Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Assange Internet Link Cut By State Actor, Claims Wikileaks (rt.com) 475

An anonymous reader shares a report by RussianToday: WikiLeaks has activated "contingency plans" after its co-founder's internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the media organization said in a tweet. The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assange, who has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world. Facing extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape, which he denies, the Australian computer programmer has been holed up in the embassy in West London since 2012. He claims the extradition is actually a bid to move him to a jurisdiction from which he can then be sent to the US, which is known to be actively investigating WikiLeaks. The unverified claims of state sabotage come as WikiLeaks continues to release damaging documents, most recently thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Internet Link Cut By State Actor, Claims Wikileaks

Comments Filter:
  • Does anybody ... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Martin S. ( 98249 )

    Still believe his line of bullshit?

    • Which "bullshit"? Please, be certain to clearly specify, whether you hate him for falsifying the released communications or for "stealing" the real ones.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by s.petry ( 762400 )

      Believe Assange? Are you asking if we believe the email dumps are real of if we like the guy personally? I don't know him personally but respect his rights to speech, just like I respect yours. Your question is invalid given the subject matter at hand.

      Do I believe the emails are real? Yes, I do. These dumps are as damaging to other high level politicians as they are Hillary. They demonstrate very clearly how far into the Banana Republic the USA has already gone.

      Do I believe the emails are damaging to

      • by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:46AM (#53091365)

        Earlier this month, it emerged that Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to “drone” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when she was the US secretary of state.

        If he had nothing of value, I doubt they would go to such lengths as droning a guy in an embassy.

        • Earlier this month, it emerged that Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to âoedroneâ WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when she was the US secretary of state.

          If he had nothing of value, I doubt they would go to such lengths as droning a guy in an embassy.

          Pfft!

          They'd drone you for a Klondike Bar! :P

          Strat

    • by ( 4475953 )

      Sure, I do. Could be Russia to force him to release the whole 'insurance' dump automatically, which surely contains lots of painful material for the Democrats. Could also be an extremely lame attempt at silencing him at least until the last presidential debate is over. Less likely though, because it would be so stupid. Or Hillary is so sure of her win or so angry that she already prepares for Assange's prosecution, which requires that he is forced to dump the 'insurance' info first, so can later be arrested

      • Re:Does anybody ... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:55AM (#53091475) Homepage
        Could be the Ecuadorians are getting annoyed with having to live with a random, annoying guy 24/7 and cut it themselves, hoping it might convince him to go somewhere else.
      • I doubt anyone on Clinton's side is worried about the last debate. Thus far Trump has shown an astonishing inability to capitalize upon Clinton's negatives. Quite the opposite, in fact, he seems to have become a master at magnifying his own issues.

    • Apparently the Russians do, and report it in the Russia Times. At least, there is no need of a leftist media conspiracy to have an idea of who edits the news of RT.
      • there is no need of a leftist media conspiracy to have an idea of who edits the news of RT.

        Which I'm fine with. I know when I read RT to take it with a grain of salt. When I read Breitbart, I know what I'm getting. I like Mother Jones, too, and I know what I'm getting. But when I'm watching a CNN debate, presented to me as fair and impartial, but CNN has given one side a copy of the debate questions ahead of time...uh oh.

        • by Bigbutt ( 65939 )

          A quick read of the Times (first hit on this), the woman providing the question was a member of the DNC on leave from CNN and it's about a debate back in March against other Democratic candidates not the most recent one between Trump and Hillary. And since we only have the leaks from Hillary's guy, I don't know that the woman didn't present it or other questions to Bernie or the others in the debate.

          [John]

          • 1) They gave it to Hillary and not Bernie because Hillary is the establishment choice. It's not so much a Republican/Democrat thing as it is an elites vs commoners thing.

            2) Even if they gave it to Bernie, too, it's still fucking bullshit. It's just kabuki theater. There is no democracy. There is no journalism. There are elites, their chosen puppets, and their propagandists.

    • Still believe his line of bullshit?

      How could he know that the internet was cut "by a state actor" but not know which state actor?

      No, I don't believe him.

    • In fairness to Assange, if I were cooped indoors in one building for years, with torture and murder at the hands of the CIA awaiting me should I ever leave, I'd probably be going a bit batty and attention-seeking myself. So while, yeah, he's behaving like a tool, I can sympathize.

