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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government The Internet Communications Democrats Network Wireless Networking News Technology

WikiLeaks: Ecuador Cut Off Assange's Internet Access (bbc.com) 315

Following a report from WikiLeaks claiming that its co-founder's internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor, the anti-secrecy organization released a statement confirming the state actor was Ecuador. WikiLeaks tweeted: "We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs." BBC reports: There was no way to immediately verify if he had been knocked offline, and if so, what was Ecuador's motivation. The anti-secrecy organization did not return calls and emails on Monday, though it said in a tweet: "We have activated the appropriate contingency plans." A woman who picked up the phone at the Ecuadorean embassy said: "I cannot disclose any information." The Wikileaks claim follows the latest emails it disclosed from a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails. It released three transcripts on Saturday of Mrs Clinton's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, which her campaign had long refused to release. The scrips reveal her bantering relationship with the investment bank's executives, which is unlikely to allay fears among liberal Democrats that she is too cosy with Wall Street.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks: Ecuador Cut Off Assange's Internet Access

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:08PM (#53094671)

    And their unlimited plan isn't actually unlimited. And now some Ecuadoran IT official is stuck on the phone with "tech support." Raise a glass for that poor soul.

    • by sims 2 ( 994794 )

      What does comcast consider unlimited now? Last I heard they had raised their caps to 1TB/mo for all capped customers.

  • by phayes ( 202222 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:09PM (#53094677) Homepage

    Color me astonished...

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      Amazing that it didn't happen earlier [youtube.com]...

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        Of course, when he finally does end up surrendered to Sweden, this [youtube.com]will be my reaction.

    • Maybe I'm missing something, but if he's holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London, how is Ecuador the country that cuts off his internet? I thought that the only country that can is the UK

      • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:27PM (#53094833)

        Maybe I'm missing something, but if he's holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London, how is Ecuador the country that cuts off his internet? I thought that the only country that can is the UK

        They changed the WIFI password and didn't tell him the new one?

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        Changing the wifi password?

      • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:48PM (#53095053)

        No, Ecuador could do it. It might look something like this:

        Assange: Hello Mr. Ambassador, a pleasure to see you again.
        Amb Ortiz: Hello Julian, let me come straight to the point - you can no longer use the internet connection in the embassy. The Foreign Minister has made this decision under difficult circumstances. We are doing this so that we can continue to provide you asylum from Sweden and Britain.
        Assange: But Mr. Ambassador!
        Amb Ortiz: No buts, Julian. No more use of the embassy internet or we will show you the door, and put you outside.
        Assange: I understand Mr. Ambassador. What if I can make other arrangements?
        Amb Ortiz: That is your affair, as long as it does not make use of the embassy facilities.
        Assange: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador for your continued hospitality.

        • by xevioso ( 598654 )

          I thought there was a joke here, but I read to the end and was disappointed.

        • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

          The "State Actor" here, if you will, would have been the US leaning on Ecuador to take these actions, but I agree that a conversation like the above almost certainly happened. The conspiracy theories around this are just amazing.

      • If they cut it off within the embassy building. I don't think the Vienna Convention would allow the UK to cut off access to the embassy, though the supplier might if for example there was a billing dispute.

    • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:30PM (#53094863)

      more likely the ecuadorian government got a call they couldn't refuse..

    • Maybe he farts too much and they are tired of the smell.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It was OK for a while, but once Wikileaks got into the pants of the DNC, Obama decided to either play hard ball, or offer them something.

      Fat chance the timing is coincidental.
      • It was OK for a while, but once Wikileaks got into the pants of the DNC, Obama decided to either play hard ball, or offer them something.

        Obama? I'm sure he'll be glad to be rid of the Clintons and get out of DC. I don't see why he'd lift a finger to protect her reputation. Please he's a lame duck and of no consequence at this point. The only ones to fear at this point are the Clintons. It Ecuador is trying to appease anyone its the Clintons.

  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:10PM (#53094685) Homepage

    are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually [wikileaks.org] read [wikileaks.org] them [wikileaks.org] as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yep.

      Not a fan of Hillary, but very little in these talks seems damaging to her. Should be obvious that any good leader and speaker needs to cater speech to the audience. If anything, her intelligent and informed replies to pointed questions at these events is further evidence that she would be a much better president than Trump.

