Hotspot Vigilantes Are Trying to Beam the Internet To Julian Assange (vice.com) 246
Ecuadorian government said earlier this week that it did cut off Julian Assange's internet connection. They noted that Assange's continued interference in the U.S. election campaign was the reason why they decided to disconnect Assange from the internet. But it appears some people are going to great lengths to beam internet connectivity to Mr. Assange. This week 4chan urged people to head to the embassy to set up mobile Wi-Fi hotspots, and many are doing just that. From a Motherboard report:"We are now calling all BRITS to get their ass down to the embassy and stand around in mass, taking shifts with wifi-hotspots on hand!" reads the post. "Give Assange constant network and morale support all while streaming it live for the world to see." Are people actually going to try this? Motherboard UK visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has claimed political asylum since August 2012, today to find out. Admittedly, on a late October afternoon, things were rather quiet on the street outside the embassy. Nevertheless, I found my guy. "Marco" was loitering outside the embassy, turning on and off his mobile hotspot. I approached him, and while tentative at first, Marco finally started explaining how he was hoping to aid Assange.
Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the guy not have a mobile phone? I hear London has mobile internets and everything nowadays. It's quite the happening little village.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe not allowed. I heard theoretical talk of these things called "high gain directional antenna" but maybe that's a myth
Re: (Score:2)
Any "new" friend could be used by the security services to deliver an altered device.
Consumer device globally ship with access to police and security services designed in.
Re:Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ecuador has decided to shut off his Internet access to stop him from trying to fuck around with the US election, I have a feeling that they wouldn't be any more tolerant of him using alternative means to continue the campaign. I honestly think that his days hanging out in the Ecuadorian Embassy are numbered, and too much pursuing of his October Surprise strategy is likely to mean he's shown the door.
Re: (Score:2)
he's shown the door.
People are waiting at the door.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, every intelligence agency in the US told him that.
Re:Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Are these the same intelligence agencies that told us about Iraq?
Re: (Score:3)
There were WMDs left from when we cooperated with Saddam. There were no functioning WMD programs or new or safe to use WMDs.
Re: (Score:3)
If he was in Putin's pocket then why didn't he seek refuge in Russia?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably for the same reason that he didn't fly to Ecuador. Though honestly, I think his story about avoiding extradition to Sweden to avoid extradition to the US is a total load of crap. The UK is historically by far more likely to do that than Sweden is. Hell, the UK even extradites its own nationals to the US without much fanfare even if they had never set foot on US soil. Meanwhile Sweden harbors people who run torrent sites, which it seems the US prosecutes far more aggressively than spying.
It's also t
Re: (Score:2)
However eager the British Government are to extradite him to the US, he hasn't committed any crime in the UK, and so can't be arrested for anything, let alone extradited. However, he's alleged to have committed (serious) crimes in Sweden. The Swedes have asked he be sent there for show-trial, and thus he's hidden in the embassy until it can be resolved. Even if he'd been picked up ready for sending to Sweden, the Brits would still have had no grounds to send him to the US without major international fallout
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden can't get him extradited from the UK and then let the US extradite him without permission from the UK. If the US had wanted him, back when he was relevant, we'd have filed the request when only one country would have to agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Except if the UK runs into the Ecuadorian embassy there will be an international incident.
Who has suggested that?
How about I and the US government sit outside where you live and hint that I'll drag you off and make you disappear.
Now on an unrelated note you suddenly get a call that you're facing rape charges in Sweden, better start putting your affairs in order.
Why is Assange any different from anyone else facing criminal charges in the USA, Sweden or anywhere else? If it is OK for anyone facing criminal charges to shelter in the nearest Ecuadorian embassy then Ecuador had better start building some massive accomodation blocks by its embassies around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think we want to try him for? He's never been charged in the US. There's no particular evidence that he violated US law (publishing classified information is legal here). The person who leaked the information is put away for a LONG time. If we wanted him, we'd have filed an extradition request and figured the UK would hand him over like they usually do. Moreover, he's been getting less and less relevant over time, so if we had wanted him when he arrived in the UK (which we apparently didn'
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Have you not heard this guy speak? Just to pick one example of the hundreds of him acting as Putin's personal apologist [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Good job Boris... keep it up.
