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

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

#301

Post by steamer25 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #173

sverige wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unlawful for you to visit the Wikileaks site. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7877498936496005...

Is it really unlawful or did CNN lie about that?

The anchor is tweeting about his side of the story: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo . E.g., https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788025611730227201

I am not a lawyer but I'd say this is a legal gray area.

The leaker probably broke a law. E.g., hacking Podesta's private emails would have been illegal under computer fraud and abuse. It's alternately possible that the leaker had legal access but breached contract to release the data publicly.

Now that the information has been leaked, it's hard to say that it's clearly illegal for John Q. Public to access what Wikileaks has made publicly available. The anchor is unable to point to a specific statute in his tweet above and also mentions that it hasn't been tested in court to his knowledge.

A central theme of the leaks so far is that large segments of the media have been overly cooperative with the Clinton campaign in spite of feigned objectivity. This HN comment has curated some links to primary evidence https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722664 . Take a quick perusal and you'll be about as informed as anyone on the answer to your question.

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

#302

Post by jsprogrammer » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

ddalex wrote: post #233

herghost wrote: post #168

I do find myself confused by Assange's motivation when taken in context of his circumstances. If he has and holds evidence of something so damaging that a tweet of the supposed hash of the file is enough to be a threat to a person in power, then why has he allowed himself to live under effectively self-imposed house-arrest for the past 4 years? I can't imagine that the Wikileaks apparatus doesn't have sufficient op-s…

It's akin to a nuclear exchange. You can only use it once. It's MAD. So you hold onto it to protect a high value asset - your life. Assume that you want charges dropped unto you - and you get that granted. Then you want something more annoying to the powers you control - maybe that would be granted. But at a certain point the cost to grant you wishes is going to be on the same level as the threat you hold over me, an…

The likely fallout of assassination is your own death. I'm not sure there is anyone who feels like Julian's death is worth their own.

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

#303

Post by SamBam » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

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…

> Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true)

What basis do you have for the (probably true) rating?

The man literally told people he rescheduled his election-changing news conference from a balcony to a middle-of-the-night webcast, because he thought a sniper was going to kill him on the balcony. As if this was likely. Then it turned out his election-changing news conference was an advert for his book.

The man is great at marketing himself.

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

#304

Post by duskwuff » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:13 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.

If it's a backhoe operated by the London Utility Commission, does that count as a "state actor"? :)

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

#305

Post by crdoconnor » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

throwaway98237 wrote: post #220

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?

Which is exactly why I deplore the term "terrorist". The U.S. throws the term terrorist around with reckless abandon while proudly parading its strategy of "Shock and Awe"[1] and weapons like the "Daisy Cutter"[2] around on CNN. How are those two examples anything other than naked attempts to instill terror in it's enemies??? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82

Edward Peck says it best:

In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

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

#306

Post by pcl » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

One would imagine that he could get his hands on a cellular modem or a WiFi signal if he really wanted to.

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

#307

Post by malz » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

I don't know about the embassy but I enjoy the non-ironic claim that "The ambassador has not yet responded to emails."

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

#308

Post by speeder » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:15 PM UTC

Yetanfou wrote: post #254

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. S…

You also forgot the part where Assange victims said they DON'T want him prosecuted, and only asked the government for help because they wanted a STD test.

So basically Assange is prosecuted for rape against two women that claim they weren't actually raped, while doesn't prosecute rape of someone that DID complained of being raped.

This cross outright into the non-sensical law land.

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

#309

Post by SamBam » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:15 PM UTC

drmcninjaturtle wrote: post #281

teraflop wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a lot of people repeating the claim that Clinton said that, but I've yet to see an actual source.

Have you looked? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

Respectable organizations don't copy text from unsourced articles on partisan blogs, change the font to Courier to make it look like a cable, and then screenshot the result.

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

#310

Post by grandalf » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 4:15 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.

> My money is on this being an errant backhoe or similar, and Assange is just turning it into a big deal because he can.

With all the propaganda and accusations going around, please substantiate this.