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

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

#661

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

foldr wrote: post #261

EdHominem wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's well within the range of what a leader can do. Presidential pardon overrides the courts for one specific issue. And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a crime by their laws.

It's not possible within the limits of the Swedish constitution, as has been endlessly explained by now. Presidential pardons are irrelevant as Sweden is not the USA, but in any case, the President cannot preemptively pardon people for future offenses for which they may or may not be convicted. >And they could preemptively refuse to allow him to be extradited for the leaks by stating definitively that it was not a cr…

No, as has been explained before, that's just apologist rhetoric. Yes, their government is different than the USA but it's ridiculous to think that the leader of a free country couldn't figure out a way to make it work.

They could push the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the issue of leaks, for instance. Or pass a new law making whistleblowing specifically legal and give retroactive immunity. Or investigate the prosecutor for misconduct because of their persecution and unwillingness to advance the investigation. Or allow the courts to try the case remotely.

Or they could simply throw the paperwork away, making prosecution impossible. It might not be legal, but you're living under a rock if you think that much of what your government does would be legal in the courts.

> Who's "they"? Who is the person in Sweden who has the authority

Nobody cares. That question is the sole point of blame-diffusion systems. All that matters is that there are many people there with the ability.

Bush didn't have the authority to do much of what he did, but he had the ability and by the time we could point out the difference it was a done deal and now he's not prosecuted so I guess he did have the authority...

The rules work differently at that level. But, even if they didn't, better the leader of a country sits in a country-club prison for doing the right thing than yet another innocent is illegally kidnapped and tortured.

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

#662

Post by nickysielicki » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:19 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #569

nickysielicki wrote: post #560

HN was particularly skilled at seeing through the FUD around the FBI iPhone crack, and this forum has also held a healthy skepticism for the way in which the FBI was able to break Tor and find DPR of Silk Road. I don't think it's an outrageous claim to say that in general, a sizable portion of this website (though perhaps still a minority) believes that the FBI has historically held-back information to the point of i…

> In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to lean more conservative than most people, especially relative to HN. So maybe I have my partisan goggles on here, but why are so many people buying into the idea that there is solid evidence that Russia is actually behind these leaks? Among other reasons, because cybersecurity experts who, insofar as they have partisan political bias that they might act on would be more…

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

I'm still not certain that the presence of a Russian RAT necessarily means that Russia was behind this.

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

#663

Post by anthony_romeo » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:22 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #579

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…

So for the record, I'm not really trying to cast 'blame' on one side or the other. But here's the issue. Neither of us really know who the aggressive actor is.

I can't read Hillary Clinton's mind. I can't realtalk with Julian Assange. I can't read Trump's emails. I'm not part of any intelligence community.

Was the announcement of the video timed to preempt the Wikileaks Podesta emails, or were the emails released as a direct reaction to the video? Is Wikileaks a puppet or the media? Nobody has the relevant meta-information to discern this. We're getting bombarded with scandalous new information against both candidates on a daily basis, so much so that it's nearly impossible to meaningfully judge their weight and discern who the bad actors really are.

What happens from this is we in our Trump or Hillary bubbles, or whatever bubble we may be in, with full-time jobs and a family to feed don't have the time to invest in these issues. This is really the logical conclusion of the problem with Internet/information bubbles.

The US is in a post-fact world where people get their opinions from the media rather than facts (though to some extent it's always been that way). When Wikileaks, a supposed bastion of free information appears to be biased or compromised, perhaps from possible grudges by Assange or international influence, we lose another source of that meta-information.

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

#664

Post by greendragon » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:23 PM UTC

yarou wrote: post #624

Mikeb85 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You are very astute, I only wish that my fellow countrymen would wake up to the truth. I truly believe Trump is a populist reformer, trying to help the Everyman. But keep in mind that even though the Populares were nominally "for the people", they only used them for their own ends. They were very much as political as the Optimates . It's a sad state of affairs when a relative madman looks like a saner alternative to…

Scott Adams has noted how Trump's views evolve to the people's, I do agree in thinking he's a populist. Would any of the other GOP candidates have had a gay man speak at the RNC?