Re: (Score:2)
You're mixing up your conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump email server is open to everyone. Just heard the other day here on Slashdot.
Re: Phone (Score:2)
I agree completely. His leaking what he's leaked has served the purposes for many of us Americans by providing evidence of a lot of the criminal,activity we knew was going on, especially in the Hillary camp. However this man is not a hero, he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American. We need to keep that in mind.
Re: Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
However this man is not a hero, he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American. We need to keep that in mind.
"Trading in stolen goods" eh?
Since when has theft of public ignorance been a crime?
Oh yeah, ever since we've had criminal politicians who've relied on public ignorance to avoid prosecution, that's when.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
The public is ignorant of the content of your emails. If you feel so strongly that the public should know everything, why don't you go ahead and post your username and password here so everyone can take a look. You don't want the public to be ignorant, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
The public is ignorant of the content of your emails. If you feel so strongly that the public should know everything, why don't you go ahead and post your username and password here so everyone can take a look. You don't want the public to be ignorant, after all.
I'm not someone seeking to become the leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth and who is also heavily embroiled in corruption investigations. If I were the one running for POTUS I would offer up my email archives, particularly when there has been so much government/political corruption revealed.
Would you be equally outraged if it were Trump's emails revealed instead of Clinton's?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my response would be the same if it where Trump's email. Hacking anyone's email is illegal. Illegal actions do not become acceptable just because you don't like the person they're directed towards.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, would I want an unfriendly government hacking into US organizations to pass information through someone with an axe to grind in order to interfere with US elections if it favored my side? You Putin/Assange followers have to be out of your mind to think I'd approve of that no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
> he is a criminal trading in stolen goods - goods he stole from every American. We need to keep that in mind.
Just curious, but do you hold the same opinion of the people behind the Pentagon Papers?
"It's okay when I do it," is generally how people recognize those who can't be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange published information somebody else leaked (and Manning is convicted of the big leaks). That's legal in the US.
There's public evidence pointing to Russia for the Clinton leaks, and the Obama administration, which knows more than we do, seems pretty certain it was the Russians. So, you're relying for your prosecution on information likely provided by an unfriendly government with no reputation for honesty and passed through a middleman also not known for honesty, and as far as I can tell not poi
Re: Phone (Score:3, Insightful)
Ecuador is in Obama's pocket. Just look into its recent dealings with Goldman Sachs plus John Kerry's visit to Ecuador right before all of this went down.
I do not think Ecuador actually wants to take sides in this, but there is definitely a lot of pressure on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Ecuador has an agenda, and that's to look like they're standing up to the US. Harboring Assange gets them political points. Helping interfere in another country's elections is probably not part of their agenda, so Ecuador has an interest in shutting Assange up for another two and a half weeks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
or is it something that, just like the DNC hacks merely ascribed to Russia with zero evidence offered?
Er, there is evidence, even if you choose to ignore that fact:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/... [wired.com]
http://www.esquire.com/news-po... [esquire.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Bad mouthing isn't fraud.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
he would have released all this information weeks ago before they cut off his internet. By parceling it out over the course of October as we get closer and closer to the election, makes him appear more and more like a political player and dissident with an axe to grind...and probably isn't winning him friends at the Embassy.
Kind of like how all the harassment accusations waited until October? Or how that tape from 2005 of Trump saying nasty things was sat on until October?
There is a big difference between "the government is keeping information from the people and they need to know it right now" and "I have information that I think the people need to know about specific things that I support. But I'm going to wait until the right time and place, as determined by me, to release it."
I agree. I feel exactly the same way about how Obama's FBI is releasing the documents they have from Hilary's investigation in pieces making people tired of the story before we even have the complete picture.
