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."

67 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Assange should have signed up for the unlimited plan.

    1. Re:Curses! by omnichad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's still unlimited. Just throttled to 0 Kbps.

    2. Re:Curses! by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  2. Re:Uneducated voters, yay! by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

    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..."
  3. And yet by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The United States doesn't care about electing the best leader. They care about cheerleading on a party just like 1930s Germany.

    2. Re: And yet by keltor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Preventing the distribution of information that Hillary Clinton made speeches where she said in private the same things as she said in public? Or you mean the fact that the data surely came from Russian State Paid Actors who handed the data to WikiLeaks? I'm guessing that Ecuador is finally realizing they didn't get some great bastion of freedom in Assange, just a pompous asshole who's more trouble than he's worth. I suspect his welcome is about to be over.

    3. Re:And yet by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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? Both candidates have free access to media, advertising, TV debates, etc, nothing one-sided about that. What would be one-sided is carefully selected, carefully time leaks of information sourced by a state actor intent on destabilising the USA, which impact one candidate only, who Assange considers his enemy. That's hardly a service to transparency, now is it?

      Anyway, I'm sure the Ecuadorians didn't cut off his internet completely, they probably white-listed a few selected sites, you know, like Rapists Anonymous.

    5. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:And yet by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both candidates are corrupt scum. BUT, Assange's actions in this are deployable, he has gone from someone fighting for open and honest government to someone that is using information he has access too in a manner to influence an election. timing the releases of information to the political happenings in order to influence people makes him no better than those he is supposedly against, actually it probably makes him worse as he "was" supposedly fighting for something better.

    7. Re:And yet by jandersen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...If you're going intelligently elect a leader,...

      Don't you think that train has left the station a long time ago? When the media and a far too loud crowd dominate everything the way they have done, increasingly, since the days of Bill Clinton, at least, intelligent discourse doesn't stand a chance. I rather suspect that is the intention - these people do not want democracy to work, because their extremist agenda will never win in a fair and honest, democratic contest.

    8. Re:And yet by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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=

    9. Re:And yet by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing you need to know about Hillary Clinton that isn't known, She will sleep comfortably while you are begging for help to save your life; she has absolutely zero empathy. The Clinton Foundation raked in hundreds of Millions of dollars for the Haitian Earthquake relief and did almost nothing for the Haitians with the money. Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and that is secondary to bouncing all around the Cluster B personality disorders. If there is a rule or a law, she will break it without a moments hesitation if she perceives the benefit in added power, money or prestige outweighs the risks.
      Simply research all of the scandals the occurred in the Bill Clinton administrations, the ones she orchestrated, and ask yourself what would it be like if she had the powers of Presidential Pardon and Executive Privilege? By all accounts her behaviour when out of the public eye is simply vile, especially towards Military or Law Enforcement; how one treats subordinates speaks volumes.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      preventing the distribution of information relevant to the candidates, Ecuador effectively allows the influence to be heavily one sided.

      Do you even buy the crap your shovelling? A nation state is using assange as its toy to disrupt an election. It's completely one sided. I don't think one thing has been hacked on the republican side. Even the tax returns may have just been someone having a copy, and even then it was only a fraction of what Clinton released.

      Donald Trump got crap loads of free press to get this far, and now he is acting like a whining 3 year old and saying its all rigged. It's not. He is getting continuous crap loads of opposition hacking for free, and oh yah, still whining that the election is rigged and the media is out to get him...

      The election is not rigged against the Donald. If anything it has been rigged for him. He is just such a crap candidate that he can't even win with all the rigging. Instead he is trying he is telling a crap load of lies about some conspiracy against him, which is very likely to result in violence and perhaps deaths, and at the very least is destabilizing the worlds faith in our democracy, just because he can't accept he is a looser. No, the Donald cannot be wrong. The World cannot be smart enough to not want him. It is the world that must be wrong. What nonsense.

      So yes, the election is rigged, and yes their is a conspiracy. It is rigged for trump, and the conspiracy is trump's. Not satisfied with his birthir lies to discredit the nations first black president, he is going to try his damnest to discredit the nation's first woman president, and he doesn't give a fark about how it screws over the country.

