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."
Assange should have signed up for the unlimited plan.
Link please.
See you need a link therefor uneducated
Of course. Just compare the way they speak. Trump has far more complex sentence structure than Hillary. That's appealing to educated individuals.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
There must be more than one pathway to the internet from Ecuador.
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.
A little wiring and duct tape and he's good to go.
Too bad that that actor was sponsored by the same state that gave him protection.
Just shows how deep corruption and collusion runs internationally.
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.
A little wiring and duct tape and he's good to go.
Few people know that MacGuyver was based on the real-life exploits of Julian Assange.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'm one of the many many much educated people that went to college and I'm a engineer - BS Engineering Technology in Small Engine Repair from Hillbilly State, NC.
These slghts against us Trump supporters ain't doing anybody no service.
He's got an incredible platforms. He's gonna somehow build a wall and somehow make Mexico pay for it.
He's gonna somehow repeal the H1-b laws - by ordering Congress to do it.
And by Jesus, he knows so much about the Bible, he knows about passages that no one else knows!
And the law too! Why, he knows how to do things as President that are beyond the powers of the President. He's gonna get powers of all 3 branches of government and combine them into the POTUS and make government more efficient - like the genius businessman he is!
He's so smart, before he was even born, he chose rich parents to be born to. How's that for smarts!
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.
With WikiLeaks (likely) out of play, whoever has been sending WikiLeaks the Democrats' data will either have to find another channel for release, or stop releasing. In the former case, that may give intelligence agencies a better idea of their target.
I wonder if there was a back-channel conversation with Ecuador -- something like "Whoever is behind this, Ecuador is effectively acting as an accessory to some outside party attempting to alter the US presidential election. Is that *really* how you want us to treat this?"
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.
If he used vi this wouldn't be a problem, he'd be able to do all his work just fine over a 300 baud acoustic coupler!
On a serious note I still don't get what the big deal is, as even if for some reason he's not allowed to use obvious things like 3G, surely all he needs to do is co-ordinate things with other wikileaks staff over the phone?
From a diplomatic perspective its probably the right call for the equadorian government - haveing a person under their protection affecting the US election would be seen as interferance And of course they can use this as an example of diplomatic condut when they next have an election...
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)
(Apparently she doesn't have an account, though, because she was posting as AC.)
Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy-- technically part of Ecuador-- in Great Britain.
Neither one of these contries use the United States Constitution's bill of rights.
He could at least offer to share the utility bills. I mean the security costs for the embassy have risen a lot due to him being there, part of the broadband cost is the least he could do...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
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.
It must get lonely living in an embassy for years. Then again, there's a world full of actual adult women that you can do this with without getting into trouble.
A lot of smoke around some people's online hero. 8 years old? Jeezuz, that's gross.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I wasn't aware he was accused of rapping on pre teens, isn't that more of a kanye west thing?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Assange says : "State Sponsored Actor cut my Internet". You Trump supporters then came out screaming that the NSA had done it to protect Hillary, and did your 'rigged' election speeches.
Yet he could simply hand a memory stick to a friend and get around that, or his friends could lend him a 3G phone, or open an access point nearby.
Assange played you. Where is his October Surprise? He promised some big secret that would turn the election, and put Trump in the Whitehouse. Yet the emails he leaks are dull as dishwater. You lot don't keep quoting the emails, because she goes on and on about trade and finance, and peace and climate and b-o-r-i-n-g stuff that politicians talk about.
Presumably 'grab their pussy' Trump is more to Assange's liking and that's why he wants him in the Whitehouse, but he doesn't have an October surprise. He only has a lot of innuendo and misdirection. .... "State Sponsored Actor is trying to stop me leak my amazing leaks...."
preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.
And, pray tell, which "one side" are we talking about?
Wikileaks is leaking material only stolen from the Democrats, not anything stolen from Republicans.
That's one sided, by definition.
Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.
I just knew this article would provoke stimulating and well thought out ideas, in a non-partisan way.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
It is an indivitual bias that equates "educated" to "smart." But one that occurs all too often, for certain.
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..."
Here is hoping once the election is over the number of paid verbatim talking points posters for the DNC/Hillary campaign will drop off here and the level of discourse will return to the old days. They are going to have to do better than repeatedly the false talking against Wikileaks coming out of the DNC establishment if they want people to believe their propaganda. I know we went through this before the the R establishment in the Bush years but not to the volume that we are seeing from the other side.
Is that useless election still not over? How long does it take to decide which muppet's cronies are going to plunder the country for the next 4 years?
You act as if it really made any difference to you. Seriously, do you really care which thief is going to rob your home? You're not the one who is going to receive the loot, so why bother?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
I believe it was compliant and unaware voters. A differnce without distinction except to those who do not know how to properly use google.
