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."
Too bad that that actor was sponsored by the same state that gave him protection.
Just shows how deep corruption and collusion runs internationally.
And, someone was dumping on a Republican candidate, and, they clamped down on his internet, the media and 3/4 of the /. users would be screaming "free speech" all over the place.
There's a great study out showing that educated voters tend to prefer Hillary (and then Stein and Johnson on the upper end as levels max out).
The funny thing about the study though is that a plumber running his own business with a dozen employees is "uneducated" while a Ph.D. in Gender Studies working the counter at Panera is "educated".
YMMV, read the fine print .
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Personally, I don't care WHO digs up the information.
You do, you just won't admit it.
For example, in other posts you explicitly admit that you put more trust in foreign agencies over domestic agencies.
So you clearly DO care, as long as it reaffirms your biases.
=Smidge=
It's still unlimited. Just throttled to 0 Kbps.
Both candidates are corrupt scum.
Yeah, I think Douglas Adams had it right: "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
You voted for Obama, you got the "unlimited government" plan.
How's that working out for you?
Obama's government doesn't just cut off Assange from the internet help it's succession, it does drone strikes to kill US citizens, it works with the press to embargo criticism.
And a whole lot of other things corrosive to democracy and freedom.
But, hey, it's PROGRESS!!!!!.
Yay.
Vote Hillary! and get more of the same.
I wonder how this is going to stop him, though. Do they really think he doesn't have a backup plan? Do they think he has all the wikileaks information on his personal laptop in the embassy without anyone else outside able to access it?
I bet he has plenty of friends with access to the Wikileaks servers who can bring out the information on a prearranged schedule even if they made him disappear from the planet entirely. I can't possibly imagine him being that stupid.
Sure. Unless you consider Assange's very sanctuary in the embassy is essentially a big, Ecuadorian, middle finger to the US.
A very good point, because it indicates that Ecuador's recent decision to deny Assange internet access is inconsistent with their previous practice and therefore an unexplained contradiction. In the history of Wikileaks, what have they released which not impact an election? Indeed, influencing political outcomes by releasing secrets is Wikilieaks raison d'être. And Ecuador just noticed that now?
My guess would be that Ecuador was threatened either by an official in the Obama administration or by a Clinton functionary promising retaliation after she wins election.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Putting trust (more or less) is often based on experience (bias) but doesn't negate the possibility that the domestic sources information is legitimate.
I have no doubt that the Trump tape is authentic, and trust it is accurate. But the press (MSM) has also been shown to be highly biased against Trump, and supportive of Hillary, and THAT information is coming from foreign sources like WikiLeaks. The fact that US press hasn't covered it much (if at all) is proof that they are not to be trusted.
Simply put, trust isn't about quantity, it is about quality. Broken clocks are correct twice a day, and for a very brief period, I can trust that they are right. Doesn't mean I trust them the rest of the time. That is not confirmation bias, that is having an open mind to look beyond the obvious (the clock is broken, I shouldn't use it at all).
Confirmation bias is only looking to the MSM for "news", in which case, you are unlikely to know much about WikiLeaks exposure of the corruption inside the DNC and its efforts to illegally manipulate the voters. Confirmation Bias is ignoring Project Veritas confirming the WikiLeaks information about "Bird dogging". You think the MSM is going to link those two together and put it on the front page of the NYT or Lead with it on CNN? If this was any (R), you can bet it would be.
So, I do NOT trust the domestic MSM to do its job at all. It is fully incapable of it. That doesn't mean it isn't right twice a day. It just means that it is full of shit the other 23 hours and 58 minutes.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
As always, context is key.
First, that quote came from Bill Ivy, in an email to John Podesta -- this is not Hillary's statement, and there's no indication of whether or not she agrees with or condones that statement. So, while it's a rather ugly sentiment, to declare that it's reflective of Hillary's position, absent other data, is impossible.
Second, the comment is made in the context of counteracting Trump's strong presence in the media:
What he is lamenting is the strategic position the campaign finds itself in: for so long, their strategy has been to "demean government and drop civics," and the result is an electorate that takes Donald Trump's positions about government and civics seriously.
Given the repeated condemnations I've seen here in the past few years of the intelligence and critical thinking ability of the average US voter here on Slashdot, I wouldn't think this to be a controversial statement. What he is noting is that both political parties have been happy to cultivate unthinking and obedient voters, and now, when they need the voters to actually do some critical thinking... they're having difficulties with it.
I actually give him high marks for that comment - he's willing to declare that their strategy has failed them, and needs to change such that the political conversation turns back to actual civics once more.
Or were you just knee-jerking because he used the word "conspire", and Trump 2016 has taught you that knee-jerk reactions are the best way to govern?