expected the government to lie more to defuse their tough situation. Your thought-experiments aside, the scary part is that the government has not denied a single one of the current leaks after all these weeks.
Instead, *someone* started the Wikileaks smear by means of the extradition of its leader, though that strengthens the posibility of truth in the cables that need a cover-up. While Assange said the US is after him from the start through rape accusations, the US hasn't
Re: (Score:2)
Right - why is this not the #1 thread on this discussion? That was my first thought. Seems to be an obvious fake for parody's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering the same about the last lot too. It seems to be that the US government has no credibility left with the whole WMD fiasco. At the moment, I don't think the administration particularly wants to go to war with Iran, but I think there are definitely at least elements that want the option to, and want it to be known that there is the option to. So, as practically everybody is questioning the credibility of the US government, but practically nobody is questioning the credibility of the leaks, they
Re: (Score:2)
>>It seems to be that the US government has no credibility left with the whole WMD fiasco
You might want to read this:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/23556/hbo_history_makers_series_with_condoleezza_rice.html [cfr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Err... I've seen a bunch of her interviews where she talks a lot of this before, but this is quite lengthy so might be missing what you're refering to. Wanna give me a search string to jump to?
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently I'm a
81% Match
72% Friend
16% Enemy
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was very creative. Just what aggressive young women are looking for these days.
from the ad (Score:2, Funny)
"let me pick your lock with my 256 bit long key"
Re: (Score:3)
>>"let me pick your lock with my 256 bit long key"
Actually.... hmm.
It might be worth using his dating profile to see if any sub-phrase or combination of words is the passphrase to his AES-256 key.
Would be a lot faster, obviously, than brute forcing it, and he seems like the kind of arrogant douche to have "ILoveChoppingUpBrains" as a passphrase.
Valueless and Inane (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone who specifically sought a partner from another part of the world, I have to agree with his observation - but it doesn't just apply to women in the West. Adversity breeds maturity, and adversity simply does not exist where a high quality of life is handed to the vast majority of Westerners - men and women alike. There is a reason why the best dating advice for both men and women in North America is to find someone not from this continent.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to ask how he knew so much about my ex-wife! Words to live by. There's plenty of adversity for the intrepid American working class, not dodging bullets and suicide bomber like in more radical countries, but not a cake-walk by any standard. There are some of us Americans who aren't obese, gun-toting wackos, shopping at Wal^Mart and buying the Dubbya memoirs while thinking how we can get our smarter relatives to consider a big-titted idiot to be a suitable presidential candidate. There's
Re: (Score:2)
so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, someone who's brave enough to stand up for what he believes in is also brave enough to say what he wants in a woman. We're pissed because sometimes he succeeds, apparently.
BTW, this slashdot story is an example of the things media is doing wrong:
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/there-is-something-to-see-here/ [wordpress.com]
"....Julian Assange is not that important. Don’t give him a Nobel Prize. Don’t demonize him. Don’t line up in solidarity behind someone who may or may not be a serial rapist. Don’t demand the conviction of someone who is only accused of a crime, and needs to be presumed innocent until he is convicted. Demand justice for him — and don’t pretend you know what that is, unless you’re one of the three people who do — but don’t fall into the trap of thinking his conviction, in the long run, has very much to do with the whole host of really important issues that the Wikileaks revelations have brought up. Don’t make him more important than he is.
Wikileaks is only a single part of something that is, on its own terms, very important. They’ve given us a great deal of knowledge about exactly how the American state actually acts, proof that many of the state department’s secrets are simply a way of avoiding democratic oversight, that our diplomatic corps secretly does horrible things in our name. We already had a lot of knowledge of that, but now we have a lot more, and much of it utterly and uniquely damning. Julian Assange is a smart man who’s done some brave things in service of a good cause — and we owe him a debt of gratitude for the gift he’s given us. Thank you, Wikileaks. But that’s all we owe him, and them.
