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.
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..."
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.
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.
A little wiring and duct tape and he's good to go.
It's like having someone stay over and he starts pissing in the neighbor's yard.
As the host, it's up to you to keep him in line or kick him out.
When you learn information about Hillary that she doesn't want you to know, it's called election interference. You people out there need to know your place and learn to just do what your designated leaders tell you. When they want you to know something, they'll tell you.
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.
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.
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?