      If this is some of the worst dirt they can come up with on Clinton after her long career in Washington, either she actually is pretty clean by DC standards, or she is a master coveru

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by PRMan ( 959735 )
        I believe that she and Bill are master cover-up artists, but that's a skill that a President sometimes needs, too. Trump can't even cover up his bald head effectively.
        • To be a master coverup artists, you first have to know how to shut your mouth.

        • by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:59PM (#53095195)

          Trump can't even cover up his bald head effectively.

          Not his fault: he stiffed the rat on his head its paycheck like he's done to so many small businesses, so the rat couldn't eat, and it died. Trumps just too lazy to actually remove the corpse. Which makes it all the rats fault in batshit stupid Trumpland.

        • by Rei ( 128717 )

          Be nice to Trump's headweasel, it does the best that it can.

          (I personally like to mentally picture that Trump's hair is a live animal with a perfectly calm, rational temperment that's frankly very disturbed by all of the things that Trump says, but is very dedicated to its job and doesn't want to ruin a TV appearance by standing up and walking off. Maybe the sniffing was it repeatedly trying to restrain a sigh...)

      • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:38PM (#53094955)
        I don't think it's just the Hilary stuff. Stuff like the statement from John Podesta wishing that Syed Farook was the informant, rather than the shooter in San Bernardino, and that the shooter was Christopher Hayes, as well as the discussions about a 'Catholic Spring' - those things are more damaging, since they say a lot not just about Clinton's aides, but the very mindset of her campaign.
    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:25PM (#53094827)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:45PM (#53095019)
        That is a stretch. What would you say of Condoleezza Rice giving a speech to Goldman, or of any other form of fundraising? People pay the money in the hopes of creating an influence. Politicians do not live in a vacuum, and as much as I would hate to be a Senator or President, someone needs to do those jobs who is passionate about the position.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by meglon ( 1001833 )
        http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/... [fortune.com]

        They're speeches, just like everyone elses speeches. The real problem is you've been lied to for so long by the fascist power hungry GOP politicians that you've developed a Pavlovian response to say everything Hillary does is bad. It must suck having your head so far up your ass all the time.
      • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
        So what did Goldman Sachs pay the Bush administration to give the Secretary of Treasury position to Paulson, the recently former GS CEO? I recall a massive banker bailout that seemed to favor GS immensely occurring during his tenure as well.
      • Nobody cares about the content of those talks, least of all anybody at Goldman Sachs. She could have stood at the lectern and read Rod McKuen poems for all they care. The issue is that the money Goldman gave her for those "speeches" are in fact bribes paid on spec, against the contingency of her getting into the white house.

        -jcr

        You ever attend a professional sports game? Part of it is to watch the performance, part of it is see your heroes in person.

        Now imagine you're a rich bank having a company event, spending a few hundred thousand dollars for an A-list politician to give a speech and even answer a few questions makes a lot of sense. Your employees are happier (better recruitment and retention) and it makes your company look that much more successful and prestigious (more business in the future).

        Oh, and if you think the Clinton

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You goddamn shill.

      Who the hell pays anyone hundreds of thousands for a few minute talk unless it's either a) pay to play or b) payment for services already rendered?

    • by wickerprints ( 1094741 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:31PM (#53094881)

      The announcement of internet access being cut by a "state actor"--insinuating that this is somehow Clinton's doing--fails to pass basic scrutiny:

      1. If it was cut, why not cut it before the transcript leaks, rather than after?
      2. What would be accomplished by having parties sympathetic to Clinton cut Assange's internet access when everyone knows that such actions would be ineffective?

      The whole thing strikes me as an attempt by Assange to exaggerate his claims. If he had real dirt on Clinton, he would not need to be so coy: it would be plastered all over the headlines. The Russians have been working nonstop to discredit Hillary and the Democrats, and this is the best they could come up with? If anything the result of their attempts would seem to suggest that there's nothing meaningful to be uncovered.

    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:42PM (#53094989)

      The real thing is so far, I haven't seen anything I didn't already know. I mean maybe some of the "bombshell" revelations are news to some people, but not to anybody who has followed Clinton for any amount of time. She's cozy with Wall St.? Oh so fucking shit, tell us something we didn't already know :P.

      Perhaps I've just missed it (I haven't gone and read everything, I've been relying on synopses provided by others) but I've seen nothing that would change my opinion, nor would I think anyone else's. Everything "revealed" was already known: She's cozy with big business, favours free trade, had the Democratic establishment behind her, etc. All the reasons why I would much prefer that Sanders was the Democratic candidate.

