Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks: Ecuador Cut Off Assange's Internet Access (bbc.com)
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
understand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
Assange is the figurehead, but wikileaks is much more robust. Batch #10 of the Podesta emails was released on schedule, hours after his internet was cut.
Plus there are his "insurance" files, huge encrypted files containing absolutely everything wikileaks has that have been released publicly at points in the past. Apparently he's got some kind of dead-man's switch set up that will cause the encryption keys to be released if things go south.
Indeed. Who the hell? Her speaking fees are so unreasonably high compared to everyone else in the world, surely the only answer is corruption and bribery. Pull your head out. http://qz.com/441327/yes-hilla... http://www.inquisitr.com/22032...
I don't know, but if Hillary only collected $200,000 from a player with pockets lined with cash, what's up with Trump's $1,500,000 fees to talk? Obviously Trump was pay to play 7.5 times more than Hillary!
Or, they both can find markets that are willing to pay them. We laid out a few dollars (it's called an Honorarium) to hear Linux Pauling speak before he passed. Was it cheap to book the only person who singly won two Nobel Prizes? Was it worth it? I mean, he didn't talk about anything beyond what he had done, or was doing (all information that probably could have been compiled at a cheaper rate), but there is a legitimacy to hearing it from the man himself.
I personally think that many would say we overpaid to hear Pauling talk; but, now that he's dead, I'd wager that some organization would claim to pay as much as we did or more if only they had the chance to hear him speak.
By the way, I read the first bits of the Clinton talks. What Assange is highlighting is just dumb. He's fishing for sentences that could be taken out of context in a bad light. It doesn't matter if you support Trump, Clinton, or Donald Duck, if you read the entire transcript, you'll see that Clinton didn't say anything deeply untoward or disrespectful of the USA, the USA's allies, or even the USA's enemies. The speech, like so many of the things supposedly putting Clinton at a disadvantage, actually boosts here appeal when read personally.