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

951–960 of 1001 posts

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

#951

Post by shard972 »

bduerst wrote: post #928
khattam wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are you implying that the DNC intentionally leaked the emails to wikileaks and are colluding with the FBI to blame Russia? Nope. He's just implying that FBI and DNC are working together. What is more likely though is: DNC was hacked, Wikileaks is doing what it has done for 10 years i.e. releasing information so that it makes maximum impact and Clintons are trying to damage-control by implying that Russia is involved…

Except the FBI cyber crime division, independent of the Clintons or the DNC, is the one accusing the Russians of making the hack. The FBI, whose sole purpose is to protect the U.S. against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats. > Trump (who has never worked with anything Russian ever... unlike the Clintons) I can't tell if this is satire. Trump's campaign manager was responsible for installing 2 Pro-Putin dictat…

Kellyanne Conway hasn't installed russian dictators, that's really out there.

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

#952

Post by vectorjohn »

artursapek wrote: post #747
angry-hacker wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point. Is it only left or right in America? Both candidates are rubbish and if you support Hillary you're no better than your average Trump's redneck.

I'm seeing a lot of people deciding who to vote for by deciding which candidate they dislike less - not which they like more. Is that normal in US presidential elections? This is the first one I've followed.

How are those two different things? Seriously. I like Hillary more AND I dislike her less. How are those even two separate concepts?

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

#953

Post by jsprogrammer »

_wp3r wrote: post #314
sverige wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unlawful for you to visit the Wikileaks site. https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7877498936496005...

Sarcasm aside. There is a caveat to the legality of classified materials, usually you must have been "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of". Which alludes to the fact that you would first have to have been read in, or taken the material that you knew was classified. There is also a "requirement" to "knowingly" cause harm. I put these in quotes because the wording and the enforcement of that requir…

Networks don't remove, only copy.

Congress cannot prohibit speech or press. If it has been written down or spoken, then the US Constitution provides absolute legal justification for viewing it, copying it, and discussing it, without any restriction.

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

#954

Post by kbenson »

vectorjohn wrote: post #952
artursapek wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing a lot of people deciding who to vote for by deciding which candidate they dislike less - not which they like more. Is that normal in US presidential elections? This is the first one I've followed.

How are those two different things? Seriously. I like Hillary more AND I dislike her less. How are those even two separate concepts?

The implication is that they "like" neither. Technically, disliking one less means you like them more, but the wording is meant to convey the distaste in the available choices, as opposed to being excited for the new term.

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

#955

Post by kbenson »

shard972 wrote: post #946
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…

> 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! But these women are coming out on their own because of cooper's question? I don't understand.

If you believe you are an isolated incident, it may be harder to come forth and level charges. You are working against whatever reputation, money and prestige that person may have. Once there is an indication that it is not an isolated incident, and you may be able to face it in unity with someone else, that may spur you to take the leap. Even then, you may hold back with the hope that the other person may succeed and you don't need to involve yourself.

In this case, we had Trump attempting to cast the video as entirely just talk, with no action involved. I think it's entirely within expectations that someone that had experienced this behavior may have had their hopes of justice which had risen during this incident dashed (given there wasn't an actual person to respond, just the video), and decided that was the straw that broke the camels back.

We saw this with Cosby as well, or do you think he's innocent? If you think he's not innocent, how do you explain all the people that only really spoke up loudly after the main report? We see this all the time. Coming forward is a risk, and until the perceived risk is lowered, you may not see many (or any people).

Now, it is possible that the people coming forward are making it all up, as it's always a possibility, but given the video and Trump's very affirmative statements on the video (of a 60 year old man, mind you. He should have learned long ago what is and is not okay with regard to sexual advances), I think it's far more likely that at least some of the women coming forward are telling the truth.

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

#956

Post by kbenson »

shard972 wrote: post #950
SamBam wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Screenshot? (For those not aware, (((echo parenthesis))) are an anti-semitic symbol used by white supremacists to highlight people who are Jewish.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses Edit: Wow, here it is: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-s... Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. i.e. most of our critics are Jewish. Presuma…

> (For those not aware, (((echo parenthesis))) are an anti-semitic symbol used by white supremacists to highlight people who are Jewish. Then why do I see self proclaimed jews on twitter with the walls? I though it was a joke.... Considering it's... twitter.

We're talking about a news organization responsible for leaking US secrets, with it's head using the asylum of an embassy to prevent extradition on crimes he says are politically motivated, releasing hacked emails in an attempt to disrupt a presidential candidacy. This was using the official twitter channel for Wikileaks. I'm not sure what part of that lends itself to joking, and even if it did, an anti-semitic one isn't what I would consider appropriate for a organization such as that, and would need to be addressed specifically. Even on twitter.

Also, how it that funny? Using Jewish stereotypes and anti-semitic labeling to imply your critics are Jews trying to climb the social ladder? Is that supposed to pass for humor? Maybe next he'll make some comment about a group of people with no jobs, having great tans, and that just love to eat fried chicken and watermelon. What a comedian, that guy.

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

#957

Post by jphillipsio »

angry-hacker wrote: post #829
snowwrestler wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because the recent email leaks just validated what everyone already knew about Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The fact that the emails were LEAKED OMG is not the newsworthy part. It is what is in them. And largely speaking, there's not much news in them. IMO a major problem in the U.S. today is that not many people understand how political campaigns or the federal government actually work. So a lot of peop…

And what don't we already know about Trump? Even if true, if this is serious journalism, why they keep printing she said he said? Wouldn't it be excellent time to print the stories of the alleged rape victims of Bill Clinton too? Since they publicly admit he and Hillary is a team? If you think media is not one sides, even if sided slightly more sane side, you're out of your mind.

These stories were beaten to death in the 90's. Back then, I hoped that they would impeach Bill just so I wouldn't have to hear about it any more. I don't think you'll find many people that want to do it all over again.

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

#959

Post by irrational »

endisukaj wrote: post #295
irrational wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is internet access really a basic right? I would argue no, but then again I grew up in a world without internet access for the most part so I consider it a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.

I would argue that it is on par with a human being's right to be informed (read the news, buy books, etc.) Whether you call those basic human rights it's all up to you. The UN seems to think that it is a basic human right though.

I don't know where you live, but where I live they still print physical books and newspapers. Maybe someday it will only be possible to be informed if you have Internet access, but that day isn't today.

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

#960

Post by gnipgnip »

smsm42 wrote: post #575
gnipgnip wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

See, but the politicians didn't create the system; they essentially compete to be the top Vogon.

I'd discount some of the paranoia around the FRB, but the modern monetary system appears to be a very very clever way of herding a population; really if you control the banks, you essentially control a population (since loans become the only way to obtain currency). Taxes then for instance would be superfluous were it not necessary to bring a currency into circulation and to avoid inflation (and thus avoid seditious movements).

I've been trying to find mathematics that describes the banking system, but it appears there are none (other than such hand-wavy deductions).

Post reply on HN