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

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

#651

Post by slg » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:13 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #620

gotchange wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

These are completely different things. What's in those emails is FAR more damming than some foul-mouthed quips. Gross FCC violations, for one.

You say that without linking to any real source. Every time I have seen someone link "evidence", it is just a Rorschach test of an email that depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you might view as signs of criminal activity or view as politics as usual.

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

#652

Post by phs318u » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #616

sytelus wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

DNC collusion with the media is one that stands out to me. Also the acknowledgement that ISIS is funded in part by Saudi Arabia while the Clinton Foundation gets many donations from Saudi Arabia. If you have some time, scroll through the Wikileaks Twitter. Very little noise, mostly content. https://twitter.com/wikileaks

Sadly, bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia (and by extension its state sponsorship of various Wahhabist groups) has been a thing since way before Bush Snr was president. When the Russians were in Afghanistan it was "useful". Since then - not so much. But hey, oil right?

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

#653

Post by revscat » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #620

gotchange wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

These are completely different things. What's in those emails is FAR more damming than some foul-mouthed quips. Gross FCC violations, for one.

Which email(s) are you speaking of?

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

#654

Post by awinder » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

skylan_q wrote: post #616

sytelus wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

DNC collusion with the media is one that stands out to me. Also the acknowledgement that ISIS is funded in part by Saudi Arabia while the Clinton Foundation gets many donations from Saudi Arabia. If you have some time, scroll through the Wikileaks Twitter. Very little noise, mostly content. https://twitter.com/wikileaks

This is a perpetuation of the status quo of (at least) 20 years of Washington influence with the Saudi government, though. Which isn't going to change with trump who has some equally deep ties.

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

#655

Post by xenadu02 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:15 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…

I've read many of the emails. There just isn't much to them. It's almost all boring day-to-day crap. Even the release of Clinton's speech transcripts is about as mild and inoffensive as you can get.

The other thing is we have no idea if they are all authentic. It would be trivial to slip a few extra sentences in here or there. Everyone just seems to take it as given that they're legit but Assange didn't hack anyone to get them. We know nothing about who actually did, so we don't even have a flimsy "reputation" pretense to rely on.

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

#656

Post by mejari » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

harryf wrote: post #577

mejari wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You... you literally brought it up yourself. Why are you angry at me for responding to your own point?

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

#657

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

ghostly_s wrote: post #494

tptacek wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's pretty well known that Assange claims to have a vendetta against HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US --- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump. Nerddom and the…

What possible reason could Assange have to support Trump?

He could imagine (perhaps justifiably) that by serving as Putin's pawn and supporting Trump he could secure a better venue to seek asylum from Swedish rape charges than the Ecuadoran embassy, whether at the hands of Putin or Trump.

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

#658

Post by mikeash » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

nogbit wrote: post #561

mikeash wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't possibly isolate it to just Assange, so it must be the whole embassy. My money is on this being an errant backhoe or similar, and Assange is just turning it into a big deal because he can.

Exactly, an "errant" backhoe.

I don't get why everyone is so willing to believe this claim, based on nothing but what Wikileaks says.

I mean, what would be the goal? They go to all this trouble, and risk an international incident, for what? It's not like they'd actually be able to prevent Assange from communicating. At best they'd inconvenience him slightly until he figures out an alternate means of communication.

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

#659

Post by AvenueIngres » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #640

AvenueIngres wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know man this is crazy, people are considering persecuted OpenGov activists as more trustworthy and credible than the fricking US Government i.e the most ethical institution in the free world. By the way, did you hear the news? CIA has proof that the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK is hiding WMDs in their basement. What a world!

That's entirely not what I said. People who say "You should trust what I say, because I said it. And not trust them, because I said it." holds little credence with me, regardless of who says it (activist, government, individual) - it's an appeal to authority or sympathy. How much persecution are these people facing, these WikiLeaks activists, day to day?

Point being: 1/ Not all statements are falsifiable 2/ Not all statements's proof can be verified in a reasonable time by an isolated individual 3/ You need heuristics if your objective is to obtain truth while spending an amount of energy/resources below a threshold x 4/ To compute a statement credibility, you take as input the past history of the source and their obedience to their own moral standards, what vested interest do they have in misdirecting you and the plausibility of said assertion to be true within the current context.

The USG does not score well on any of those metrics I am afraid.

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

#660

Post by stale2002 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #400

steamer25 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Legislation is to be believed, six years imprisonment is the maximum penalty for rape. At this point they could credit the majority of his sentence for time served.

Certainly not. He is not under any kind of arrest, but freely and voluntarily visiting his Ecuadorean friends. Why should that count towards any prison term? BTW, I don't think Assange would really face prison in Sweden. My best guess of what would have happened had he been extradited to Sweden: An interview, being held a few weeks, then released to a country of his choosing. He is inside the embassy because he likes…

If that is the case, then why has the British government spent millions of dollars guarding the embassy?

Seems like am aweful lot of money for such a small crime that you are making it out to be.