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."

Comments

And yet

[nehumanuscrede]

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.

Re:And yet

[rmdingler]

Sure. Unless you consider Assange's very sanctuary in the embassy is essentially a big, Ecuadorian, middle finger to the US.

Re:And yet

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, you really should be clamoring for more from TRUMP. From his medical records to his taxes, he has released less information than any presidential candidate in the last half century. His claims about why should anger you as well. He claims that every one is entitled to privacy, and that's why he shouldn't have to release any such documentation. Or he promises to release it, then doesn't. Notice, also, that these documents are common for every major presidential candidate to release. We're not even getting into the private emails or videos or whatever that you want, we're talking about commonly release documentation that allows for a basic gauge of candidate health and possible financial conflicts of interest. There are rumors swirling around of video tapes and conversations that makes the current drip of Podesta emails look like a joke, and in light of what has already been released about Trump they are more than credible.

Look, I get what you're saying, and for the most part I agree. But I can understand Ecuador's actions. Assange has made it clear that in this case he doesn't care about silly things like government transparency or anything like that. He has a personal vendetta. If it was really about getting the information out there, the hacked data would have been released all at once, as soon as possible, so that it could be thoroughly gone through an analyzed. But Assange's own comments, and the way he has been releasing the data, make it clear that this release is entirely politically motivated.

That political motivation, and the method by which a lot of this data has been obtained, along with the high likelihood that Assange has active connections with the hackers that obtained it, are highly problematic for Ecuador. If Ecuador allows Assange to operate out of their embassy, using their resources, in a politically motivated and illegal manner, then they can be seen as giving government approval for that task. Any state that doesn't want people meddling in its OWN elections illegally had better not do anything that can be seen as meddling in someone else's elections illegally. If they believe that Assange has obtained this information in an illegal manner, through collusion with the hackers that performed the actual hack and exfiltration, and that the use of that material is for political attacks against specific targets and is intended to influence the democratic process of another sovereign state, then for ITS OWN GOOD Ecuador MUST stop their state resources from being used in any way that can be seen as condoning those actions.

Re:And yet

[Archangel Michael]

Party before all else. Loyalty to the party has killed America.

Unruly house guest

[ronmon]

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.

Election interference

[Kohath]

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.

The Silent Majority Fails to Speak

[XXongo]

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.

Moral High Ground

[DarthVain]

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.