361–370 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the embassy was shut down surely just a cheap smart phone would rectify the situation and get him back online. Are they somehow blocking mobile signals as well?
State actors can jam the spectrum and make wireless communication impossible.
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…
We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't think Assange is a partisan. He's Australian after all and has no stake in this election. I think he is releasing info on Hillary because that is what he has and is timing the release for maximum public exposure. If he had similar info on Trump, I firmly believe he would be doing the same thing.
Increasingly I think every citizen of the world has a stake in this election, given how global the reach of the US is.
For a high profile "wanted" man like Assange, I can imagine it's much more than us regular people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I'm still processing this information, and holding out to form a full opinion until more details become available/confirmed. In the meantime, I'm curious, for people who are angry about this: suppose it is actually true that Assange is working together with Russian hackers in an attempt to influence a US election. Do you believe there is any point at which governments should intervene to protect national sovereignty…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about Hillary Clinton literally saying "Can't we just drone this guy?" [1] [1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562
Yes, a drone strike in the middle of the capital city of our closest ally, obviously that was a serious suggestion....
^^^ Does Joe Biden saying that make you think the state department are big fans?
Hillary would probably kill him in a heartbeat if she had the means to do it quietly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been struggling with this a lot. Granted it's pretty much all speculation, but if it is a state actor that is giving Wikileaks this information, and if said state actor was trying to influence the election, I question the responsibility of Wikileaks. It could also be (and I'm aware of this) simply that they're exposing information on "my" candidate, in which case maybe I'd feel differently if was the other way a…
Given that most of the leaks are emails from a single party, when said party was known to use a weak email server, which was known to have been hacked at one point, my guess is that it could be anyone, and doesn't need to be a 'state actor'. PS. Have you seen the Podesta emails? They range from hilarious to pretty disturbing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't think Assange is a partisan. He's Australian after all and has no stake in this election. I think he is releasing info on Hillary because that is what he has and is timing the release for maximum public exposure. If he had similar info on Trump, I firmly believe he would be doing the same thing.
Instead of jumping on this as a giant conspiracy, it might be worth considering that it's just that his internet went down. I mean, until there is actual evidence that Hillary Clinton[1] deployed a highly trained collection of seals (the animal, not the US military contingent) to cut through his tube wires in the death of the night and then pelt across hide park and hide in the serpentine, perhaps we should just cons…
2/ Since you post on HN I guess you sure understand that there is no need to alter the physical layer if you want to ostracize a subnetwork from the Internet.