Which is why I want to say this, as clearly as I can: it’s exactly because Assange and Wikileaks are relatively unimportant (compared to the gigantic scandal of the anti-democratic security state in which we now live) that the media has made him into a superstar, has tried to make the entire story about Wikileaks and a single eccentric and interesting character, rather than about the United States government’s actions as a system. The more we focus on him – and I’ve contributed to that, which is why I particularly want to write this post — the more we take attention away from the real story, the substance of the things Wikileaks has revealed....."
Re:so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me that the intense public and media following of Assange is the only thing keeping him from being disappeared. We should keep the focus on Assange, and follow his trial closely and loudly - if we want the light he's shone on to illicit activities to continue to shine, or if we want anyone else to take up that torch. If we ignore him, he's jailed, wikileaks disbands, and we get no more of the truly important things that WIkileaks has released.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, Cryptome will still be there when Wikileaks finally sinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-huh. Until they rock the boat, and are likewise destroyed. That's the point I was making. Letting Assange be destroyed for political expediency will, at the least, have a chilling effect on other leakers. It will also set a precedent, that the people will look the other way while governments destroy such people. The spotlight needs to be kept firmly on Assange.
We also need to vigorously report and investigate the cables demonstrating criminal activity of course, but the media is quite large. It can do bo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, someone who's brave enough to stand up for what he believes in is also brave enough to say what he wants in a woman. We're pissed because sometimes he succeeds, apparently.
Contrary to popular belief on slashdot, getting laid is not that hard, especially if you don't set your standards particularly high. When what he wants in a woman is a chick from a country in turmoil, the guy deserves some criticism. What kind of sick fuck has that at or near the top of their list of desirable qualities.
Do not confuse the argument about whether or not Wikileaks is important with the argument about whether or not its founder is an idiot. Humans are complex. An idiot can still do positive th
Re: (Score:3)
When what he wants in a woman is a chick from a country in turmoil, the guy deserves some criticism. What kind of sick fuck has that at or near the top of their list of desirable qualities.
Someone interested in women that are likely to be resourceful, independent and mature ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's obvious that what he considers damaged goods are those who share the all-too-common traits of Womanii Needicusmoniescus, also known as Ninjacus Bitchicus, i.e. selfishness, neediness, superficiality, a tendency to manipulate, etc. Someone, strike that, anyone from Jersey Shore could be the ultimate example of this subspecies. This disease comes in various strengths, and it's rare to find someone naturally immune to it. Maybe he figures political turmoil and other adversities act as an inoculation?
The v
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just what in the god forsucken world is this huge scandal that is supposed to have been discovered??? Face it: you ALREADY believed the us was a police state or whatever the fuck Yippie shit were selling, and then X was leaked, having nothing really to do with that, and you take it as proof of what you already believed !!
Would you nimrods please shut the motherfuck up!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Did they put Timothy McVeigh back in his cell? Ewwwww.
Seriously, since the US pretty much runs the world, anybody upset about the way things are being run is by definition an Ameriphobe.
Re: (Score:3)
The truth is,
A claim like followed by nothing but invective only reveals truth about the person making the claim.
Ad Hominem (Score:3)
Allright, we get it. He's a bit of a weirdo as far as his love-life is concerned.
Now how is this news? Hooray, he likes a particular subset of the female population. What does this have to do with his ability to run a website which leaks government information?
Does this even have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING? Is this good proof that he raped/didn't call in the morning/whatever someone?
If you want to discredit someone, find something more useful. Like "Dear Diary, raped a woman today. Felt good about myself"
Re: (Score:2)
he's a douche, that's all that matters (Score:5, Interesting)
As the countless posts calling Assange a douche reveal, it's important to establish that he's a douche. This is called poisoning the well and is meant to discredit more relevant information presented by Assange.
Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Or that the Saudis asked the US to bomb Iran.
Or that Hillary asked diplomats to steal credit card info from fellow colleagues.
Or the leak (with video) about US Army personnel not complying with the rules of engagement and killing Reuters reporters.