That said, I have a feeling that Assange releasing all the documents have more to do with him knowing that she was ok with us killing him via drones th
Re: (Score:2)
Was the 2005 Trump tape leaked by a foreign national? There's plenty of domestic dirty politics going on, and that's our business We don't want Assange (and likely Putin) doing things to influence our election process.
Re:Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe not support the candidate that wants to stop all trade with Latin countries and calls all Latinos bad hombres.
Actual quote is "some bad hombres". Not "all". I know you believe your cause is just and the other side is evil and therefore it's okay to lie or fudge things here and there, but to neutral observers it makes whatever you say less credible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right after listening to trump you can except your IQ to drop. I hate Hillary. Kasich would have beat Hillary in the biggest landslide in decades. Cruz would be close but still winning in many key states.
Trump is so arogant, that he makes Hitler look good. When he said he would jail Hillary shows a blast disregard for law, order, and civil society. The president doesn't make arrests, or punish law breakers that is the judicial branches job. The FBI works for the department of Justice not the executive
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
May we presume from your post that you've been listening to a LOT of the ol' Donald? Because it's hard to believe your IQ is naturally this low, yet you retain autonomic nervous function.
No, he's not out serving warrants personally. But the many law enforcement agencies that *do* make arrests are overseen by the Dept of Justice, which is part of the exe
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen of him, I'd have to assume he would.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically, the executive branch arrests people and prosecutes crimes. The judicial branch determines things like probable cause and whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.
The problem I have with Trump's saying he'd put Clinton in prison, aside from lack of evidence, is that he's threatening a political opponent during a campaign in a way that seems intended to intimidate her from opposing him, and we can't have that in a democracy.
I'm even less happy about Trump saying he might not accept the res
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, the guy who wants more countries to have nuclear weapons, and asks why we're going to make nuclear weapons?
Trump, the guy who wants the US to bomb the children of suspected terrorists?
Trump, the guy who endorses the strategy of Assad, Russia, Hezbollah and Iran in Syria?
This is your anti-war candidate?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you not noticed that Trump immediately applies everything he's criticized for onto his opponents? Bad temperment? No, I have a great temperment, YOU have a bad temperment! Angry? I'm calm, YOU'RE angry! Abuse women? Nobody has more respect for women than me, you abuse women! Puppet? No puppet, no puppet - you're the puppet! Every single time, he's like a mirror. I swear, if Hillary said "Your beauty pageants were poorly produced", he'd respond with, "No, YOUR beauty pageants were poorly produc
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's what makes me think he is on drugs. It's exactly what he would consider to be great reverse psych... And he certainly acts like he's on drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Most nations are aware of efforts like the 'Vienna Spy Stations Summer Series"
https://cryptome.org/2015/08/S... [cryptome.org]
https://cryptome.org/2015/08/S... [cryptome.org]
Faraday cage (Score:2)
You're full of shit on this front. The "embassy" in London is little more than an apartment inside a typical building. Can you point me towards a source of Faraday cage suppliers for buildings? Are you aware the effectiveness is dependent on the size of the mesh?
Re: (Score:2)
LMGTFY! Why, yes, I can point you to a supplier of Faraday cages for buildings. Several of them. Love that Google machine.
You can also use conductive paint or Aluminum foil. Having worked inside Faraday cage buildings, I can tell you that the mesh shielding is only really used for windows so some daylight can get through and complex joints where it's easier than the other methods.
J-.
Re:Phone (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see what your sexual preference has to do with this discussion, but I do believe you deserve the same right to marriage as anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Against script kiddies and malicious service providers, absolutely nothing.
