Ecuador Acknowledges Limiting Julian Assange's Web Access (reuters.com)

Alexandra Valencia, reporting for Reuters: Ecuador's government acknowledged on Tuesday it had partly restricted internet access for Julian Assange, the founder of anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks who has lived in the South American country's London embassy since mid-2012. WikiLeaks said Assange lost connectivity on Sunday, sparking speculation Ecuador might have been pressured by the United States due to the group's publication of hacked material linked to U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In a statement, Ecuador's leftist government said WikiLeaks' decision to publish documents impacting the U.S. election campaign was entirely its own responsibility, and the South American country did not cede to pressure from other nations. "In that respect, Ecuador, exercising its sovereign right, has temporarily restricted access to part of its communications systems in its UK Embassy," it added in a statement. "The Ecuador government respects the principle of non-intervention in other countries' affairs, it does not meddle in election processes underway, nor does it support any candidate specially."

Comments

Curses!

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange should have signed up for the unlimited plan.

And yet

[nehumanuscrede]

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

Specifically, the side that filters, and releases only approved material in order to promote their candidate.

The only way we truly know who the candidates are is when we have access to information about how they think and act when they believe no one is looking.

Everything else, is just for show.

Personally, I don't care WHO digs up the information. Hackers, Private Investigators, whatever.

It does boil down to this: If you're going intelligently elect a leader, you need to know all there is to know about them. There can be no secrets.

Re:And yet

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:Mobile phone access?

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re: Clintons Evil Knows No Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

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?