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

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

#511

Post by admax88q » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

cryoshon wrote: post #462

anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

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…

> it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to prime the listening audience in a way such that when information so irreparably damaging would get released, the voters would have to choose between continuing a corrupt government and choosing an apparently mad authoritarian, and to soften the landing on the former. correct. you saw the exact same defamation routine a few ye…

> in other words: i want the dirt, too.

100% agree.

I'm constantly amazed at how some ordinary citizens can be mad at Snowden or Assange for releasing information. Wouldn't you want to know? Even just for interest sake I like to know what government and politicians around the world are up to.

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

#512

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

endisukaj wrote: post #295

irrational wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The practicality of access to such rights changes when you make the choice to become a "refugee"/"fugitive", however.

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

#513

Post by microtherion » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

SamBam wrote: post #325

gaur wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a neutral opinion of Assange until he posted (and then deleted) a tweet with echo parentheses. That made it pretty obvious he's not really in it for any noble purpose.

Wow. Screenshot? (For those not aware, (((echo parenthesis))) are an anti-semitic symbol used by white supremacists to highlight people who are Jewish.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses Edit: Wow, here it is: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-s... Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. i.e. most of our critics are Jewish. Presuma…

I'm anything but a fan of Assange, but it's possible his tweet was misinterpreted. To me, it looks like he was referring to people who put (((echoes))) around their own twitter handles, which is not uncommonly done in solidarity by non-Jewish Twitter users.

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

#514

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #265

irrational wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The UN considers it so, but I was referring to Assange not being able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy for over 4 years.

That's a twisting of language. He's perfectly able to. He _chooses_ not to.

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

#515

Post by postcarnival » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

AvenueIngres wrote: post #363

anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

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…

Directly related to what you are saying, DNC consultants and execs caught on tape explaining how they plant fake Trump supporters at rallies to disrupt them or get negative media coverage. It is pretty interesting from: 1/ a partisan PoV, 2/ a methodological PoV; you are right there is a war for information that is being waged. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

wow this is crazy...

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

#516

Post by evgen » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #359

evgen wrote: post #63

Aaaaaand like all of Wikileaks' dumps, this one turns out to be completely overblown BS. Boots on the ground confirm that absolutely NOTHING is happening at the embassy, no one is breaking in and the report out of London is the standard Monday morning complaint about the morning rain and the annoying signal failure on the Central line that is messing with commutes. If Assange did lose internet access it is because th…

Would you please provide a link to these "boots on the ground" sources? Otherwise your comment doesn't really contribute much.

Sorry, this is all old news to us in London who have been listening to the echo chamber freak itself out for 12 hours over a bit fat nothing. Here is a quick pointer to a similar query that went out to /r/London when the first tweets were sent: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/57w670/amy_truth_th... and people on the scene confirmed that contra the Roger Stone claims there was no 'assault' on the embassy. For chuckles I actually went by this afternoon and there was absolutely nothing to see. Verizon (who provides a lot of business connectivity in London) has been having problems in some places for most of the day, and it is a somewhat wet Monday so it is possible some lines shorted, but so far there is no confirmation that Assange has lost internet access and no indication from the outside that this is anything other than another day here in rainy London.

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

#517

Post by microtherion » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:56 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).

That would be the Trump who called for Edward Snowden to be executed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4DjrBC4K-Q

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

#518

Post by gragas » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

tonecluster wrote: post #498

gragas wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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, whic…

Can anyone provide any evidence of confirmed illegal activity from a source other than wikileaks? E.g., results of any official investigation, etc.

You can look at the newly-released FBI reports. Here's a few key parts: https://i.sli.mg/Ykms8I.jpg

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

#519

Post by DominikR » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:57 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…

> so what exactly will this accomplish other than lending support to Assange's stated reasons for hiding in an embassy to begin with?

When a system is failing it enters a death spiral where the pool from which it can hire people gets shallower and shallower (less people are interested in working for the government) until the only persons left are either morons or sociopaths (who want power)

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

#520

Post by whamlastxmas » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

mtberatwork wrote: post #434

gragas wrote: 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.

Not sure I entirely buy this, Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation high marks. [1] You might be able to make some arguments for crossing some ethical lines, but to say they have done "countless extremely illegal and unethical things" is pushing the conspiratorial line. [1] https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillar...

That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto...

Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe.

Additionally, what is this money spent on?

Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Presidential Center, Clinton Development Initiative, Clinton Health Matters Initiative, Clinton Giustra Sustaninable Growth Initiative

A little self-serving, don't you think? And what percentage of the money going to those initiatives do you think are spent on directly charitable causes?

No one should be under the illusion that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. It isn't. It's a slush fund for political purposes. Look at how mismanaged the billions of dollars for Haiti has been if you want to see how charitable the Clintons are (spoiler: nearly none of the money has actually been spent on Haiti, and virtually none of it on direct relief).