Populists can be dangerous, but they can also do a lot of good. It seems worth a chance in the current environment, though ever since I read this passage from http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm I've been wary of those with mass support: "Nero, Heliogabalus, Otho, Vitellius, and such other monsters of nature, were the minions of the multitude and set up by them. Pertinax, Alexander, Severus, Gordianus, Gallus, Emilianus, Quintilius, Aurelianus, Tacitus, Probus, and Numerianus, all of them good emperors in the judgment of all historians, yet murdered by the multitude."

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

#665

Post by ebcode » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:23 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?

Trump hasn't made "jokes" about droning him. [1]

Secondly, and with a little more convoluted reasoning: it seems to be a truism that Republican/Conservative presidencies are harder economically for people living in poverty. Republicans are less socialist, in other words. I think it's pretty clear that Assange would like to see a revolution in the US, and revolutions tend to happen when the people don't have enough to eat. Hoping for Trump to win could be seen as hoping for a revolution in that light.

1. http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki...

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

#666

Post by javajosh » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:23 PM UTC

droopybuns wrote: post #615

pdx wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further what you're saying. Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for. The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release. This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point, since the very emails they ar…

I'd like to suggest a more significant conclusion. The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged. I've been a cord cutter for over a decade. This year I graduated to pitying people who repeat the latest front page story as naive fear-junkies. Everything is suspect. Why burn processing cycles reading stories that on their fa…

It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not justified by fact. Manipulating the timing of release is a common tool used by literally every public figure and institution. To characterize timing manipulation as collusion and to imply that it means no-one can be trusted is a critical mistake.

Given my position, I think it's useful to state what would undermine the credibility of an institution of journalism. It's actually really simple: if it persistently reports incidents for which there is no proof, or if it reports incidents in such a way that obscures the facts themselves (spin). Any institution that regularly confuses editorializing for journalism losses its credibility. By these rules there are many institutions that are not trustworthy (e.g. Fox) but there are many institutions that are (the NYT).

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

#667

Post by xenadu02 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 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.

Two things:

1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. Even when campaign staffers suggested bad things they got shot down. The email releases have been one big nothing-burger after another. The media is like a toddler... unless you have something interesting going on their attention wanes quickly.

2. The Trump sexual assault tape is not bad because he had a foul mouth. In some cases focusing on that is a deliberate effort at mis-direction. Trump can swear all he likes and no one except a few pearl-clutching grandmas care. What is gross is Trump boasting that he commits sexual assault against women and they let him get away with it because he's rich and famous. That's what was so offensive about that video.

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

#668

Post by awinder » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #579

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…

Exactly. These weren't excavated as part of the next horrible Raiders of the Lost Arc reboots. They're recorded convos on the Howard stern show. Anyone could have found it.

Better way of looking at it is: what would the effect be of the media letting a psychopath through until the late stages, letting the election get close, and then and only then actually educating the voting public on some of the most unsavory parts of his past?

The answer, if it isn't clear, is in the 50% bump in debate viewers over the 2008 election.

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

#669

Post by TaylorAlexander » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #651

skylan_q wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can't it be criminal activity and politics as usual?

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

#670

Post by drzaiusapelord » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

thomask0 wrote: post #246

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assange has a lot more enemies than the ones you choose to believe. Considering the Panama Papers were pretty much a long expose of Russian and Middle-East corruption, much moreso than the West, I suspect a lot of angry autocrats and dictators would like a piece of him too and they're not shy about war crimes or assassinating journalists. The leaks he's released target dozens of nations. He has a lot of enemies: http…

Assange was NOT behind the Panama papers. Like you said that exposed Putin corruption so Assange called it a hitjob on Putin. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717670056650530816

Oh the irony of Assange being unable to tolerate leaks that make Russia look bad. Its clear what side he's playing for and it ain't for Western democracy and human rights.

I find it amusing that facts about how Russian citizens are being ripped off by their autocratic elites is a "hitjob." What does that word even mean? These documents are verified to be real. Putin's regime is that corrupt. Apparently, Assange and his Russian handlers have a desperate case of being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it.