  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:25AM (#53091117) Journal

    It's good to see the NSA step up to patriotically ensure Hillary's ascendancy to the throne. They were slacking compared to the loyalty of the DOJ who selflessly made sure to destroy the laptops of anybody on her staff who might have had incriminating evidence.

    • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      "Only an out-of-touch idiot like Romney would ever think that Russia is our enemy! -- Hillary Clinton
      Flag as Inappropriate"

      Damn! Hilliary said something I agree with! Romney is an idiot. It's an amazing day.

    • This comment comes with a complimentary free tin hat!

    • You can call Clinton a number of things. I'm not a fan, so I'm inclined to agree with many of them. But stupid, she is not.

      And that is what she would have to be to get involved with this sort of thing when she's so clearly ahead in the election. Her dilemma at this point is not "win at all costs", but "How can I expand the Democratic footprint?".

    • by ( 4475953 )

      I guess they have to do what the commander in chief tells them. Isn't that how military organizations are supposed to work?

  • Assange should watch his back, wouldn't want her to use her cloth on him!

  • by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:53AM (#53091445) Homepage Journal

    At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.

    Bradley Manning's exposures made him (or her? — one never knows with Illiberals) — a hero [huffingtonpost.com] as well. He may be in prison, but he is a hero still — with numerous fans at home [bradleymanning.com] and abroad [wikipedia.org].

    Julian Assange was a hero too [huffingtonpost.com], as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq [wired.com] after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive" [cbsnews.com].

    But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.

    See also "Peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism" [brainyquote.com].

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @11:38AM (#53091937) Journal

      At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.

      Before those Pulitzers were given, before the journalists published those "illegally"-obtained documents, those journalists actually verified that the documents were fucking real, which is something no one has proven with the Guccifer 2.0 or #PodestaEmails19.

      • by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Monday October 17, 2016 @12:15PM (#53092333) Homepage Journal

        Before those Pulitzers were given [...] those journalists actually verified that the documents were fucking real

        Bullshit. Assigned to work on the case in June of 1972 [wikipedia.org], Woodward and Bernstein got their first Watergate-related Pulitzer in 1973 [wikipedia.org], less than a year later? Evidence against president's staff, says Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], only started to mount by July 1973, but Pulitzers are given out in April...

        What sort of proof can be obtained in such cases, especially this quickly? Nixon only resigned in 1974, and the identity of the "Deep Throat" [wikipedia.org] remained unknown until 2005! Some "proof"...

        Without realizing it, you've just demonstrated another Illiberal hypocrisy — if the suspect is a Republican, even a rumor or an unsubstantiated allegation is sufficient. For a Democrat — nothing other than "beyond reasonable doubt" would suffice. Thus any talk of Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women is slander, of his wife helping cover it up — only more so, but Trump is an asshole for preferring good-looking females to ugly ones.

        Likewise, we are supposed to ignore Hillary Clinton's negligence with State secrets (she was never convicted, right?), but instead concentrate on rumors, Trump is a Putin's man.

        which is something no one has proven with the Guccifer 2.0 or #PodestaEmails19.

        Questions:

        1. Is that your defense — that the published texts aren't actually verbatim copies of the e-mails?
        2. Could you link to any earlier doubts regarding the authenticity of Wikileaks publications harming Bush? Ideally, it would be your own comment, but anything on Huffington Post or DailyKos would be acceptable too.
        3. What would you accept as proof in this case even theoretically?
  • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @10:53AM (#53091455) Homepage Journal

    Where is the bigger, more interesting, and more newsworthy story that the entire Ecuador embassy has been cut off? I still haven't seen it.

    Therefore, if the story is true, then everyone can easily infer which "stare actor" cut him off: Ecuador.

    • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      That really depends on how he's gaining access to the Internet. It's entirely possible that he's using a different link than the one used by the embassy staff for official business - guest WiFi perhaps, or maybe even dedicated fibre, DSL or 3G/LTE - he's been there long enough to have had one installed by now. Or maybe he's just using the free WiFi of a coffee shop across the street. Chances are pretty good he'll be using a VPN and/or TOR on top of whatever he was using, so perhaps the alleged state acto
  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @11:40AM (#53091953) Journal

    My internet goes down twice a week and nobody starts a hashtag and pushes out press releases for me.

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...