Slashdot Mirror
Ecuador Acknowledges Limiting Julian Assange's Web Access (reuters.com)
Alexandra Valencia, reporting for Reuters: Ecuador's government acknowledged on Tuesday it had partly restricted internet access for Julian Assange, the founder of anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks who has lived in the South American country's London embassy since mid-2012. WikiLeaks said Assange lost connectivity on Sunday, sparking speculation Ecuador might have been pressured by the United States due to the group's publication of hacked material linked to U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In a statement, Ecuador's leftist government said WikiLeaks' decision to publish documents impacting the U.S. election campaign was entirely its own responsibility, and the South American country did not cede to pressure from other nations. "In that respect, Ecuador, exercising its sovereign right, has temporarily restricted access to part of its communications systems in its UK Embassy," it added in a statement. "The Ecuador government respects the principle of non-intervention in other countries' affairs, it does not meddle in election processes underway, nor does it support any candidate specially."
preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.
Specifically, the side that filters, and releases only approved material in order to promote their candidate.
The only way we truly know who the candidates are is when we have access to information about how they think and act when they believe no one is looking.
Everything else, is just for show.
Personally, I don't care WHO digs up the information. Hackers, Private Investigators, whatever.
It does boil down to this: If you're going intelligently elect a leader, you need to know all there is to know about them. There can be no secrets.
It's like having someone stay over and he starts pissing in the neighbor's yard.
As the host, it's up to you to keep him in line or kick him out.
When you learn information about Hillary that she doesn't want you to know, it's called election interference. You people out there need to know your place and learn to just do what your designated leaders tell you. When they want you to know something, they'll tell you.
You Trump spinners, hoisted by your own past bullshit.
Remember when Assange leaked all about the Bush war on Terra with the diplomatic leaks? And the collateral damage video?
Hannity: Assange should be arrested. United States should “go after” Assange and “arrest him” for “waging [a] war against the U.S.”
New Gingrich: Assange is a terrorist and an enemy combatant.
Fox News Bob Beckel excoriated Assange for leaking the State Department cables that have roiled the world in the past week, and said that American special forces should kill him....“A dead man can’t leak stuff,” Beckel said. “This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I’m not for the death penalty, so...there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”
The conservative Republican media WANTED ASSANGE MURDERED to censor him. They are not defenders of free speech, they don't defend journalism, they call them terrorists and demand they be murdered.
The sad thing is that there is a bunch of knuckledraggers out there that actually BELIEVE what you just said (even though you were trying to be funny). :/
Sadder yet is that there is another bunch of knuckledraggers who think Hillary and Bernie are smarter than Trump.
I have never seen a more fitting user name before, and I doubt I ever will again.
I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
I suspect that while the most vocal and prolific posters on Slashdot seem to be pro-Democrats
I haven't notice that.
I'd like to see statistics.
, the vast majority of silent readers are more pro-Republicans.
That was an argument originally made by Richard Nixon! How can you disprove that the "silent majority" favored him, when they're silent? The really great thing about that argument is that it is supported by the absence of facts: you're pointing to the silence as support for what you say.
If you haven't been reading the Podesta leaks, then we can't help your ignorant and non-involved ass. Go educate yourself or shut the fuck up.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I've got mixed feelings on this.
They are all dirty- Trump, Clinton, and Assange. We all know about Trump and Clinton.
Assange is trying to strike out against a particular candidate, with stolen materials, which are unverified, and seeking some sort of revenge. So has become a defacto participant in the election process- as a foreign actor.
No matter how you dice it, everyone is dirty.
Ecuador on the other hand says: "Assange is trying to influence a foreign election from our embassy and we do not want to engage in that activity".
The only people with principles in this American election- are apparently Ecuador. How sad is that?
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
I'm not clicking on that article, as I'm at work. But does it mention the fact that the "8-year old" Assange is alleged to have talked dirty to was signed on to a dating site using her 22-year old sister's account and profile? Because that's the story I read last night. And in that case, can we really prove that Assange was aware that he was talking to an underage girl? I'd say no. And I'd say if there even was an 8-year old involved, which I doubt, it's an obvious frame-up. Super obvious, like anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell it's a setup.
And honestly, I'm not even sure where I stand on Assange, some days I think he's a good guy, some days not. But do you honestly believe that someone in his position, being in exile from basically the entire civilized world for treason/espionage/whatever the TLA/governments think he did-would be stupid enough to talk dirty to an 8-year old girl over the Internet? Assange may be a lot of things depending on which side of history you're on, but he's not stupid, not at all.
I mean let's assume for the moment that he IS a pedo (which of course is bullshit, it's standard course when someone is being smeared), but assuming he likes little girls, do you HONESTLY believe someone in his position would knowingly go talk to an 8-year old about anal sex over the internet he knows is completely bugged and traced and watched like a hawk. That's just plain ignorant, any anyone who believes such a cockamamie story at this point just wants to be lied to.
Yes, however the reason that Ecuador feels the need to thumb their noses (by offering refuge) at the US is that they are a little angry about the US meddling in Ecuadorian affairs, least of all their own government processes. By allowing Assange to do the same with the US election they would be seen as a bit hypocritical. By not allowing, or more accurately by *publicly* not allowing they are taking the moral high ground, not only thumbing their collective noses again, but drawing to attention the afore mentioned fact. I wouldn't be surprised if they were fully aware of what he was doing and this was all planned out in advance (or at least they took proper advantage of the situation as it evolved).
Slow golf clap. wp.