      However, none of it makes me think any better of Trump. Like Senator Sanders himself, I can be pragmatic about what happened.

  • by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:11PM (#53094691)
    Et tu, Equador?
  • War is coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:14PM (#53094717)

    Ecuador moved at the behest of Hillary, Kerry and pals in the US government. I have no doubt that the pressure on Ecuador is immense.
    The elites are desperate to stop Assange and his leaks. Even at this late hour, the thought that the truth might get out terrifies them enough that all agree on increasingly desperate measures.

    As the web of lies and tattered economy they have left in their wake comes undone, I have no doubt that we will see more and more extreme actions like this from our ruling elite. Today also, RT's bank accounts in the UK were unilaterally closed, again at the behest of the US government. War with Russia is being drummed up at all costs, because only a major war can save the Elites from the banquest of consequences their enraged populations have in store for them.

    Don't be naive enough to swallow the pathetic excuses the shills will render up. The US and western elites have finally moved on Assange, because he committed the most unforgivable sin of all; he made them afraid.

    • I would imagine that the US would have wanted him all these years. So why would Ecuador have held out to date, and why would they turn him in now?
    • Re:War is coming (Score:4, Informative)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:36PM (#53094935) Journal

      An alternative explanation is that the US showed Ecuador that Assange, and thus their British Embassy, were being used by Russia as a means to tamper with the US election and in general as a conduit to release information gained through cyber-espionage. Whatever Ecuador's feelings on Assange, the Clintons, Trump, or the price of tea in China, the fact remains that they cannot simply sit by and let someone who is a guest at their embassy, and who is on the lamb from British courts, undermine the embassy by using it in this way.

      It demonstrates the extent of Assange's arrogance, and his complete detachment from reality that he would abuse his hosts in this fashion. Did he imagine that his defacto asylum granted him unlimited rights to use Embassy resources in any way he pleased?

      I suspect British police are just waiting for the invite so they can grab him.

    • Assange is grasping at straws at this point. Petty gossip is about all that it really is. Wikileaks became less about exposing corruption and more about exposing Assange to more press.
    • I have no doubt that the pressure on Ecuador is immense.

      Giving him refuge was one thing. Becoming his new base of questionably legal operations is quite another.

      He is certainly pushing his luck.

  • I suspect....sadly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:17PM (#53094741) Homepage

    I suspect, since we're saber rattling and threatening Russia over Hillary's DNC email cover up. That they have pretty much threatened Ecuador to hand over Assange or the U.S. will pretty much make hell for Ecuador.

    I strongly suspect Assange will be in U.S. custody within the next two months.

    • by phayes ( 202222 )

      Impossible. Once he emerges from his mother's basement He'll be spending a few years in UK prisons for jumping bail and reneging on his promises to follow U.K justice After that, the U.K. has already committed to handing him over to Sweden where he will also be spending a few years -- Also without Internet privileges.

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:19PM (#53094765) Journal

    The Ecuadorian ambassador was quoted as saying, "Julian never cleans his room or puts his dishes in the dishwasher, and he keeps trying to feel up the housekeepers. He better shape up, mister, or next time it's going to be the Playstation. He'll have to start contributing around here. It's not like we work for the broadband company."

  • quick some give him a LTE router + per payed sim

    • by _KiTA_ ( 241027 )

      Can't. The UK has had the entire Ecuidorian embassy signal jammed for over a year now.

  • by CFD339 ( 795926 ) <andrewp.thenorth@com> on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:24PM (#53094809) Homepage Journal
    Ecuador has been walking a line for some time providing refuge. Assange has made clear at this point both in statements and in actions, that when it comes to this election he has a very strong bias. Ecuador does not want to be seen taking steps to interfere in a US election. By providing the platform and venue for Assange to do what he's doing, as it becomes increasingly clear that he's not providing unbiased data release but rather acting as a proxy for Russian propaganda product, that's exactly the position they're in. By cutting off his access, they're preventing him using their protection to interfere in the US election.
    • I'm sure if he had dirt on Trump he'd release it also.
      • by dlenmn ( 145080 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:48PM (#53095059)

        I'm sure if he had dirt on Trump he'd release it also.

