Slashdot Mirror
Hotspot Vigilantes Are Trying to Beam the Internet To Julian Assange (vice.com)
Ecuadorian government said earlier this week that it did cut off Julian Assange's internet connection. They noted that Assange's continued interference in the U.S. election campaign was the reason why they decided to disconnect Assange from the internet. But it appears some people are going to great lengths to beam internet connectivity to Mr. Assange. This week 4chan urged people to head to the embassy to set up mobile Wi-Fi hotspots, and many are doing just that. From a Motherboard report:"We are now calling all BRITS to get their ass down to the embassy and stand around in mass, taking shifts with wifi-hotspots on hand!" reads the post. "Give Assange constant network and morale support all while streaming it live for the world to see." Are people actually going to try this? Motherboard UK visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has claimed political asylum since August 2012, today to find out. Admittedly, on a late October afternoon, things were rather quiet on the street outside the embassy. Nevertheless, I found my guy. "Marco" was loitering outside the embassy, turning on and off his mobile hotspot. I approached him, and while tentative at first, Marco finally started explaining how he was hoping to aid Assange.
Does the guy not have a mobile phone? I hear London has mobile internets and everything nowadays. It's quite the happening little village.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
If Wikileaks' work is so important, I'm sure it can continue on without Assange in the loop, surely. In fact it would regain a lot of credibility were this to happen. Lately I think Assange's narcissism is more of a liability than an asset to Wikileaks and its cause.
I've really not been impressed by all of the Hillary-bashing Wikileaks has been doing lately
So you only like the truth leaked when it's about people you don't like? If there's damning evidence that's being hidden about people you agree with, you would want it hidden?
they're not saying a damned thing about Trump. And it's pretty fucking unlikely they don't have anything on Trump.
Trump was not a gov't official so there isn't gonna be any classified material to reveal about him. He had a real estate business and a TV show. There's plenty of dirt on Trump, like the recording of him talking about groping pussies and such, but revealing those do not require whistleblower protection or the assistance of Wikileaks. You can just take that straight to Extra or CNN.
Dirt about Hillary's doings while a high ranking gov't official is not so safe to reveal. If you get caught leaking it you go to jail. That's where wikileaks comes in.
If they have enough evidence to charge him with a crime, they can charge him. He doesn't need to be there. They didn't need to bring in Al Capone for an interview before they charged him. Leaders of drug cartels do not need to appear in the US to be charged here. And "international criminals" like Assange also do not need to be here if they are charged with something like distributing classified information. If there is evidence, then charge him with a crime. If there's not, leave him alone.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And "international criminals" like Assange also do not need to be here if they are charged with something like distributing classified information. If there is evidence, then charge him with a crime. If there's not, leave him alone.
The 2 things that stick out to me is how they can charge an Australian citizen living abroad with violating a domestic US law, and how is it that the US based NYT was not guilty of the same basic charges in the Pentagon Papers leak publication as the ones they level at Assange.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Perhaps you could explain why the high-ranking Democrat operatives have been fired/"resigned" rather than saying they've been misquoted. Or why Hillary answered the Moderator asking "and we learned this from the Wikileaks..." with "Well if you read the rest of the sentence..." rather than "Those e-mails are all fabricated!" But certainly, if you have no factual counter-arguments, then you're forced to go into ad-hominem attacks against O'Keefe.
"Right, because he can't be charged until he's interviewed."
BS. Anyone can be charged without an interview. Anyone intelligent person who thinks they're at risk to being charged shouldn't allow an interview in the first place.
Or does the 5th amendment not apply anymore?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands to persecute someone who hasn't been found guilty in court. That's the exact opposite of trying to help out someone who they feel is being persecuted without having been found guilty in court, which is what these wi-fi people are doing.
This space intentionally left blank