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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by ZoF »

acdha wrote: post #910
ZoF wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the DNC wouldn't have called them out as fake immediately if they were... Come on. Podesta himself admitted he got hacked and the password he emailed himself in plaintext worked for his other social media accounts.

Think about that a little more in depth: For any one email, it's easy to check and dispute a discrepancy. Checking thousands of emails takes time but you have to take that time to avoid the chance of validating a forgery. During that time, they're in the news a lot and someone may confirm a legitimate email in the dump, which will be taken by many as proof that the entire thing is valid. Many people will never change…

Your implication is that I haven't thought about it in depth. I have. I care a lot, about my community, the country and our world.

Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy rating(meaning they have not once pushed a falsified leak).

You showing other falsifications by other corrupt organizations isn't enough for me to throw away evidence as 'false' when there is no reason to do so. Again, if there was an individual falsification why wouldn't DNC officials call it out? Can you provide me a rational explanation.

In the context of a leak dropped a day before the election with no chance to fact check, sure, I could entertain the possibility there might be forgeries to control the election results.

Weeks ahead? What is stopping any forgeries from being called out? Where is _your_ proof these are false emails?

You have none, because there is none.

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

#962

Post by stephenboyd »

jacquesm wrote: post #127

- Is the whole embassy shut down? - Is there any direct reason for the timing (US elections, attack on Mosul or other current headlines)? - Was there any imminent release? (last week there was an announcement of a leak but it didn't materialize as far as I know) http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/4/13159914/wikileaks-hillary... - You'd assume that Wikileaks the organization will continue to work even without Assange hav…

This is the tweet from official Wikileaks:

"We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs."

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865

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

#963

Post by moeadham »

edanm wrote: post #369
joshuaheard wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Assange is a partisan. He's Australian after all and has no stake in this election. I think he is releasing info on Hillary because that is what he has and is timing the release for maximum public exposure. If he had similar info on Trump, I firmly believe he would be doing the same thing.

It's pretty well known that Assange has a vendetta against Hillary Clinton. Just searching for Assange Clinton on Google brings up lots of articles on the subject.

He has very recently claimed he is "working on" getting Trump's Tax returns: https://youtu.be/kmIlc9qE2i0?t=405

HRC likely just has a larger attack surface.

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

#964

Post by jacquesm »

sleepybrett wrote: post #323
jacquesm wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty impressive feat if they manage to disconnect Assange while leaving the embassy connected. Messing with the communications capabilities of an embassy is not something done without a whole lot of possible fall-out.

If it were my embassy I wouldn't let assange on my network. I imagine he has his own private internet connection.

Apparently Ecuador agrees with you and it appears that he didn't have a private internet connection.

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

#965

Post by jacquesm »

HillRat wrote: post #260
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.

On the other hand, "state actor" could certainly refer to Ecuador deciding to turn off Assange's access. WikiLeaks tends to be fairly economical with the truth about its own operations, so being purposefully ambiguous isn't anything new for them. And, while Ecuador hasn't had to deal with meaningful diplomatic repercussions from sheltering Assange, the high-profile role WL is taking in the 2016 elections, and specifi…

You were spot on.

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

#966

Post by smsm42 »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #691
smsm42 wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must agree with the parent post - Trump and HRC operate in entirely different way. HRC is basically the avatar of corruption, if corruption were personified it would look and act like her. She doesn't need alternative reality, the current reality of the government is completely fine, she feels in it like fish in the water. She knows all the levers, and she knows how to abuse the system and how get away with things.…

I agree with your assessment. HRC represents the "devil you know" to many people vs. "the one you don't" (Trump). A lot of how people feel is fueled by our hyperbolic, news-as-entertainment industry, but not all of it. It's not irrational paranoia to believe your government operates as a separate entity, one that is not subject to the rule of law. From the Iraq war, to torture, to retroactively legal bulk collection,…

Nobody gives anybody ability to destroy humanity, no need for histrionics. We don't have elections for God or Emperor, just President, whose powers are large but limited. This is what the whole idea of limited government with independent branches is about. The same idea the current President is working so hard to destroy.

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

#967

Post by ManlyBread »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #609
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.

In a pure coincidence, this is what happened yesterday: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37677020

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

#968

Post by [deleted] »

jonwachob91 wrote: post #429
_wp3r wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Insert meme about protection from DD214 blanket... Jokes aside, I found myself on the site for the first time ever last week... Didn't want to fuck with that shit during my service or while holding a clearance. But question... While I no longer have a clearance, I am still eligible for a clearance if I need it within the next few years... Should I be concerned?

[deleted]

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

#969

Post by MertsA »

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…

According to https://justice4assange.com Sweden regularly questions people within the EU yet they have refused to question Julian Assange even though they are free to interrogate him inside the embassy whenever they want.

Sweden refuses to interview him there even though in the 4 years that he's been holed up in the embassy Swedish authorities have interviewed 44 other people in the UK. They also refused to promise to not extradite him to the USA where he would most likely be convicted of espionage and possibly executed.

If you were in his shoes do you think you would step outside given the circumstances? The UK has also stated that even if the Swedish investigation was closed they would still arrest Assange the minute he steps outside. Why wouldn't the UK extradite Assange to the USA if given the opportunity?

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

#970

Post by MertsA »

strictnein wrote: post #294
staticelf wrote: post #130

From a Swedish perspective the Julian Assange case is particular close to the heart since it really shows how corrupt even our courts and politicians are. Sweden is rated as one of the countries with the lowest corruption but still 6 years have passed without even interviewing him for the pathetic accusations. The entire case is a joke and whatever the US-election result is, it's bad for the entire world since our co…

I guess you missed the part about how Sweden was going to interview him today and then magically Assange's lawyer wasn't available so they (Assange and the Ecuadorian embassy) postponed the interview a month.

Sweden postponed it for 4 years, I would want my lawyer too given the circumstances.
Post reply on HN