Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

471–480 of 1001 posts

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

#471

From the article - "There was no way to immediately verify if he had been knocked offline, and if so, how a state actor was suspected." As far as I can tell, no one has verified any of this. Given JA's recent bizarre state of mind, I'm not sure where all of this breathless HN commentary is coming from.

How could one verify this?

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

#472
post #170

My understanding is that we do not have any proofs of life from Assange. It could be many things: assassination, deal with Ecuador, extradition by Ecuador or someone else, simply an internet censorship, a PR stunt by Assange. All is possible. This guy lives a fucking dystopian nightmare.

Only this guy or we all?

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

#473

A bit of an interesting dilemma in the spirit of transparency. Given an N-way race, do you just reveal secrets pertaining to one participant (since this may be all you have) or do you with-hold until you can reveal secrets from all participants?

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…

I've poked a bit at the Wikileaks emails. My conclusion is that the email release is designed not to understand the emails in any sort of context but rather to be selectively quote-mined. The use of Courier can obscure the fact that the message is a quadruple-forwarded quote, as well as hide what was highlighted in the original HTML versions of emails. The lack of any attempt to reconstruct threading makes this worse than even the new IETF mailing list archive for trying to read email archives--and that is a bar I didn't think could be cleared.

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

#474
post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange actually has said that he has info on Trump, however, the info is nothing worse than what Trump already says publicly. ( http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-dona... )

And yet he won't release it so we can be sure of that, while we just have to know Podesta's risotto recipe.

That's the thing. Rather than being a neutral clearinghouse, that it pretends to be, it's more and more selectively his mouthpiece, used to release information on people Assange dislikes, threaten others, and withhold release for groups he approves of.

Who knows what they have?

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

#475

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.

As did I. I would argue the advance of tech, code as law (effect of code for most of us), and that imbalance warrant elevating the importance of Internet access.

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

#476
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).

unfortunately, that would cause a LOT of pain for good everyday people

Consider that it is the crooked system that has led you to believe that.

See this, newly released, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY shocking stuff.

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

#477
post #397
post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like you're also assuming: 3) whoever posted to the wikileaks twitter account didn't first consider the more obvious hypotheses. Which seems like a rather large issue with your theory.

Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets and wild conspiracy theories. You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.

> Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets

I was surprised by your claim that wikileaks posted something antisemitic, so I googled for it.

Is http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... what you're talking about? I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). Like, the article's explanation of why it's anti-semitic starts off with "this might be a little hard to follow" -- not something you'd expect in an article throwing around serious accusations.

Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed. --reputation[Slate];

> and wild conspiracy theories

Interesting, any you'd care to link?

> You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.

I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor...

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

#478
post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... 100%, huh?

Don't twist my words. I said that they have never leaked fake documents. They clearly have an agenda in what they select for publishing. ================================================ In response to mejari (both of his replies) below, I'm rate-limited: ================================================ Did you even read that article? That's not what it says. They just didn't publish the documents. What it does say is…

They leaked falsified documents. Either through receiving falsified documents and releasing them or through falsifying them themselves. Either way your claim is false.

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

#479

Perhaps this is this election cycle's "October Surprise"? If this is Clinton attempting to seal-the-deal on the election, I'm officially not voting. Anyone that uses the power of the state (read: the power of the gun) to silence speech is a non-starter in my book.

I don't feel comfortable telling anyone who to vote for - a personal decision that is no one else's business. I will say that for myself, when I was filling out my early mail-in ballot yesterday, it was an easy decision voting for Jill Stein. Our political system is corrupt and when lots of people (in the many millions) vote for 3rd party candidates, that at least makes it harder for the establishment to maintain the…

>Our political system is corrupt and when lots of people (in the many millions) vote for 3rd party candidates, that at least makes it harder for the establishment to maintain the misdirection that our two party system gives voters any real choice.

So you're saying that voting 3rd party makes it harder for "the establishment" to fool people into thinking they had a choice to begin with? That voting makes it harder for the media to fool you into thinking your vote matters? That drinking the Kool-aid makes it harder for Big Brother to trick you into drinking the Kool-aid?

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

#480
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical things. Between CTR, the Bernie fiasco, the fake Craigslist ads, the "public and private" positions, I'm not sure how you can say that HRC isn't trying to create an alternate reality.

What are the countless and extremely illegal and unethical things?

- Hillary and her team deliberately trying to trick the FBI by giving them a "slightly broader" set of emails [1]:

"What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over."

- Purposefully witholding all emails that were between HRC and POTUS [2]:

"Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will."

- Evidence that the DNC purchased craigslist ads in attempt to frame Trump [3]

"We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table. Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to jobs@trump.com"

- Clinton Foundation accepting $1 million from Qatar for Bill's birthday. [4]

1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272

2. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545

3. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

4. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396

Post reply on HN