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

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

#601

Post by airesQ » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

saint_fiasco wrote: post #491

chvid wrote: post #388

I assume the guy has more than one internet connection (ie. 3G and cable) and that they have all been cut. What is the point of these tweets: pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809 pre-commitment 2: Ecuador eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72 pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74 ? (…

It says pre-commitment so it looks like a dead man switch. If something really bad happens to Assange and someone releases documents about Kerry/Ecuador/FCO we can look at the hashes and see if they match. That way we know it's not some fake leak by an opportunist.

If that is assassination-insurance should those bytestrings be keys to decrypt files that are already in the wild?

Anyhow, I find the tweets very interesting. But I lack the context to know what they mean. Were those tweeted before the blackout? After?

The UK FOC thing is particularly interesting. This might sound silly, but perhaps somebody at MI5 was not happy the possibility of Foreign Office correspondence being leaked and decided to something, anything, to stop it from happening.

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

#602

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #588

tptacek wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think Wikileaks is definitely anti-Clinton but it's a stretch to say they're pro-Trump.

People keep saying that. It is the single most common rebuttal given to this argument. But I can't understand how it makes any sense at all.

It's a two-person race. It's zero-sum. To materially oppose one candidate is to materially support the other. That is, i assume, why Trump's campaign keeps claiming they coordinate directly with Assange through an intermediary.

Can someone (calmly) explain why anyone should take seriously the idea that Assange can singlehandedly run virtually the entire opposition research campaign against Hillary Clinton and not be supporting Trump?

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

#603

Post by zzleeper » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #525

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…

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant tow…

Given his attitude, Trump seems way more likely to invade other countries and n general sable rattle.

Also, I wouldn't call what Obama did sable rattling. Russia did invade several countries in the last years (Georgia, Ukraine, and maybe I'm missing one more?). If you don't have a good response for that, then how can you be trusted to defend your other allies (Poland, etc.)

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

#604

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

whamlastxmas wrote: post #520

mtberatwork wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spen…

Why are you excluding the salaries and benefits paid to people working on programs and services? Paying someone to do something like provide training or administer vaccines is reasonable to describe as a program and service expense, it's not overhead.

It's easy to imagine situations where that money is not being spent 100% efficiently, but it also seems unlikely that it is being spent perfectly inefficiently.

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

#605

Post by soundwave106 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #128

I had began archiving the /news and /newest because a lot of the Wikileak threads I was upvoting were disappearing into the ether . Seems they were getting mass-flagged/killed, this one survived. Also seems there has been discussion earlier today but the threads were mass-flagged off the front page. Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 [208 points, 144 comments, buried] https://news.ycombinator.c…

The problem with this story as I see it is it instantly connects with the shitshow of the American presidential cycle, and thus has attracted a wide variety of low quality (speculative / rumor mill) type of commentary unfortunately.

The only sure conclusion I've personally reached in this election cycle is that no one sane would want to run for American president, or even be a part of any American political system (beyond the local level where things seem a bit more level headed)....

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

#606

Post by monocasa » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #532

monocasa wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's unable to leave without facing extremely stiff legal consequences. He is, at least, metaphorically jailed in the embassy.

Consequences of his own making. Don't make it out to be something forced upon him against his will.

Couldn't you make the same argument for nearly everyone who's jailed?

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

#607

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #525

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…

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant tow…

[deleted]

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

#608

Post by gotchange » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

sytelus wrote: post #583

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…

Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. Sure, there is some amusing stuff and quipes by aggressive campaign staff about opponents but nothing that can points to big corruption directly on Clinton's part. The media coverage is unexpectedly very low but I can see why media will want to put these rather boring emai…

> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails?

That's my main problem with all these arguments «false equivalency» in their pursuit of seeming and sounding fair, balanced and impartial, they resort to equate all the horrendous things that Trump said or did with these harmless details that Hillary or her chief of staff said behind closed doors or in private emails.

It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign.

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

#609

Post by matt_wulfeck » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:54 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…

And I'm feeling sad that the best place to read about these leaks is on... rt.com.

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

#610

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #595

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.

Can you name an example of an 'extremely illegal' thing they have done?

Well, there was the illegal campaign contribution to a state AG involved in investigating wrongdoing another Clinton-controlled entity.

No, wait, that was the Trump Foundation protecting the fraudulent Trump University.