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.

29 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe they've got Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  2. So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by phayes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Color me astonished...

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    1. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by quantaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Ecuador is not going to allow its relations with the US to be further degraded by the actual "state actor" here, namely Julian Assange.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    4. Re:So Assange has overstayed his welcome. by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  3. The Goldman talks... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    1. Re:The Goldman talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 coverup artist.

    2. Re:The Goldman talks... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:The Goldman talks... by wickerprints · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:The Goldman talks... by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:The Goldman talks... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3

      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.

    6. Re:The Goldman talks... by meglon · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:The Goldman talks... by tempo36 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

    8. Re:The Goldman talks... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what does defending bragging about sexual assault say about the Trump campaign?

      Good question. I've got a better one: What does actually raping women, silencing them through intimidation, plotting with campaign staff to attack them in the media, and coordinating with members of the media to silence, harass, and discredit those rape victims say about the Clintons and their campaign? (And that was going on for decades.) And what about Bill's many trips to pedophile island?

      As bad as Trump is, the Clintons are worse. Of course the Clintons are "Progressives" so it's all good, right?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:War is coming by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
  5. I suspect....sadly by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. "Mom, I was doing something important" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. No conspiracy theory needed. This is simple. by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  8. I used to think Assange was smart by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But no matter what he thinks Hillary did to him, his recent actions have him in active support of Donald Trump for president of the world's largest superpower, and that's just beyond fathoming level of dumb.

    Sad to say it but I guess being cooped up must really make you neurotic after a while.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  9. Re:Fascinating .... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Doesn't really matter how she comes off by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Citation or link or source? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a source for that quote right here.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  12. Funny how everyone who doesn't like liberal by melted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. I doubt he'd dump on Trump by dlenmn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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) 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.

  14. Re:"hacked"? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Has wikileaks ever confirmed they got the emails from a hacker? couldn't they be, lets say, leaked?

    Doesn't matter. The source only is an issue because the people screaming about it don't want to discuss the content of the leaks.

    The DNC is as corrupt as the GOP. That's the takeaway that the people who believe themselves to be the "good" guys are cognitive dissonancing themselves into a tizzy over.

    Remember, Wikileaks were heroes when they were releasing Bush era war documents. Now that they're revealing that Hillary's campaign and the DNC have been illegally taking money from foreigners and using shell companies to circumvent laws about collusion with Super PACs they're the devil working with $szCurrentRival to undermine democracy itself.

  15. Re:Don't be surprised ... Watch this video any you by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We kinda always suspected this was true, but it's really nice hearing it come out of their own foul mouths. That's corruption on a level rarely ever seen outside of dictatorships.

    If anybody votes for Hillary, they are giving their stamp of approval to corruption. I encourage everybody to watch the video and then honestly think about who you're voting for this November. Trump is no saint, but he's a far cry away from that shit.

  16. Re: as bad as the government he rails against by slashrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're an idiot. Or a shill.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.