Against malicious state-level actors, well...you want to be really really really really really sure your VPN is rock solid with sufficient encryption, and the implementation you are using (at both end points) is rock solid, and the OS you are using to create and utilise the VPN is rock solid with no remote exploits of any kind, and your OS doesn't expose too much on the network between connecting and establishing the VPN (much easi
Re: (Score:2)
The risk is a man-in-the-middle attack. If he knows that he's using the certificate of his VPN provider and that nobody else has that certificate, he's fine. If he connects to "Really Not MI6" and winds up using their certificate, either because they faked one that looks like his VPN's or because they got hold of that certificate (and most net software I use doesn't have good tools to tell if a certificate is good), that access point will communicate securely with both Assange and Assange's VPN provider,
Surely Wikileaks can function without Assange (Score:5, Insightful)
If Wikileaks' work is so important, I'm sure it can continue on without Assange in the loop, surely. In fact it would regain a lot of credibility were this to happen. Lately I think Assange's narcissism is more of a liability than an asset to Wikileaks and its cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% agreed. I'm actually a fairly big fan of what Wikileaks wants to accomplish and I find it rather fascinating/humorous/depressing that the various parties seem to be anti/pro Wikileaks as a function of whose info is being leaked.
Assange I'm not a a fan of. As soon as Wikileaks becomes a tool for personal vendettas it loses all credibility. Even if he is credible (and I don't believe he is anymore) he does more harm than good because perception is everything and he's created a credibility issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He has made it clear it is no longer an independent actor, so everything Wikileaks does from now will be tainted with his bias.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go so far as to say that Wikileaks has lost all credibility with him still around.
He has made it clear it is no longer an independent actor, so everything Wikileaks does from now will be tainted with his bias.
I don't understand this feeling. Does the motive even matter other than to fact check the information he is releasing? That should should be done regardless of motivation. His motive is just as likely fear knowing as Secretary of State, she was ok killing him via drone and is afraid what she will do to him as president.
To make things more perplexing, Hillary and the media aren't even trying to dispute any of the information's validity. The only argument they are making is that it's not fair that what the
Re: (Score:2)
To make things more perplexing, Hillary and the media aren't even trying to dispute any of the information's validity. The only argument they are making is that it's not fair that what they are doing has been made public.
The reason the information is ignored is it is, at best, very weak circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing, where "wrongdoing" does not even bear any semblance to a crime, but merely some slightly embarrassing kind of cozying up. That is just not a compelling story in the news cycle -- it is just a soundbite that withers under even the disappointing modern standards of journalism.
The situation is only made "worse" (from your POV) by myriad self-deluded individuals who make fantastic claims against Clinto
Re: (Score:2)
The reason the information is ignored is it is, at best, very weak circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing, where "wrongdoing" does not even bear any semblance to a crime, but merely some slightly embarrassing kind of cozying up.
But an 11 year old tape of a man talking crude is worth days of non-stop coverage? (I am talking about before the accusations came out.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not about to defend what the media runs with, but I'm going to suggest that that footage would have been much less significant if Trump had repudiated what he said, or even showed understanding what was wrong with it, or if a lot of people who didn't like Trump anyway hadn't used it as a convenient excuse to distance themselves from him. How Republicans react to stuff about Trump is not Clinton's responsibility, and is not really the media's responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
If Wikileaks' work is so important, I'm sure it can continue on without Assange in the loop, surely. In fact it would regain a lot of credibility were this to happen. Lately I think Assange's narcissism is more of a liability than an asset to Wikileaks and its cause.
I find it hard to distinguish between things Assange says and things-whoever-is-in-charge-of-Wikileaks-Twitter-today says.
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably all Russians! lol
Hmm. (Score:2)
Did he also elaborate on how he planned to abet as well?
This says it all.... (Score:2)
KILL THE MESSENGER!
Interfering (Score:2)
Revealing past thoughts and actions during an election. Is that interference or accountability?
Vigilantes? (Score:3)
A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands to persecute someone who hasn't been found guilty in court. That's the exact opposite of trying to help out someone who they feel is being persecuted without having been found guilty in court, which is what these wi-fi people are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy should be considered (actually really is) an international criminal, wanted by multiple countries.