      Perhaps, at this point the rumor that he is just doing it all to make the next fox news seems as likely as anything. I suppose having a channel that worships his brand of snake oil would appeal to his overinflated sense of ego.

    11. Re:And yet by rwise2112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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"
    12. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You seem unaware that there is now a reasonably strong chain that links Clintons campaign to these faked paedophile allegations (see reddit wikileaks) and an attempt to entrap Assange with a million dollar bribe through a couple of shell companies connecting back to her camp. It appears it was a possibly criminal Democratic conspiracy/fraud/libel', that got quickly sprung

      Here's a helpful infographic to connect the dots..
      https://i.imgur.com/s27EVHS.jpg

      http://www.inquisitr.com/3609216/julian-assange-reportedly-being-investigated-for-alleged-online-sexual-molestation-of-8-year-old-girl/

      Assange is a twat, but his antipathy towards Clinton is perhaps understandable when there are reports that Clinton discussed assassinating him back in 2010 (and didn't leave the impression she was joking)

      Both candidates are appalling. Trump is an ill-disciplined narcissistic dickhead (though has at least proposed some positive reform - like term limits). But Clinton appears to be a nasty sociopath, and has so much unethical immoral history (going back decades), and what seems like total disregard for the rule of law - from seeming threats to Bills victims' to whitewater, to server shennanigans, to (in last 2 days) filmed admissions from her team about paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies and rig voting. Not really surprising in someone who has been in the game so long and has put up with marriage to Bill to give her the shot at the big chair, but it simply can't be tolerated in a President - even if she might otherwise be a relatively safe pair of hands. Option 3 please.

    13. Re: And yet by Jodka · · Score: 4, Informative

      from parent post:

      Preventing the distribution of information that Hillary Clinton made speeches where she said in private the same things as she said in public? ..."

      from one of Hillary Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches:

      Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.” You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today.

      Not only does Hillary Clinton advocate in private paid meetings to Wall Street bankers policies opposed her own public positions, she confesses in one of those meetings that she does. The contradictions between her public statements and private statements made to Wall Street bankers are why she suppressed the release of transcripts or recordings of those paid speeches during the primary and why their release by Wikileaks has been politically damaging to her.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    14. Re: And yet by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're kind of handwaving away the damaging parts of the leaks, though, aren't you?

      I don't think most people knew before the leaks that Hillary gets the debate questions from CNN ahead of time. Kind of helps prove the whole thing about politics and the media just being a biased propaganda show? Is that worthwhile?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    15. Re:And yet by Jodka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    16. Re:And yet by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re: And yet by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      If Hillary seizes, shits her pants and falls over you finish the bottle.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    18. Re:And yet by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    19. Re: And yet by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      AC Troll know nothing shows lack of insight. Color me surprised.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re: And yet by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has the verbatim question. Word for word. Same punctuation and everything.

      No one is buying the lies anymore. Well actually that's not true. Tons of people are still buying the lies because they're brainwashed retards.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    21. Re:And yet by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same thing could be said of Trump.

        He routinely destroys small businesses by refusing to pay them (nearly every project he's ever done), he has zero empathy with any individual. He's so thin skinned that it's likely he'd start a war over a foreign leader insulting him and routinely uses his power, money and celebrity to damage those he sees as enemies. He's a bigot and a misogynist. He's also a compulsive liar so you can't believe anything he says he will do and you can only trust what he's done in the past. That includes not paying taxes, screwing every little guy he can (including fake real estate seminars that screwed the middle and lower class out of thousands of dollars), he routinely lies about doing things then doesn't do them, he routinely lies about helping people and doesn't help them. He's the epitomy of the silver spoon generation of chickenhawks.

      Given his actions and the fact he's a compulsive liar I don't know how anyone that's not a silver spoon can even trust him. Just like every time in the past he's claimed to be for the little guy then bent them over and fucked them good and hard he's going to do the same to his supporters this time. The only thing you can be sure of, Trump is for Trump.