None of that is important.
What is important is who Assange fucked.
Put a condom over that enemy combatant!
Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.
He's also a public figure (Score:2)
And in case you haven't noticed, people love to know all about public figures, even really trivial shit. It is the price you pay for fame, more or less. You can't be an enigma, you can't have privacy like you did before. People will want to pry in to your life for no reason other than that you are in the public eye.
In Assanage's case, it'll be all the worse because of how he made his fame. He loves revealing secrets. Some people will find it funny/poetic/whatever to do the same to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, that profile doesn't even register as weird compared to most I have run across. Hell thats down tame by OKCupid standards
Re: (Score:3)
He wants embarrassing but harmless info made public that diplomats say bad things about other diplomats, because "information wants to be free". So here we are seeing embarrassing but harmless info about the same guy. Question is, is Assange going to applaud this as putting important information into the public sphere? None of the latest batch of wikileaks have discredited anyone or uncovered sinister deeds so far, and this dating profile isn't going to discredit Assange either
Suspicion confirmed (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was on the fence about the whole rape-charge thing until I read this article. That online dating profile is no doubt the profile of a rapist.
You forgot your [sarcasm] tags.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, coz he just sounded dumb.
Re:Suspicion confirmed (Score:5, Funny)
Yep. He even expresses interest in women. Case closed in my book.
"Assange said he was seeking a 'siren' for [a] love affair," -- as in, police van siren???
"children" -- anyone care to wonder why he is seeking CHILDREN??? sick.
"and occasional criminal conspiracy'" -- what, like condom-related international sextreason?!
Mod parent up a promotion to be a court judge. We need more people like you, who are able to extract the truth immediately based on personal opinion and nothingness, rather than people who will waste time bothering with facts and evidence and logic and reason.
He's being sarcastic to downplay his image? (Score:2)
Um, how do youi know it's actually HIS profile? (Score:2)
Let me ask the obvious question. How do you know it's actually his profile?
I can see it now... (Score:2)
...Sarah Palin posts to her Facebook: "I knew Assange was a terrorist! Only terrorists chop up human brains!"
$10 says some politician takes something from that profile out of context
What's wrong with this profile? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really. Online dating is not rare or anything, this profile is actually quite funny and honest, so what's wrong with it? I'm pretty sure that many Assange-/WL-haters have profiles on such sites and many of them would be more painful to read.
So get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
You pretty much need to have an eclectic profile like Julian's on OKCupid to attract the interesting women and to keep the vapid ones away. Hell, I'm taking notes.
I agree - this isn't bad at all! (Score:2)
Jeez, look at what's NOT there: nothing remotely kinky, nothing disrespectful of ladies, some humor, a HELL of a lot of truth...
?
The only "odd" bit is preference for gals from places that have seen a lot of "reality" and even there, yeah, I see where he's coming from. He's trying to avoid the "vapid" types that care more about the ads in the latest issue of Vanity Fair or whatever than they do about stuff that matters. Not at all odd, given who he is :).
Why would anybody call him a "douche" or whatever ba
Come on, you can do better than that! (Score:5, Insightful)
The world's top intelligence agencies are all hard a work digging up dirt on the man .. and they come up with ... his DATING profile ??
Wait a second... (Score:2)
Assange happy profile finally receives attention! (Score:2)
Assange had grown despondent that his dating profile hadn't generated much attention. However, for some unknown reason, it's now a topic of discussion worldwide amongst women who all agree with each other that he is a douche. Of course, many of these women proceed to privately email him nude pictures and lewd proposals. Assange is reportedly happy to be out on bail and is having the time of his life.
The reason your government is after Assange... (Score:2)
Unbelievable (Score:2)
Here in slashdot laughing at someone else pickup lines? Pot calling the kettle black?
Of all the bullets used to shoot the messenger, that particular one should not be used here.
Linky (Score:2)
I am shocked! (Score:2)
Shocked to find that his semi-confidential information has been plastered all over the internet and newspapers.
