311–320 of 1001 posts
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).
So either he's in custody, or faking the whole thing IMHO. Surely his buddies in London should be able to verify the former, and if they can't they'd surely be screaming like hell that "We can't find Julian!".
The fact that everyone is radio silent tells me this is a stunt, honestly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 specifi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've been releasing more everyday.
It's unlawful for you to visit the Wikileaks site. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7877498936496005...
There is a caveat to the legality of classified materials, usually you must have been "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of". Which alludes to the fact that you would first have to have been read in, or taken the material that you knew was classified.
There is also a "requirement" to "knowingly" cause harm. I put these in quotes because the wording and the enforcement of that requirement has been in flux and selective. Also relevant is that gross negligence would also meet the requirement.
I guess a creative prosecutor could challenge that visiting wikileaks would be knowingly removing the material from the server, but it would probably be beyond difficult to meet all of the guidelines for prosecution.
That being said. If you do currently hold a clearance, visiting Wikileaks is a violation of your NDA/ReadIn, Employment Agreement, and the UCMJ for service members.
I'm a bit confused by all the comments here spinning off down conspiracy theories, but not much on facts. "State actor" can only really mean UK or Ecuadorian government - or at the very least one of those two must be pulling the trigger. If it's Ecuador that makes some sense, they control the connections to the outside world - they could just change some passwords and internet is cut. But that would be very obviously…
Not necessarily. Russia could think that it's best interest is that Wikileaks' dead man switch goes off. They could be pressuring Ecuador or actually have cut the connection themselves.
> Also, this is central London - the internet floats freely through the air. Contingency measure is tethering?
Cellphone signals can be easily jammed, as shown at DEFCON and other events. No one has reported on whether or not they can get signal at the Ecuadorian embassy AFAIK.
EDIT: Some people streamed Periscope from the embassy, so no cellphone jamming. If Ecuador is involved, of course, they could just take away all of Assange's devices.
From that location you have Base station's covering all 4 major UK mobile networks and I'd guess a large number of wi-fi hotspots.
So to "cut off" internet access, you've got to cut all BT lines in and out of the building, block all 3/4G signals all round the building and block each and every wi-fi band around that area, without smegging up all the frequencies in a very central part of london, right next to large shopping areas like Harrods.
you cant' just cut off devices known to belong to Assange, as anyone can buy a 4G router with cash from a shop in London which isn't easily attributable to him.
oh yeah and I forgot there's the satellite internet bit they'd need to block too.
> 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… :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 specifi…
- 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…