    22. Re:And yet by jbwolfe · · Score: 4, Informative

      She will sleep comfortably while you are begging for help to save your life

      You're likely just echoing conservative dogma about "Benghazigate". Do you get you get your news from any sources other that Fox? Not to diminish the tragedy, but the Obama administration's errors here (in actuality, lower level security personnel in the State Dept. rather than Clinton directly though she accepted responsibility as Sec.) was in its flawed strategic decisions regarding the size of the ambassadorial mission there and what actions to take in light of the decreasing stability. To portray Clinton as slumbering comfortably while her charges were begging for help is patently false. Further, conservative efforts to discredit Clinton through endless Benghazi hearings are disingenuous, unceasing and utterly wasteful, but shows them as the true exploiters of the tragedy. Ronald Reagan's Benghazi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings was not politicized at all and it happened six months after the embassy there was bombed.

      If there is a rule or a law, she will break it without a moments hesitation if she perceives the benefit in added power, money or prestige outweighs the risks.

      Opinion stated as fact. Please support with evidence... BTW, factually speaking, Trump has boasted of sexual assault and is busy right now planting the seeds of insurrection by absurdly claiming the election is"rigged"- sounds like treason (the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government) to me. Tell me who's lawless again.

      ask yourself what would it be like if she had the powers of Presidential Pardon and Executive Privilege?

      Sorry, too busy pondering what would happen if Trump were CIC. Didn't he say he would carpet bomb ISIS and steal the oil? He knows more about ISIS than "tha generals". K then, Like I said,: too busy pondering Armageddon under Trump....

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    23. Re:And yet by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      The election is not rigged against the Donald.

      Yea, just like the Primaries with Sanders... Oh. wait. Ok, just because the conspiracies against Sanders during the primary was proven true doesn't mean that the DNC or Clinton campaign would do the same unethical tactics in the general...

      You are a fool.

  4. Re:Mobile phone access? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

    He isn't in Ecuador, he's in a flat in London - whether the Ecuadorian Embassy allow him an alternative method of access is debatable at this point, they don't have to allow him the use of a mobile phone or his own line (the issue seems to be with with his actions, not with the fact that they are being done over an Ecuadorian-linked internet connection) and they can ask him to leave if he has an issue with that.

  5. A pringles can is now seen sticking out his window by DirkDaring · · Score: 4, Funny

    A little wiring and duct tape and he's good to go.

  6. He was right, it was a state sponsored actor by sciengin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too bad that that actor was sponsored by the same state that gave him protection.

    Just shows how deep corruption and collusion runs internationally.

  7. Unruly house guest by ronmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Unruly house guest by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      Why is this "unruly?"

      Until Assange started exposing Hillary, there was no problem.

    2. Re:Unruly house guest by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well. Well. Speak of the devil. You got a lot of questions to answer in this thread buddy. And don't give me that "oh, I am not the Ecuador TFA was talking about. I'm the innocent Ecuador! Promise!" we've heard that excuse before.

  8. Re:A pringles can is now seen sticking out his win by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  9. Trumps a brilliant man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    1. Re: Trumps a brilliant man! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      there is another bunch of knuckledraggers who think Hillary and Bernie are smarter than Trump.

      It's actually quite obvious that the evil, lying manpig has a higher IQ than than the Angry Mullet... not that this necessarily matters (policy is clearly decided a lot higher up than in the White House) but I'll take whatever protections I can get. ;)

      I have no reason to believe that Hillary is smarter than Donald Trump (and I'm high IQ). Trump seems to be playing a character that appeals to a certain "base". Hillary doesn't really appeal to any base - the Democrats like her because she's bought and predictable. Sanders appeals to a base of mainly people who are terrible with math and understanding human nature.

      Trump is a master at marketing and branding - look at his TV show. He's a chameleon who can be who he needs to be to win.

      I'm not supporting the guy and have no plans of voting for any of them - they're all terrible people in their own unique ways. I just get tired of the standard Democrat lie that "Republicans are stupid and evil". It's not that I disagree with it, the lie is one of omission.

    2. Re: Trumps a brilliant man! by D00MSlayer · · Score: 2

      Why was he, of all people, the star of that show? Branding and marketing.

