Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by rurban »

nateberkopec wrote: post #316
PJDK wrote: post #235

I'm a bit confused by all the comments here spinning off down conspiracy theories, but not much on facts. "State actor" can only really mean UK or Ecuadorian government - or at the very least one of those two must be pulling the trigger. If it's Ecuador that makes some sense, they control the connections to the outside world - they could just change some passwords and internet is cut. But that would be very obviously…

> "State actor" can only really mean UK or Ecuadorian government - or at the very least one of those two must be pulling the trigger. Not necessarily. Russia could think that it's best interest is that Wikileaks' dead man switch goes off. They could be pressuring Ecuador or actually have cut the connection themselves. > Also, this is central London - the internet floats freely through the air. Contingency measure is…

The periscopers who did stream from the embassy today did report jamming very close to the embassy. And were not let through to Julian.

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

#912

Post by rtpg »

tP5n wrote: post #111
rtpg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which would require infecting the VPN machines themselves? Just wiretapping isn't sufficient because of public key encryption Assuming the nodes themselves are not compromised (big ask) and identity can be confirmed(like via key exchange), state actors can listen as much as they want to the wires, they won't be getting much. Except if some private key were out there...

> Just wiretapping isn't sufficient Please explain, I was under the impression that the above could not reasonably be claimed anymore with any kind of certainty [1][2][3]. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something important here or the 'Happy Dance!!' slide [4] made me paranoid. [1] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/how-the-nsa-could-pu... [2] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/cisco-firewall-explo... [3] htt…

in the slides, check Slide 28. There's a bunch of useful software for wiretapping, but they need access to things like the Pre-Shared Key, or to be using an easily-exploitable connection mechanism like PPTP.

Of course router/firmware exploits cannot be prevented in the general case, so NSA-likes could figure out a way get in. But the null hypothesis is still that the NSA cannot crack strong encryption without some sort of pre-built backdoor IMO.

Based off of the leaks, NSA gets into things via two ways: - poisoning the encryption methods - social engineering/legal coercion to get keys

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

#913

Post by stordoff »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #420
daturkel wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems totally unnecessary, considering he could just be handed someone else's laptop, right? I'd imagine it would have to be the entire embassy, or else the network that he has access to in his space.

What I'm saying is that most of the embassy connections are probably not going to Tor, Wikileaks, known proxies, etc. They could filter just that to give him lots of headaches. Plus look at and block every site they connect to. They probably already have a team dedicated to him anyway. He might work around it but it's an option. I don't know about whether it's legal under UK law but their surveillance organizations s…

> I don't know about whether it's legal under UK law but their surveillance organizations seem to get away with a lot.

If GCHQ are involved with any such interference, their actions are fairly unconstrained by law. Paraphrasing Intelligence Services Act 1994, s.(3)[1]:

> [GCHQ shall] monitor or interfere with electromagnetic, acoustic and other emissions and any equipment producing such emissions [...] in the interests of national security, [or] in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands [or] in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime.

As far as I know, there is nothing in statute that constrains how they go about that (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 adds a couple of hurdles in regards to interception). Any oversight comes from various Parliamentary committees.

[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/gch...

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

#914

Post by kbenson »

bsder wrote: post #896
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 completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Personally, I don't understand the brouhaha about all the Trump tapes. If you had even a remote inkling of fact about the man NONE OF THIS IS A SURPRISE . While I'm definitely in the opposing camp, I have zero respect for those who are now abandoning Trump. You s…

> Personally, I don't understand the brouhaha about all the Trump tapes. If you had even a remote inkling of fact about the man NONE OF THIS IS A SURPRISE.

I think it points towards people fooling themselves as to his character so they could continue to support him in good conscience. Once presented with hard evidence, that's harder to do. If something definitive came out tomorrow about Clinton accepting cash for favors (not donations to a charitable foundation for meetings, which is what is poorly alleged now), then I think a lot of Clinton supporters would have a similar crisis of conscience.

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

#915

Post by acdha »

stale2002 wrote: post #660
Tomte wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What government cheerfully accepts the precedent that you can dodge legitimate exercise of government authority like this? I mean, the U.S. Post Office will send armed officers after someone for mail fraud in even small amounts – not because it costs less than the crime but to serve as a deterrent for anyone else who might try it in the future.

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

#916

Post by rurban »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #394
grandalf wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vote for any third party candidate is a bigger statement, and maximizes your voter power even in a non swing-state.

A vote for third-party doesn't maximize your voter power, it diminishes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Given that sooner or later US voters will recognize that only one candidate is electable, Jill Stein, her percentages will rise. Maybe even to Ross Perot levels.

Another crook, Clinton, for the next years is survivable, but long term a strong third party has to invade this broken system, sooner or later.

Initially I hoped Trump will tear the GOP apart, but he made it impossible with his latest stupidities.

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

#917

Post by rurban »

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…

It's very unlikely that Russia is behind this, it is very likely that the DNC wants Russia be behind it and William Binney stated some time ago that it is almost impossible that Russia was behind that, and very likely a disgruntled US intelligence officer. Or just your average script kiddie.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/russia-hillary-clinto...

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

#918

Post by kbenson »

alphapapa wrote: post #717
the_duke wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

> 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...) I guess you haven't been paying attention. Trump was, for many years, a celebrity, making millions of dollars for NBC with his TV shows. Everything about him that they complain about now they happily a…

> And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc.

Seriously, can you provide references to back up some of this? The only thing I've heard about it so far is that in a profile piece, a portion was talked about off the record, and the reporter requested the use of some of the off the record material, and gave them a chance to review what could be used, since it was at their discretion it be used at all. The same reporter explained that there was a portion of his profile of Trump earlier he didn't use because it was off the record as well. The reporter is on record explaining this[1].

If there are other instances, please explain them, otherwise people are going to assume you are referring to this, which I think is pretty well explained. This is the reason people keep asking for sources. Without sources, it's just hearsay.

1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...

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

#919

Post by khattam »

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…

>The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged.

Why would you trust them? You think they would go through all that shit to give you information and work for you for a few pennies or for free? When they could be working for the rich and powerful to become one of them... all while getting your pennies?

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

#920

Post by khattam »

haberman wrote: post #342

I'm still processing this information, and holding out to form a full opinion until more details become available/confirmed. In the meantime, I'm curious, for people who are angry about this: suppose it is actually true that Assange is working together with Russian hackers in an attempt to influence a US election. Do you believe there is any point at which governments should intervene to protect national sovereignty…

>If WikiLeaks was releasing dirt on both candidates I would feel much differently.

Ever wondered if there is no dirt, there is nothing to release? Unlike the mainstream media which takes command from the Clintons, Wikileaks doesn't fabricate their releases... so it is not possible to release dirt on Trump.

Post reply on HN