I wonder what he did that would make people want to do that? ;)
Wow (Score:2)
Is it real? (Score:4, Insightful)
has there been any confirmation that it's actually his profile, or if it's a parody or fake?
Re:Is it real? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably no one... but one could easily have created a profile in 2006, and then changed all the photographs and details last week.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
bragging about your "neuroscience background" as if that were a chick magnet is
What's wrong with wanting to date someone who's intelligent?
Re: (Score:2)
What a douche.
Thank goodness for Adblock Plus: Block Image!
Re:Concocted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing the private sexual desires of an individual to wholesale deception and fraud of unelected government goons in the name of the people with the intent of changing lives of those who aren't even aware of the backroom dealings isn't close to the same thing.
Not even a little.
Re: (Score:2)
... then we'll find out that Ron Paul is G. Gordon Liddy and J. Edgar Hoover's love child!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And This Is What Happens (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. You say you fault him as his style is making him the focus more than the information that has been leaked. On the other hand you seem to be saying that the leaks are unimportant. If the leaks are unimportant in the 1st place, why is Julian Assange's fault in this of any concern to you? The ol' cynical "Governements do horible things, is anyone surprised?" angle. Basically anything could be leaked and there would be somebody sitting around acting like the cool guy saying "Yeah, like we didn't already know that the US is hooking warlords up with little boys, psh... old news". Is any leak going to change the world? If it doesn't, do we just act like hipsters that are too cool to give a shit about anything at all?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying I don't think the leaks are as important as he, and his followers/fans would have us believe. I've yet to see anything come to light that is truly a game changer. Not in the "I'm joe-cool, I already knew that" kind of way, just that, some things I've read are new to me, and others are like "yeah, and???". That's the thing. I think Mr. Assange has done a wonderful job making himself (the person) the focal point for WikiLeaks and I think that if there *was* ever any good to come of that organiz
Re:And This Is What Happens (Score:5, Informative)
And moreover, he's unaware that for all his leaks, at least as far as government leaks are concerned, it's all for not. What's going to change? Security protocols and the methods by which they select who has access to data, where and when.
No, that is precisely his goal.
Ultimately wikileaks is not about leaking information. It's about fighting conspiracies. Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays [cryptome.org] that explain the motivation for the creation of wikileaks. Assange's operational plan is a form of jiu-jitsu.
He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organisations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organisation will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organisation cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. [wikimedia.org] The end result is that the organisation must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.
You may not agree with his assessments but to say he's unaware of the kind of response wikileaks will provoke is just a total misread of the situation. Understandable since so little of the news coverage bothers to do any better, but still totally off the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think then, if that is his goal, that he's naive and short-sighted. The governments of the world is a BROAD term, covering governments that have been around for a few hundred years, to countries (and their governments) and institutions that have been around a few thousand years. For the sake of argument, I'd single out the US government and I'm sorry but I'm jaded, I don't believe the US government is going to reach some kind of tipping point, whereby they'd put so many arbitrary roadblocks to info
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, his goal is fighting conspiracies. You appear to think he wants 100% transparency, that's a strawman. His goal is improved transparency by forcing organisations to make a choice - make the price of enabling conspiracies through secrecy high enough that organisations will choose the low-overhead of reduced secrecy and thus reduced opportunity for conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Fault him all you like, but Assange has ensured that Wikileaks and himself are both household names. A common meme here on slashdot is "I generally support Wikileaks but I think Assange is a douchebag" - well, fair enough, but we're all talking about him aren't we?
Re: (Score:2)
Well let me be one of those that goes against the common meme then. I don't support WikiLeaks, I think they're about as effective as pissing in a ceiling fan. And yes Assange is certainly a douche nozzle.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If the leaks were of interest then you would have respectable newspapers like the Guardian or New York Times trying to publish them.
btw, what has Wikileaks got to do with some guy's dating profile?
Phillip.