      Ummm... because he signed the contract that made him the star of the show?

      Also, I'm pretty sure the marketing was performed by the folks who work at NBC, not Trump himself.

  10. If the tables were turned by p51d007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:If the tables were turned by neoritter · · Score: 2

      Sounds like they had good arguments, you got triggered, and then warped the memory in your mind to a bunch of rednecks shouting "Murica."

  11. Election interference by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Election interference by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      Why nothing about Trump?

      The obvious common-sense explanation is that they don't have anything particularly interesting on Trump.

      Imagine that you actually had something about Trump that was worse than what he always says in public. (I know, it's hard. But try. Maybe "grab the dick" or something.) So you send the information to Wikileaks, and they just sit on it. Weeks go by, you email Julian, "Hey, what about my leak?" and he doesn't reply.

      What would you do?

      I think you would leak through another channel. Wikileaks isn't the only game in town when it comes to media, you know. If you're too lazy to upload the torrent yourself, there just might be a few thousand other media organizations that would be willing to take the information.

      Since this hasn't happened, I think the least extraordinary and most believable explanation, is that there hasn't been a Trump leak. Are you saying that you have come up with an even more likely explanation, where there has been a Trump leak and a conspiracy between every media outlet in the world, led by Wikileaks, to suppress the information in it?

      It's interference when it is being done to influence an election

      Ok, fine. But if that's your definition, then even a paid advertisement or giving a speech would be examples of interference. Why is interference considered noteworthy or undesirable? Shouldn't everyone be interfering with the election? Australia has mandatory vote; I think America should have mandatory interference!

      Unless that's not what you meant. Maybe you meant that interference implies something unsavory? Oh, but then you don't get to apply it to what Wikileaks did. That's quite a dilemma. Have you considered maybe just stop hating Wikileaks, and being grateful that they've already outed and embarrassed the next president? With Trump destroying the Republicans and Clinton already a lame duck, maybe America can have a real election in 2020. Show me one politically-idealistic person, on either the right or left, who doesn't want that to happen.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  12. Whaa whaa whaa, Trump's a victim! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Whaa whaa whaa, Trump's a victim! by Kreplock · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bob Beckel did work for Fox for awhile, but he is by no means a conservative republican.

    2. Re:Whaa whaa whaa, Trump's a victim! by omnichad · · Score: 2

      treasonous

      This is my favorite word used against Assange. He's Australian - how did he betray Australia with his actions?

  13. Re: Uneducated voters, yay! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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)
  14. Re:Mobile phone access? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Ecuador cut him off iirc, not the UK. I am not even sure the UK could cut off the embassy without international implications, like water or electricity.

    In any case, Ecuador could use satellite Internet if pushed. But that isn't the issue.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  15. First Amendment is not Applicable by XXongo · · Score: 2
    Is this intended as irony?

    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.

  16. Well... by Ecuador · · Score: 2

    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
  17. The Silent Majority Fails to Speak by XXongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re: Clintons Evil Knows No Bounds by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  19. Everyone is dirty.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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..."
  20. Re:The story behind the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:The story behind the story by gay358 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't fall for that very crudely made smearing attempt of Assange. It is incredible that they are trying to smear with this as it doesn't stand up under close scrutiny. Check for yourself about some of the details and how this is connected to Hillary Clinton:

    GUYS. THE SHILLS ARE UP TO SOMETHING WITH ASSANGE! NOT A DRILL. PLEASE LOOK! FRAMING IN PROGRESS!
    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...

    Background and Documents on Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy
    https://www.wikileaks.org/Back...

    WikiLeaks on Twitter: "Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

    WikiLeaks on Twitter: "Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations 2
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

  22. Moral High Ground by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:The story behind the story by gay358 · · Score: 2

    I recommend you to study this even more closely, but here are some of the completely unbelievable things in this smear attempt against Assange:

    "Their yellowpages site says they have been in business 5 years. http://www.yellowpages.com/hou...
    Ok so how many times has this link been shared on reddit? I googled the URL specific to this site, and it's only come up three times. All within the last 24 hours."