You also have this big shaming and peer pressure campaign. Hysterics are first directed at the candidate and then at anyone that might vote for the candidate.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yes that's totally a thing that happened and not a completely obvious DNC smear campaign.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
there seems to be confusion on who are "educated" when it comes polls.
just 1 example,
la times tracking poll
http://graphics.latimes.com/us...
in its breakdown, "college grad or up" go for clinton >50%, while trump is in 30%s. trump wins other categories of education in that poll.
but when it comes to income, trump wins "more than $75k"(smaller margin) and "$35-75k"(bigger margin) , while clinton wins "less than $35k"(bigger margin).
but all studies say income and education is highly correlated in usa.
so how to explain this anomaly(income and education giving different preferences) in poll( which is similar in other polls that offer breakdowns like that).
a partial explanation is race. as la times says "clinton holds a distinct edge among lower-income voters, reflecting her strong support among blacks and latinos. " in fact, its blacks who go for clinton 87 to 4.
but that explains only lower income category.
Stat
Now that Trump risks loosing the election because some prudes don't like him being rude in private the Ecuadorian government must be getting affraid of the tried and tested concepts of an "orange revolution","spring" or just a simple coup organised by the CIA on a command of Hillary.
Look prole, we're smarter than you and better organised. It's your role to get your instructions on how to act from our news outlets.
You and your wage-slave peers exist at our whim as long as you man our prisons, fight our wars, prosecute those who would act against us.
There will never be a successful opposition to our reign because our organisation dwarfs yours; rise up against us and you're peers will arrest you, try you, incarcerate you within a system we created running on rules we require to serve our interests.
Every cover-up, leak, scandal, murder, war is calculated to serve our interests.
Get back to work or your neighbour is coming for you!
Requiem for the American Dream
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?
>
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 .
And that's completely accurate.
Someone who has multiple degrees and has never worked in the real world will always be more "educated" and someone who has only a bit of training, but has been wildly successful and has lots of real world knowledge. That's what happens when you use the quantity of education as your differentiator. Now the real question becomes whether "education" is a metric we care about in these studies?
You could instead look at owners of businesses if that's what you care about, or people who have full time employment earning more than X per year, or in certain fields, or really there's almost an unlimited number of ways you can group people in a poll.
But to complain that "educated" only covers people with more education is somewhat funny as it is literally the definition of the word.
These people got plenty of practice from quote mining scientists' statements in the "Climategate" emails.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Under Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, the president has authority to use a proclamation to suspend the entry of “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States [who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for however long he deems necessary. This provision was included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants
(A) Labor certification
(i) In generalAny alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that—
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.
No, Mr Robot used a Pringles cantenna to hack a WiFi network from across the street. In the new MacGuyver a Pringles can was split in half with several mobile WiFi chips taped to it to disrupt a WiFi network.
The interesting thing is that this is truly a Kang v. Kodos election. Sure one is less bad than the other, but they're both terrible by historical standards. This is the election where a minor party would have a chance and yet...here we are.
Is a very painful process to go through. It gets easier in time, but a person won't improve by hiding in a safe space. This is what our Universities are getting money to preach. Since MSM media and large businesses repeat the same message, it's being reinforced all the time.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That's a link to Wikileaks's front page, not a link to a "compliant and uneducated voters" statement.
Googling for the phrase "compliant and uneducated voters" only comes up with this comment, presumably also by you.
As for your "there would be riots in the street", your people are talking about rioting in the streets. Not just riots, but outright coups if Hillary is elected. On camera. And your candidate is deliberately whipping them up to this with all of his repeated "shadowy conspiracy stealing the election with massive fraud" talk.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Yet the world was silent when the Obama Administration provided US funds to Israeli opposition election campaigns to oust Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
The full quote is:
"Uneducated" does not appear in there.
So, let's get this straight: the "scandal" here is that some nobody third party, rambled to someone - not Hillary, just to her campaign manager - that he's concerned that Clinton won't be able to get people to pay attention to "poll-driven, demographically-inspired messaging" when Trump is a "Kim Kardashian mold" entertainer spouting "hairbrained ideas" every day, and you can't get the news cycle to "default to policy" in such an environment. I can't make heads or tails of what that "compliant" remark is supposed to mean, but in general I think we can draw one clear conclusion: Hillary is clearly a demon, and we must elect Cheeto Benito instead.
#Risottogate
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
You mean to tell me that Hillary Clinton now controls the United Nations? LOCK HER UP!
How deep does this rabbit hole go?
http://www.inquisitr.com/36092...
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you have not been paying attention, the only ones that have been instigating violence are Hillary and ex-Bernie supporters.
The whole thing has already been debunked. Part 1 and Park 2. It's the sloppiest smear job I've ever seen. You should spread it around like crazy because when someone easily debunks it it helps play into our narrative that the DNC is crooked beyond measure and their supporters like you are either disgusting liars or mad fools. Even the wicked are made to serve God's plan.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
What is selective about releasing all of Podesta's and HRC's emails? I would understand your argument if we had only seen some carefully curated emails to match some carefully curated narrative but that is not the case here. Instead, the emails themselves are painting the narrative. No intervention required.
