Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by Theodores » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:07 PM UTC

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.

I think that it is just one of those random down times that Virgin Media have on their super-fast optical internets. When this happens to me I curse my housemate for not paying the bill - why else would it be off for days at a time? Then it comes back on, unannounced with my housemate not to blame.

I guess that if you are living in a state of fear, expecting storm troopers through the door at any moment, then you could reasonably presume that the CIA are to blame for one's lack of wifi.

To be honest, I wish it was newsworthy when I spent a day or two offline. But it isn't.

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

#292

Post by zamalek » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

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… :)

> Demonstrate their power to kill at will and their willingness to do so.

As history has shown, you cut off the head of one state problem and then you have six problems. Be it Osama, Ulbricht or Assange. Two of those three problems could have been solved permanently by other means (decriminilization and thorough transparency, respectively). Dogma seems to rule our rulers.

Silencing Assange, by whatever means they choose, will most likely backfire.

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

#293

Post by anotheryou » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

unixhero wrote: post #131

From the bowels of 4Chan https://i.imgur.com/abcVS6q.jpg

If it wasn't so grim I'd get my popcorn now. Unprovable, yet plausible claims on 4chan... thrilling

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

#294

Post by strictnein » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:09 PM UTC

staticelf wrote: post #130

From a Swedish perspective the Julian Assange case is particular close to the heart since it really shows how corrupt even our courts and politicians are. Sweden is rated as one of the countries with the lowest corruption but still 6 years have passed without even interviewing him for the pathetic accusations. The entire case is a joke and whatever the US-election result is, it's bad for the entire world since our co…

I guess you missed the part about how Sweden was going to interview him today and then magically Assange's lawyer wasn't available so they (Assange and the Ecuadorian embassy) postponed the interview a month.

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

#295

Post by endisukaj » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:09 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #253

toomuchtodo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would argue that it is on par with a human being's right to be informed (read the news, buy books, etc.) Whether you call those basic human rights it's all up to you. The UN seems to think that it is a basic human right though.

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

#296

Post by kllrnohj » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

DougN7 wrote: post #187

I am getting so damn sick of all of the corruption we're seeing in governments all around the world, including the US/UK. Makes me want to vote for Trump and take the whole crooked system down (unfortunately, that would cause a LOT of pain for good everyday people).

But Trump is just as crooked if not even more crooked. He isn't going to change anything.

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

#297

Post by arkitaip » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

gok wrote: post #267

wildmusings wrote: post #160

My guess is that the US is applying pressure on Ecuador. They want the leaks to stop. Ecuador already has incentives to stop helping Trump, as Trump has recently taken a hard line against Latin American strongmen, of which Correa, President of Ecuador, is one. Some assurances from Hillary, and threats from Obama, could have been enough to push him over. I imagine that one of the currently unspoken fears that the Demo…

I don't necessarily agree that Obama himself was fine with Wikileaks, but it's certainly true that many on the American left loved the leaks when they revealed ostensibly embarrassing details about things they do not support (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and then suddenly got rather upset when the leaks revealed ostensibly embarrassing details about things they do support (Clinton). Of course the same could be s…

It could be said about every one of us. Heck, I found myself being annoyed at Wikileaks during the past days because of the DNC leaks and I don't even support them or Hillary Clinton. Bias is one helluva drug.

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

#298

Post by strictnein » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

aljones wrote: post #182

jacquesm wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just go visit. He already agreed that it would be ok long ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/14/date-set-quest... Swedish prosecutors said the questioning would take place on 17 October and be conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor. Note: Today is 17 October.

Yep, and the day came and Assange's lawyer was somehow unavailable and they postponed it another month.

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

#299

Post by Tomte » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

hbosch wrote: post #266

tptacek wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has in fact more protections against extradition in Sweden than he does in the UK, both because the UK has a friendlier bilateral extradition agreement with the US and because the ECHR would require the consent of both the UK and Sweden at this point for him to be extradited.

Doesn't being in the Ecuadorean embassy mean he is technically/politically residing in Ecuador? Or is that an oversimplification when it comes to how embassies work?

Yes, that's an urban legend.

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

#300

Post by EdHominem » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

happosai wrote: post #100

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming parent is referring to the sexual assault and rape allegations against him. Depending on which side you're on you may believe they're made up charges to get him locked up or you may think he's a criminal hiding from doing said things to multiple women (2 IIRC). FYI, at the moment the statute of limitations have ended for the sexual assaults and the rape statute ends in 2020.

Assanges version is "The rape charges are fake smokescreen used to extradite me to USA via sweden". Now this fails the Occam'ss razor. If USA cared they would extradite Assange directly from UK, Swedish detour adds nothing of value. Only makes things much more complicated. The relationship between UK and USA spooks have much warmer relation than USA and Sweden, and Sweden would still needs UK's permission to to extra…

You need an actual crime to extradite someone. That's why the rape case is so important.

That's the difference between "rendition" (kidnapping) and legal extradition.

There's no plausible crime to use for a UK extradition because Assange didn't hack into the systems himself, and isn't bound by our laws on the release of classified information.