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

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

#571

Post by roywiggins » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #75

AvenueIngres wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Calm down. No one is saying this is what happened. No need to get on your high horses. 2. At the time the Internet got cut-off it was 6:40am in the UK. Pretty early. 3. The British government has the power to issue DA-notice to media outlets. 4. "Storming" the Ecuadorian embassy would not take a lot of manpower. This isn't a raid of a Mexican cartel. There is no resistance to expect, the adversarial repercussions…

> 3. The British government has the power to issue DA-notice to media outlets. Surely they can suppress all blogs and all of twitter and facebook at the same time. Oh, hold - why didn't they suppress the tweet we're discussing. > 4. "Storming" the Ecuadorian embassy would not take a lot of manpower. This isn't a raid of a Mexican cartel. There is no resistance to expect, the adversarial repercussions would be diploma…

They didn't even suppress the BBC from reporting breathlessly on the tweet!

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

#572

Post by the_duke » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

pdx wrote: post #567

the_duke wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vision for the country, what's possible near or long term, or the people you are indebted to (donors, etc). In many cases it's acceptable and even advisable, in my opinion. A head of state has insight into facts and knowledge of others about realities and facts th…

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding, but perhaps understandable. You recognize and admit (as you have no choice doing, after the mountain of proof) that the media willingly prostitutes itself to further the cause of the current administration, with no regard for actual truth. But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. Imagine if a mean girl in your office told ever…

I don't need the media's opinion on Donald Trump.

Watching a video of one of his rallies or a debate is sufficient to form my own opinion.

He (is)

- lies or distorts the truth almost everytime he opens his mouth

- extremely authoritarian

- very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...)

- sexist and abusive (enough evidence there, he says so himself)

- racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all)

- only cares about his own interests (yay, big tax cuts for the rich are his tax plan)

- very uneducated and uninformed on the actual issues

and just generally a disgusting man (my opinion).

It might very well be that he is not actually racist and that a lot of what he says is just what works with the crowds. That really doesn't matter much, though.

He is a populist par excellence. You can't trust anything he says.

And a very dangerous man to be the head of state in a country where that position holds so much power.

Were I American, I'd have a hard time voting for Clinton too. But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me.

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

#573

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #104

Chris2048 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wasn't considered a rapist but rather a role model in large chunks of the population Pop history. Be specific (time, place, evidence) or stop with the demon-haunted characterisations of the past.

Pop history in particular artistic works are reflective of society. Look at early Bond movies for example. Quite a lot of behaviour in those movies would be considered sexual assault if happened today.

In many ways, for better or worse, the early Bond movies mixed the 'suave, debonaire spy' with the reality of the books:

That Bond was a lonely, bitter, alcoholic (beyond "vodka martini, shaken not stirred", but in many of the books Bond would often find himself alone at the bottom of a bottle of liquor), misogynist with a short temper.

So certainly they could, and in many cases, that would have been the underlying premise - not that he was (just) a ladies' man who would have women falling over themselves.

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

#574

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:37 PM UTC

xname2 wrote: post #547

danielnaab wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first question to ask with any James O'Keefe video is "where is the raw video." He has a long and sordid history of fabricating these kinds of storylines.

Yes. Only the raw video matters. They should publish all the raw video. Otherwise, everything in the video is just fake.

I worked for years as a film professional, including screenwriting and editing. It is very easy to lie with footage. The craft of editing is to make the edits disappear so that changes in camera angles and content appear natural and seamless. We employ misdirection to exploit a phenomenon in the brain known as suture, which creates the illusion of continuity.

As a simple example, in a narrative film I'll cut from angle to another when actor A takes a drink from a glass of water. The reason I want to cut is that I have begun to feel bored by shot #1 already for whatever reason - actor A may not be that good looking, or not a great actor, or the scripted dialog may be dull, whatever. It's boring, and that means you the viewer will be bored with it soon too. But I can't just cut away or you'll know what I'm up to. I'll wait until actor A engages in a physical movement and your visual cortex will quietly paper over the transition for me. Hmm, Actor A drank from the glass at different times during different takes, and the action of drinking doesn't line up with the dialog? No problem, I'll just cut briefly to a shot of actor B reacting to actor A (and by exploiting the Kuliekov effect, I can significantly change the meaning of the scene depending on what facial expression I choose to show on actor B) and then I'll cut back to actor A talking again from the new angle.