    "This shady dating site claims to be the "ONLY Dating Site to ever partner with the UN Initiative" (Now that's fucking odd...) AND THEY JUST GOT KICKED OUT OF THE UN FIVE DAYS AGO?!?!"

    "Todd Hammonds LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/to... (It's fucking nothing) But it does say he lives in SF. I'm in the Bay Area also, I could pay a visit to offices if we can actually find any legitimate offices...
    Their Dating Site Eventbrite page. Only one event for the fastest growing dating website that has married 3,000 people since 2011???
    Here is the LinkedIn of "Kate Hogan," this is the person who wrote the "Press Release" about ToddAndClare accusing Assange of sexual misconduct. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ka...
    Of course she's got only 1 connection, and no other real information anywhere. Also, the phone number listed in the press release rings twice and then immediately disconnects. But it doesn't give a recording, it just says "call failed" I've never really experienced that. Anyway you'd think that someone who just put out a press release regarding the UN and Assange would have a working phone!
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/...
    Here's their bullshit subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/todda... (No posts in three months)
    Here's their weird "book" that they wrote about starting their company 5 years ago. Notice how every review is exactly 189 days old and all are very short and positive. This is shilling no doubt about it. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/..."

    "How can their site, registered 20 sep 2015, claim 3000 marriages by November 2 2015? http://m.imgur.com/6BqmZPY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=..."

    "Thanks to /u/ChrissFinn for linking the email from Wikileaks that ToddAndClare originally sent to Assange to get all this started. They offer him $1 million dollars to do some sort of commercial. This is obviously a scam because they don't have a million dollars, they don't even have a legitimate mailing address or working fucking phone numbers! This was a set up from the very beginning!"

    " all users images are cropped and mirrored and can be reverse google image searched to other locations. Plus none of the employees seem to exist. Email between Jullian and T&C.com https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/... -Honeypot to get him to accept russian funds and discredit his leaks, failed, so they accused him of pedophilia instead. When searched for. The ToddandClare business location is actually identical to this company "Premise Data Corporation" https://local.yahoo.com/info-1... Here you can view its team page http://www.premise.com/ourteam... Who's board of directors has guess who "Larry Summers" Who goes by "Lawrence Summers" in "The Center for American Progress" Superpac

  24. Re:The story behind the story by gay358 · · Score: 2

    It seems that Hillarys campaing is usign extremely dirty tricks. Not just paying to cause violence on Trumps rallies, bussing people to vote several times, but also this pedophilia/Russian 1 million dollars smear against Assange:

    https://sli.mg/20GoW2

    https://i.sli.mg/RauCjp.jpg

    https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/...

  25. Re: Uneducated voters, yay! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    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.
  26. Re:One sided [Re:And yet] by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.

    I would, too. I suspect it would help Trump, as the RNC email would consist of the GOP establishment shitting on Trump. It would help prove his claims of a "rigged" system in the Republican primaries.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  27. Re:Too many paid shills vs organic posters by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    Ah yes, the old "always accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing." Correct the Record actually exists. Has FEC filings and everything. Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  28. Re:Mobile phone access? by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 3, Informative

    He isn't in Ecuador, he's in a flat in London

    Embassies on foreign soil are considered sovereign territories according to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Assange may be physically located on UK soil, but as long as Ecuador grants him asylum he is effectively in the domain of Ecuador while inside the Embassy and no arresting party can enter the compound without Ecuador's permission. Once Assange steps outside the embassy property then he is subject to UK authority and can be apprehended.

    In the event of hostilities or soured diplomatic relations, it's a different story.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  29. Re: Clintons Evil Knows No Bounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.

    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:

    Money isn’t all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we’re off and running.

    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?

  30. Re:Too many paid shills vs organic posters by penandpaper · · Score: 2

    Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

  31. Re: Clintons Evil Knows No Bounds by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    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..."
  32. Re:Clintons Evil Knows No Bounds by Rei · · Score: 2

    The full quote is:

    Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

    "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..."
  33. Re:Weiner Pics by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    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.
  34. laughable - even for a 2nd grader by tacokill · · Score: 2

    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.