Yeah, he's so dangerous that he's never been charged with a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
If they have enough evidence to charge him with a crime, they can charge him. He doesn't need to be there. They didn't need to bring in Al Capone for an interview before they charged him. Leaders of drug cartels do not need to appear in the US to be charged here. And "international criminals" like Assange also do not need to be here if they are charged with something like distributing classified information. If there is evidence, then charge him with a crime. If there's not, leave him alone.
Re: (Score:3)
And "international criminals" like Assange also do not need to be here if they are charged with something like distributing classified information. If there is evidence, then charge him with a crime. If there's not, leave him alone.
The 2 things that stick out to me is how they can charge an Australian citizen living abroad with violating a domestic US law, and how is it that the US based NYT was not guilty of the same basic charges in the Pentagon Papers leak publication as the ones they level at Assange.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. That's why the US had not charged Assange with a crime. There's no evidence that he committed one. It is possible for a foreigner to commit a crime against the US without setting foot on US soil, but there's no particular evidence for that.
Re: (Score:2)
They CANNOT officially charge him until he has been interviewed
And the Swedish prosecutors are legally prevented from traveling to the UK to interview him, or interviewing him remotely? That seems like an awful large hole in their system of due process.
Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of Swedish due process.
Shit, they must have covered Swedish due process in school that one day I was sick.
Re: (Score:3)
"Right, because he can't be charged until he's interviewed."
BS. Anyone can be charged without an interview. Anyone intelligent person who thinks they're at risk to being charged shouldn't allow an interview in the first place.
Or does the 5th amendment not apply anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a lawyer practicing Swedish law, or are you just saying what someone else who isn't told you? Personally, I'm trusting the Swedes to figure that out.
The Fifth Amendment applies in the US, but that doesn't mean police and other authorities can't interview people. It means the people don't have to say anything, generally a good idea in a police or judicial system interview. It also doesn't apply to Australians in Ecuadorian embassies in the UK being charged by Swedish authorities. There are pro
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Or to steal and alter a joke from Steve Martin...
"I believe that President Trump (or Clinton) can make this country what it once was... an Arctic region, covered in ice."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange has stated that if he had stuff to leak on Trump he would do that, too. But I guess Trump was a bit harder to hack.
erm.. apparently not... and the white hat that reported on it.. Trump is trying to have arrested!..LOL http://motherboard.vice.com/re... [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Assange has stated that if he had stuff to leak on Trump he would do that, too. But I guess Trump was a bit harder to hack.
Yeah that unpatched Exchange 2007 server must've been too hard for even the Pro's to get into...
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks doesn't actually hack, they provide a platform for those who did to get the information out. If someone *had* hacked the Trump servers, tried to get it to Wikileaks, and nothing was coming out, they would have gone to the media and it would be all over the news.
But they haven't, because no one bothered to hack Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
And Assange is SO believable and truthful, and would never tell a lie, let alone a ridiculous one about the US being after him (now that he's much less relevant and it would be significantly harder to get an extradition through) without providing any evidence.
Re:In all honesty... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've really not been impressed by all of the Hillary-bashing Wikileaks has been doing lately
So you only like the truth leaked when it's about people you don't like? If there's damning evidence that's being hidden about people you agree with, you would want it hidden?
they're not saying a damned thing about Trump. And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
Trump was not a gov't official so there isn't gonna be any classified material to reveal about him. He had a real estate business and a TV show. There's plenty of dirt on Trump, like the recording of him talking about groping pussies and such, but revealing those do not require whistleblower protection or the assistance of Wikileaks. You can just take that straight to Extra or CNN.
Dirt about Hillary's doings while a high ranking gov't official is not so safe to reveal. If you get caught leaking it you go to jail. That's where wikileaks comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember george w bush?
Face it, america the world is watching you. Don't fuck it up. Clinton isn't that great, but trump is both stupider and more violent than george w bush ever was. It was extremely hard to get rid of that asshole. Trump may just end it all.
So your damn right people should ignore some stupid BS about some stupid clasified documents and someone stupid fucking insecure MAILSERVER! Do you know how many hosts on the internet are insecure? like fuck who cares!