You would be surprised how many movie scenes depicting two people in a room were shot across 2 different days with the actors never actually meeting in person. Likewise you would be astonished at the number of ways the same footage could be combined to tell radically different stories. I have made edits where I have run pieces of footage backwards and not even the director noticed until I pointed it out. Don't think you can't be fooled by even a semi-skillful editor, your brain has been trained in how to watch TV and movies probably from infancy, and while it is not too hard to break free of that training, nor is it hard for others to manipulate your pre-existing mental reflexes.

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

#575

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:37 PM UTC

gnipgnip wrote: post #546

AvenueIngres wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The past few years have been a re-education for me on Language, Lies, Money, Propaganda and much else. I remain in awe of the state apparatus, and the cynical brilliance required to run it all (assuming there is such a central clique).

I don't see any special brilliance. I see a bunch of people in power running around trying to keep themselves in power, by any means necessary, while screwing up everything around them and then trying to cover it up by telling even more lies. They succeed not because they are so good, but because people let them get away with it, lest the wrong lizard gets in.

I mean, how brilliant you have to be to hire a person that would go to reddit to ask about how to cover up your tracks? Or claim you forgot everything about it when asked, including seeing documents that bear your signature? A five year old could do such performance.

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

#576

Post by Lewton » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC

pdx wrote: post #567

the_duke wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vision for the country, what's possible near or long term, or the people you are indebted to (donors, etc). In many cases it's acceptable and even advisable, in my opinion. A head of state has insight into facts and knowledge of others about realities and facts th…

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding, but perhaps understandable. You recognize and admit (as you have no choice doing, after the mountain of proof) that the media willingly prostitutes itself to further the cause of the current administration, with no regard for actual truth. But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. Imagine if a mean girl in your office told ever…

>But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media.

This is absolutely ridiculous, trump has been a public figure for 30+(?) years. Even if you ignore the smearing that's been happening for the past year in the media, there's plenty of reasons to think this guy is the last person you'd want as president

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

#577

Post by harryf » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:38 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #439

harryf wrote: post #145

The more I look at this, the more it seems like a brilliant move by Assange to force the media to report more on Wikileaks and the Podesta emails, not just Trumps locker-room antics.

Locker-room antics of sexual assault?

Oh you mean that thing that is currently everywhere right now? Thanks for reminding me!

Almost had my mind off it for 2 minutes while reading this Intercept article about Hillary's relationship with the press https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak...

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

#578

Post by raesene6 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:39 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #510

raesene6 wrote: post #317

hmm I would suggest there's something more to this than "Internet cut off". There's pretty much no chance you could cut off all connectivity from a building in the heart of london ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Embassy+of+Ecuador/@51.4... ) 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 g…

You are reading too much into "internet cut off." There is no indication that mobile or satellite connectivity is blocked. Hell there is no real reason to believe that the fiber was actually cut off.

That's a view, I thought I was explaining why "Internet cut off" was likely not the case (or at least not the only case). Wikileaks are suggesting that he's been cut off by a state actor. I'm pointing out why that's pretty unlikely.

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

#579

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:39 PM UTC

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…

The magnitude of the falseness of this equivalence tells you everything you need to know about Wikileaks role in this election.

Implied in it is the idea that the Clinton campaign had an obligation to release their opposition research on Trump as soon as they had it. But of course, they have no such obligation: they're not journalists!

On the other hand, Wikileaks clearly is structuring their releases to draw out the impact on the Clinton campaign and (vainly) to blunt the impact of Trump's own behavior (mostly, Clinton has won the news cycles despite these attempts).

But Wikileaks is not supposed to be an organ of the Trump campaign. Unlike the HRC campaign, Wikileaks ostensibly does have an obligation to serve the public interest. It clearly does not honor that obligation; instead, it's transparently servicing the Trump campaign.

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

#580

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

Roritharr wrote: post #37

Solinoid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as we're all speculating, perhaps the state actor who leaked the documents to Wikileaks in the first place didn't agree with Assange's schedule and wants to trigger the dead man's switch. Well, I'm off to read some classic Tom Clancy.

That sounds sensible, they say it's over 500GB of Documents. The release of such a flood of files would swamp all "public intelligence capacity" until after the election. If you looked at how long it took to find the gold nuggets in the Podesta mails it sounds reasonable willing to force their hand.

I think that any intelligence community that couldn't digest 500GB in full text / keyword searching (keywords that are likely already configured/known) between now and the election would be a pretty sad intelligence community.

Apropos of the keyword list, dissecting the corpus could be done in a few hours with a promo-code worth of AWS time.