        At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, it's becoming clear that Assange is not simply freeing information; he's playing politics -- possibly in hopes of a Trump pardon. That's not a far-fetched goal. Assange's standing among conservatives has improved greatly since he started dumping on Clinton. Take the example of Fox News anchor (and Trump lapdog) Sean Hannity. In 2010, he was calling for Assange's head and castigating Obama for not taking out wikileaks. Now, Hannity wants Assange to go free. (Source [mediamatters.org]) So, if Assange had dirt on Trump, I highly doubt that Assange would release it. He wouldn't want to alienate his most powerful audience.

  • I wonder who had enough "juice" to make this happen?

    Ecuador has been very willing to poke Sweden, Europe, and the US in the eye over Assange for years. So, why now?

    Did Wallstreet firms make some threats about investment?
    Did the Clinton campaign threaten vengeance when Hillary is selected as president?
    Did the US State Department make some threats to cover for Hillary?
    Did the CIA threaten tit for tat against Ecuador as part of rumored actions against Russia?
    Are foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation leanin

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:39PM (#53094971) Journal

      By all accounts, the political situation in Ecuador itself is changing, so it is very likely that the government has decided that it is no longer going to offer Assange blanket protection. That's their right, it is their embassy. In fact, Ecuador is within the rights to evict Assange if they want to. He's there at their sufferance, and if they decide he's becoming an irritant and damaging their international relations, then they have a duty to the Ecuadorian people to limit his ability to create such disturbances.

    • Or alternatively, Ecuador simply decided that Assange's political beliefs and ambitions no longer align with their own. Whatever you may think about Trump, he is not exactly preaching love and peace towards that particular part of the world.

      If a regime offers you sanctuary because you are politically convenient for them, you really should ask yourself what happens the moment you become politically inconvenient.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Ecuador has been heavily reliant on selling it's oil to maintain it's economy. A few years ago (a year or two after they took in Assange) they lost the $300M/y in US foreign aid, earlier this year they had a huge earthquake an asked the IMF for $3B.

      With the US now almost completely self-reliant when it comes to oil and gas production, they probably thinking about losing a big customer when Clinton comes to power.

  • I think Assange has over-stayed on that moniker as well.

    While I used to support what he did, at this point he has lost all credibility.
  • by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:42PM (#53094997)

    Is Assange the only person at WikiLeaks? Are the only computers in WikiLeaks the ones in the Ecuadorian embassy? Aren't there WikiLeak employees in other countries in Europe? Do they have servers? Do they have operatives in Russia or its allies who break into these emails?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think they have a fair amount of redundancy in other places. It only takes a handful of people and some cheap rented servers.
      I don't think Assange's arrest would stop the leaks, if anything it might cause them to be dumped all at once.
      He may have a "dead man switch" set up, so that if he doesn't log in to a particular server once every few days, the contents are automatically uploaded.

    • Exactly - what's the big deal? You'd think the Russians were emailing them to Assange's laptop then he FTP'ed them to the WikiLeaks site at Wix.com.
    • Assange drove away almost all the volunteers with his dickish behavior and treating the wikileaks donations like a personal piggy bank. There are still a few volunteers, but the vast majority quit a long time ago.

  • by melted ( 227442 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:48PM (#53095057) Homepage

    Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.

    • Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.

      You know who else said that? Hitler.

    • Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler"

      Does this have anything to do with the story? I don't see any mention of Hitler.

      And hey, Hitler was the guy who killed Hitler. So he wasn't all bad.

    • Funny how everyone who doesn't worship the liberal establishment automatically turns into "literally Hitler", and the same people who previously supported that person have a full body orgasm when they're taken down.

      Yes, they're not measured and rational like Trump's long time friend and advisor Roger Stone [mediamatters.org] who thinks Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are literal demons [twitter.com].

    • Funny how everyone who worships Assange have been completely oblivious to how he and his organisation have pretty much morphed into a parody of themselves.

      ProTip: It stopped being about the info and started being all about Julian instead, quite some time ago.

  • by dbreeze ( 228599 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @08:15PM (#53096455)

    https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY [youtu.be] The Democratic Party has gone slam off the farm. I only wonder where the Republican machine corruption is relatively..., and are they really scared of Trump. So far, I've only given the Rep's inner circles credit for better operational security.

    Is Trump our Underdog to get the Simon Bar Sinister's of the world, or is he a devious plant by the establishment? I don't see how they could plan to work this where Trump just shifts the NWO agenda to the next gear without the rest of us down here going ballistic on their asses.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Working...