TRUMP is going to nuke the
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY: "There are *MILLIONS* of american men who do just that as often as they can"
Re: (Score:2)
They should have let him continue. It's not like he was contributing anything except masses of data for the cool-aid drinkers to misrepresent. And discrediting himself in the process. Now those cool-aid drinkers will have something unfair to point to.
On a side note, I'll point out that he's been dumping on Hillary with impunity, but as soon as he got into what the banks consider their private business someone gave Ecuador a call.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington Post, which is the left Breitbart only boring, is doing its work to expose Trump. It's only fair that Wikileaks is exposing Hillary. Besides I don't think there's anything to bash Trump with except sexual stuff and I'm sure he didn't write emails about it.
Strange, when you speak of evil I think of Hillary laughing at Gaddhafi's being impaled on the stake by the mob to which she delivered him.
Re: (Score:2)
but they're not saying a damned thing about Trump. And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
You're kidding right? This is Trump we're talking about.aboutleaks doesn't have anything on Trump because Trump himself is as leaky as a sieve. Scandals are coming up daily and he's self destructive as anything. There would be no point in going after him, it's like making fun of the intellectual ability of the mentally handicapped.
Also worth noting is Trump is just a dumb lucky business man. His major scandals are not interesting compared to those of the secretary of state.
Re: (Score:2)
But I suppose there was no need for WL to leak the info given that it is already well documented in the MSM.
Re: (Score:2)
he'll have it back in less than three weeks
Unless Hillary wins, in which case Ecuador will get a little freedom and democracy brought to it. After all, at this point, what difference does it make?
Re: (Score:2)
Correa believes precisely the opposite [caribflame.com]. He believes that a Trump presidency would be better for Latin america, but in the context that it would rally people in opposition to him to support leftist causes. He says that Clinton would be better for America and the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My feeling is the opposite, though. Latin America has the kind of "strong man" government. For centuries, the leader has been a strong person, who can enforce his will. Chavez and Castro fit perfectly this role: the primary difference they hope
Re: (Score:2)
Correa despises being on the dollar ;) It'll be interesting to see what happens there. I'm still actually rather shocked that he seems willing to step down from power.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you missed #risottogate.
Call your senator and demand an investigation!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because the one email linked in your article is this [wikileaks.org]. Oh, that's oh so damning. The rest of your article is built around O'Keefe garbage. The guy who built his career on selective editing and deception.
Link to the email. Not a right wing blog, not O'Keefe garbage, the actual email.
Re:Assange running out of time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that you take whatever Michael Moore produces at face value, also.
Re: (Score:2)
I already covered that: https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
It's actually built off of corroboration with independent videos and the FEC data showing the woman on the Democratic payroll, getting money to be at those specific protests. You can, in fact, see an independent video of the woman lying to the cops.
You can say whatever nonsense you like, but there are independent sources that allow us to verify who paid her and what she did, so it would appear that you have failed to look at all the evidence if you
Re: (Score:2)
That's a response to something. What is it responding to?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're perfectly happy to make up whatever context suits you. Why am I not surprised? Here, how does this sound for you?
Re: (Score:2)
It's smack-bang in the middle of fucking London.
There's wifi all over that place.
At absolute worst, just get a Pringles tin and make a cheap Yagi and you could pick up hundreds, if not thousands of networks. We're talking a couple of streets away from Soho and massive public museums.
And, yes, ubiquitous 4G in that area. If anything, you'll have more trouble with 4G as the airwaves will be overcrowded during working hours.
The whole thing's a farce to get him in the news again. This guy's in THE MOST CONNE
Re: (Score:2)
What? Dozens of Wifi points in the middle of a residential and commerce centre in the middle of London? And the 4G? And nobody else notices and the next-door-neighbours go about their evening with no Wifi without saying a word?
Don't think so, somehow.
You know that point, where the bollocks you made up drifts from "plausible but stupid" into "yeah, right, sure"?