Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#251

Post by jacquesm »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #225
EdHominem wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because killing Assange would re-hide the documents. Brilliant. I'm sure they wouldn't shed any tears but it's unlikely they'll try to draw more attention to themselves. There's really only one group large enough to do what they want, damn the consequences.

>Yeah, because killing Assange would re-hide the documents. Did this stop Putin from murdering x amount of journalists? I suspect chilling speech is the ultimate goal and some petty revenge as well. Also maintaining the perception of being a "strong man" ruler who does whatever he wants. >There's really only one group large enough to do what they want I think you're vastly underestimate the intelligence agencies of m…

It's a pretty impressive feat if they manage to disconnect Assange while leaving the embassy connected.

Messing with the communications capabilities of an embassy is not something done without a whole lot of possible fall-out.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#252

Post by niyazpk »

willvarfar wrote: post #177

It suits Assange's narrative to say its a "state actor", just as it suited Yahoo's board to claim "state actors" as they disclosed their latest breach. Assange's ego really dilutes the wikileaks original goals and its no surprise that the actual doers in the organisation upped and left in 2010.

I have no opinion on Assange either way, but at this point is it so fantastic even to suggest that there might be state actors behind this? Or are you suggesting that blocking internet connection is probably not a worthwhile exercise enough for state actors? I can understand that argument.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#253

Post by irrational »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #183
throwawayIndian wrote: post #148

> so what exactly will this accomplish… Many things! Instill a fear may be. Demonstrate their power to kill at will and their willingness to do so. Prevent outing of more truths about the Silicon Valley-Washington DC alliance. Meh. Let the downvotes begin… :)

As Archer would say: "Do you want terrorist groups? Because this is how you get terrorist groups." Or, another way, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. What option are citizens left with when state collusion to deny people their basic rights occurs in broad daylight?

Is internet access really a basic right? I would argue no, but then again I grew up in a world without internet access for the most part so I consider it a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#254

Post by Yetanfou »

Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards. Only later when those two women who thought they'd scored a celebrity found out he'd been rather generous in dealing out his celebrity amongst those who offered him hospitality did they come with a claim of rape. Should he have used a condom? Yes, if only to protect both himself as well as his partners from whatever they managed to share amongst them. Does this constitute rape? Given the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before during the same night I don't the claim would stick.

Meanwhile 5 rape suspects were released without even being indicted because the rape victim - a 33yo physically handicapped (wheelchair-bound) Swedish woman - did not 'resist enough' for the allegations of rape to stick, according to the prosecutor [1]. Might it be so that a physically handicapped woman has problems 'resisting enough' due to her handicap and the position in which she was placed - in the toilet, out of reach of her wheelchair?

So, Sweden, please define rape for us uninformed bystanders. If forcing a handicapped woman to have sexual intercourse with up to 6 men (5 of whom were arrested, the sixth was never taken) is NOT rape but having more sex with a willing partner who was fine with having sex before IS rape we do need some guidance to know what is right and what is wrong there. It would be good to know given that I live in Sweden, maybe I'm guilty of something I did not realise before?

[1] https://www.google.se/search?q=rape+gotland+wheelchair (pick your source)

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#255

Post by jacquesm »

snovv_crash wrote: post #191
arkitaip wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually believe some 4channers when he says he is a intelligence officer? I have a bridge to sell you...

Look at the timestamps, this was from yesterday.

That's the whole point.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#256

Post by EdHominem »

foldr wrote: post #185
Iv wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He went ever further than that. He proposed to go to Sweden if he could be provided with a document promising he would not get deported to US. It was refused.

It's an absurd request. No country could issue such a document. For one thing, it would establish a precedent that the government could arbitrarily decide to overall any future decisions of the judiciary. For another, it would probably violate Sweden's treaty obligations.

That's well within the range of what a leader can do. Presidential pardon overrides the courts for one specific issue.

And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#257

Post by fnovd »

jacquesm wrote: post #226
fnovd wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts. Absurd. Of course your sources matter. A credible source is more believable than an incredible source. Ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? Looking only at the material presented and not at the presenter of the material is only giving you part of the picture.

Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source. Possible facts: Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this po…

How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter.

And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#258

Post by willvarfar »

niyazpk wrote: post #252
willvarfar wrote: post #177

It suits Assange's narrative to say its a "state actor", just as it suited Yahoo's board to claim "state actors" as they disclosed their latest breach. Assange's ego really dilutes the wikileaks original goals and its no surprise that the actual doers in the organisation upped and left in 2010.

I have no opinion on Assange either way, but at this point is it so fantastic even to suggest that there might be state actors behind this? Or are you suggesting that blocking internet connection is probably not a worthwhile exercise enough for state actors? I can understand that argument.

Occam would say that access problems are really very very common and are not the results of state actors.

Was it a "state actor" the last time your internet stopped working?

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#260

Post by HillRat »

mikeash wrote: post #213
jacquesm wrote: post #127

- Is the whole embassy shut down? - Is there any direct reason for the timing (US elections, attack on Mosul or other current headlines)? - Was there any imminent release? (last week there was an announcement of a leak but it didn't materialize as far as I know) http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/4/13159914/wikileaks-hillary... - You'd assume that Wikileaks the organization will continue to work even without Assange hav…

They can't possibly isolate it to just Assange, so it must be the whole embassy. My money is on this being an errant backhoe or similar, and Assange is just turning it into a big deal because he can.

On the other hand, "state actor" could certainly refer to Ecuador deciding to turn off Assange's access. WikiLeaks tends to be fairly economical with the truth about its own operations, so being purposefully ambiguous isn't anything new for them.

And, while Ecuador hasn't had to deal with meaningful diplomatic repercussions from sheltering Assange, the high-profile role WL is taking in the 2016 elections, and specifically the partisan and selective nature of their leaks, means that Ecuador is dealing with a very different qualitative situation than when WL was acting as an impartial if indiscriminate journalistic source.

In other words, Quito may very well be looking at the situation and deciding that being implicated in attempts to manipulate the US election is way more trouble than it's worth.

Post reply on HN