So again, what is selective about this?
The election is not rigged against the Donald. If anything it has been rigged for him.
Even a 2nd grader can see the bias in the press against Trump. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
Obviously Ecuador is meddling in the US election, but if they hadn't they'd be truly unique among nations. I'm not mad at Ecuador (or Russia if they were the source of leaked info) for hacking or disclosing this that and the other. I expect it. It's just some bits on disk somewhere. It's not like they shot a missile at us. That sort of think occurred long before the Internet, it's just less risky and at greater scale these days.
I just hope to high Heaven that our secret intelligence services have the capability to do the same.
I'm going to hold off running around claiming Assange has done anything of the sort until I see respected mainstream news outlets reporting the story, and covering the points that Wikileaks and others have suggested make the story suspicious.
Assange is, for better or worse, a man with a target on his back. Part of his antipathy against Clinton is undoubtedly because of that (Clinton has joked about "droning" him - and while he almost certainly didn't know that specifically when he turned his guns on her, it's improbable he hasn't linked her to the attacks on Wikileaks, and himself, during the last few years.) Just as with the rape charges, there are reasons to doubt the allegations are legitimate. As it is, your own link suggests at least one nation state involved didn't feel it worth pressing the case. Lack of a credible case? Seems highly probable.
I'm not a fan of Assange's involvement in this election - he seems to ignore the extreme situation the US is in, though I guess from his ideological position it doesn't matter. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that especially goes for people likely to be the targets of smear campaigns.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you think his weakness is in his sentence structure then obviously you're not even half aware of what he's doing when he speaks to convince.
The link you posted, the transcript in that, has a pretty good cut-off and re-phrasing/restart of sentences such that people stay focused, interested, and convinced.
- These characters were randomly selected.
For those of you with better things to do, those links are to Wikileak's twitter account, which then link to randos on Reddit.
Draw your own conclusions.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you use the same standard for the Wikileaks documents?
Speak up, I didn't hear that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The interesting thing is that this is truly a Kang v. Kodos election. Sure one is less bad than the other, but they're both terrible by historical standards. This is the election where a minor party would have a chance and yet...here we are.
The wrong lizard might get in if we voted other than (R) or (D).
Sad that the US's crowning achievement is to copy a side-gag from a sci-fi/comedy novel, even knowing beforehand it's a failed strategy as that's the joke.
People have lost so much trust in their fellow citizens (rightly or wrongly) that they don't believe it is possible for enough people to make good choices for anyone other than an (R) or (D) candidate to have any chance.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Data's all sourced, friend. It actually all links right back to the same PAC as in O'Keffe's videos, so it's corroborating those, too. It's a twofer.
The only question people then need to ask is, when you're shilling this stuff around, is it because:
1) You know it's false, but it accomplishes your political goal, meaning you're evil.
2) You're literally too fucking stupid to understand the fraud.
I think it's #1. Little of #2. You are pretty damn dumb. But I don't think you're so dumb you don't know what you're doing.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Uh yeah. I've been pretty vocal here in my criticisms of the Wikileaks documents and how they've been taken. You might want to click on people's comment history before assuming they're a RWNJ. (Example)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Actually this post better states my position, FW(L)IW.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Are you telling me that you can actually parse that word salad?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Regarding the Assange pedophilia charge...
Data's all sourced, friend. It actually all links right back to local police and the United Nations.
If you don't want to accept it, that's on you. We are all entitled to our hero-worship fantasies.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm sorry I made an assumption about you, squiggleslash. Please accept my sincere apology.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm beginning to doubt that simply having a college degree equates with "being educated". I see journalists with college degrees who can't write an article without a misspelled word or bad grammar, teachers who can't teach their subject matter (maybe because they don't know it?), and even some college graduates who can't read above an 8th grade level.
What passes for "educated" today would have barely been acceptable for a high school diploma a few decades ago. So go ahead and feel smug if you wish; the rest of us know better.
And don't think for one minute that you can escape your fate by "voting for the other guy". That particular scam is our greatest achievement- the illusion of choice. Whoever you vote for, you will never be rid of us for we are the unelected. Whether you vote for the general, the crook, the farmer, the actor, the oil man, the lawyer, the black man, the orange man or the woman - we decide your fate.
Everything that has transpired has done so according to our design. It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. Young fool! Only now, at the end, do you understand.
Whoosh!
Those people are educated, by definition. That doesn't mean that they are smart, or that they can read and write well. It just means they have more education.
People seem to assume that education equates to all sorts of other things, but it doesn't always. Just because it doesn't equate to all the things people want it to equate to though does not mean that more education does not make one more educated. By definition more education will always make you more educated, even if it doesn't make you smarter, more productive, or better in any other way.
Trump loosed the election long ago. Had he held on to it, he'd have a prayer of winning it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes