Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ecuador Spent $5 Million Protecting and Spying On Julian Assange, Says Report (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the two-for-the-price-of-one dept.

Citing reports from The Guardian and Focus Ecuador, The Verge reports that Ecuador's intelligence program spent at least $5 million "on an elaborate security and surveillance network around WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange." The intelligence program was known as "Operator Hotel," which began as "Operation Guest" when Assange took refuge in Ecuador's UK embassy in 2012. From the report: Operation Hotel has allegedly covered expenses like installing CCTV cameras and hiring a security team to "secretly film and monitor all activity in the embassy," including Assange's daily activities, moods, and interactions with staff and visitors. The Guardian estimates Ecuadorian intelligence agency Senain has spent at least $5 million on Assange-related operations, based on documents they reviewed. The report details attempts to improve Assange's public image and potentially smuggle him out of the embassy if he was threatened. But it also writes that relations between Assange and Ecuador have badly deteriorated over the past several years. In 2014, Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network.

165 comments

  1. 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are made of pure gold or what lol ???

    1. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      There's a lot of overhead in socialist societies. $5M probably got them half a dozen gopros placed in strategic locations.

    2. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Uh huh and explain to me the amount of overhead of healthcare in a capitalistic society like America.

    3. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by BeauHD+(4) · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Exactly, US public healthcare should be modelled after Canada's and California's. Lead by example. Live by example.

      .//x.X.x_Beau_x.X.x\\.

    4. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Gross.

    5. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      There's a lot of overhead in capitalist societies ... all the value your employer steals from you.

      Start with 100%. Your employer takes 80%.
      You get 20%, then you're taxed on that. Then you have a hissy fit over the tax. That's called a cuck son. You may as well blow your boss.

      Workplace democracy (aka communism) is the answer. Execute all the capitalists. It will be way cheaper than dealing with the discontent caused when we recover the wealth that they stole.

    6. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Assange's daily activities, moods, and interactions with staff and visitors

      These are all things that the Ecuadorian government should leak to the public. Afterward, they should kick that freeloading, attention whore to the kerb.

      At first I was willing to give Assange the benefit of the doubt, but as time went on and he demonstrated what an utterly disrespectful, ungrateful and pretentious twat he is, I've changed my opinion.

    7. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by ledow · · Score: 2

      Cameras are cheap.

      People to watch them, however, aren't. Nor are security-cleared installers to install stuff in international embassies.

      That $5m also did a lot more than just put a camera in.

    8. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Is that actually how they tell you guys that it works?

    9. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you profoundly misunderstand how prices and markets work in socialist societies. Hint: They have practically nothing to do with how these work in capitalist societies. The same can be said for taxes, of course.

      Comparisons of prices and taxes between capitalist and socialist/communist societies are pretty much meaningless from an economic point of view. If you gave this a little bit of thought, you could figure out why all by yourself.

    10. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      'He picked on muh Hillary.' 'He wuz supposed to be on "our" side.'

    11. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Easy. Government regulation. Healthcare in the US would be affordable if not for sky high costs of regulation and litigation. The fact that it takes a medical billing specialist an average of 5.5 hours to recover a payment from an insurance company (8 hours for medicare/medicaid), solely due to Byzantine government-mandated billing practices, already adds a minimum of about $100 to a bill, just for walking in the door.

      You want to know why an Aspirin costs $50 at a hospital? it is because 12% of all ER visits in the United States involve cardiovascular episodes where aspirin is given as an emergency anticoagulant. Of those 12% of ER visits, 74% result in a lawsuit of some kind. The way jurisprudence works in civil law, a plaintiff must sue EVERYONE and ANYONE that had anything to do with the ER visit, including the makers of any and all medications administered. That means that in roughly 9% of all ER visits, Bayer (or somebody) is getting sued over aspirin.

      This is also why a $300 GPS/NAV system costs $8000 the second you put it in an airplane.

    12. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Hi, I'm TardChris! Have you bought a "I'm fat. Let's party." shirt? This is Slashdot, after all.

      - FatCashewsLoveMe

    13. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      1. You are confusing Socialist vs Communist. It is sometime confusing because a Communist country will often call themselves Socialist Democratic Republic a big long name of things that make them seem like they are for the people. Also the Ideas of Socialism vs Communism have a lot of similarities, but there are major differences. Socialism is a regulated free market, vs Communism which is a controlled market. So in Socialist government and you owned a food store, you can sell whatever food you want just as long as the food is deemed safe by the government. While a Communist government will ship you the food that it thinks is needed, hence the stereotypical long bread lines in the USSR. Where those days is when the bread was shipped to the stores, so people were getting that. Because next week the store may be filled with Cooking Oil or Meat.

      2. The Supply vs Demand is always in play. Finding the number of people willing or able to do a job, vs. how much someone wants the job done. For this case Ecuador needed people who could install this stuff secretively against a guy who is famously paranoid. In an area that is more tightly controlled. You can't just get the normal Cable Guy to go and install it without making people suspicious. So Ecuador will need to spend more to get the guy to do the job.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    14. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Desler · · Score: 0

      Why are Trump people so obsessed with Hillary still? She lost the election and isn’t in any public office. Lock her up already and just shit the fuck up about her. You’d
      Think after 8 or 9 Benghazi investigations by Republicans they’d have found somehong already for all the money and time wasted.

      Oh wait... If Trump actually did that he’d lose his major boogeyman to whip up his stupid base and you retards would lose your “What about Hillary?” comebacks.

    15. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of your points are right "in theory", "on paper" but wrong about historically factual socialism and communism. But the point was about comparing socialist prices (and taxes) with those of capitalist countries, and about that you're also wrong from a theoretical perspective. In socialist countries prices are not fixed by free markets - neither in theory, nor were they in practice in countries like e.g. the GDR. For example, no socialist who deserves to be called that way would want rents to be set by the market or would propagate that salaries should be set by the market. In actual socialist countries you also couldn't choose your job freely, choices were highly restricted, of course.

      I think you're confusing socialism with social democracy. Although related, these are still very different political views.

      By the way, you cannot sell wares in capitalist societies for arbitrary prices either. Most countries have laws against usury.

    16. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and 90 of all statistics are made up

    17. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want a system where it takes years to get a family doctor and 12 months to get a hip replacement?

      No, I think hallway healthcare is not a good model for the US.

    18. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 2

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      I know this will shock you, AEtna is doing even better than gold which we all know is the holy grail of investing. /s
      The insurance companies are ripping people off genius.

    19. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      That's how it works if your work is valuable. Maybe yours isn't.

    20. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Kulahan · · Score: 2

      not sure if trolling or stupid, but it doesn't take that long in either of those listed locations

    21. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecuador could easily recover that $5 million by publishing a coffee-table book of all the DNC/HRC emails published on Wikileaks detailing illegal/unethical/sickening actions by the DNC and HRC.

    22. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with being disrespectful?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    23. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when was communism about "workplace democracy"? Every time a communist regime comes into power it immediately monopolize

    24. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when was communism about "workplace democracy"? Every time a communist regime comes into power it immediately monopolizes the economy and the workplaces. Actual communism is about a small cadre of bearucrats and intellectuals taking power by making badly thought promises they have no intention of keeping.

    25. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't regulation. If anything, the US health system needs more regulation. But of course, all the other western nations that have single payer, with much better health systems, are clearly doing it wrong and USA is the only way, despite copiois evidence to the contrary.

      But muh taxes and muh freedom!

    26. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's totalitarianism calling itself communism.

    27. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      In this case, it's the truth. When Assuage was releasing all the terrible stuff Bush did, he was considered a hero. It wasn't until he started ratting on the next admin that we started talking about what kind of traitor he was.

    28. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit like how our modern western oligarchies call themselves democracies.

    29. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does usury have to do with sales prices? And most non-muslim countries are perfectly happy to allow usury (ever seen credit card or paycheck loan interest rates?). Of course, the banks and lenders never call it that.

      Perhaps you mean price fixing, collusion, or abuse of monopoly?

    30. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Cameras are cheap.

      People to watch them, however, aren't. Nor are security-cleared installers to install stuff in international embassies."

      Especially if the installers have to be flown in from Ecuador.
      (secret services don't trust the local people)
      And like all those people they always need some piece of equipment that they 'forgot' and have to go back to the 'office'.

    31. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not trolling. He's just Republican.

    32. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with being disrespectful?

      You should have said "What's wrong with being disrespectful, you warthog faced buffoon?"

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    33. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He turned Wikileaks from a service publishing information to the public while protecting the source to a political weapon to push a specific political agenda. And Wikileaks hasn't protected a source since they started. And Wikileaks is certainly not the only ones who shape the information to support their political platform. The release of the Snowden data was a prime example of publishing only the data that supported a specific political goal. Out of the millions of documents Snowden stole the only information released by the gate keepers cast the government and intelligence agencies as unrepentant sinners. Any documents contradicting the party line are never published. And when information is published the timing of the release is planned to grab headlines when the public starts losing interest. We are all told how dishonest and treacherous the government is and we should not believe anything they say or support any of their actions. However, why should we trust Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, or any of the social justice warriors who fancy themselves as experts on international relations and claim to know what information is harmful and which is not? True social justice warriors would have dumped everything into the public sphere at one time. Is it because there may be information the contradicts the party line? I very much doubt they are worried about anyone getting killed by releasing everything. As a matter of fact they all strike me as people who would love for that to happen because it would keep them in the headlines. They are no less mercenary than the people they claim as enemies. And why should we automatically trust "anonymous" sources that release information? Every article or blurb published today by the MSM and smaller news outlets relies on "anonymous" or sources who "are not authorized to speak. The publisher can then hide behind the shield law or martyr themselves to protect their sources and we are suppose to believe the information is truthful?

    34. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it immediately monopolize grammar? Commie bastards.

    35. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bible sez ursury. Don't need no more book learnin'

    36. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase - democracy is shit, but it's the best we've got so let's stop trying

    37. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Problem is, communism will always fall into totalitarianism.

      Why you say?

      From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.

      That says it all. We'll take from those that we think can do stuff, and give it to those that we think need it. Someone has to make the decision. But, what if they decide that YOU can do stuff, but YOU don't need stuff? What if you start to think that their decision is completely arbitrary, and think that YOU need stuff, too? What if you begin to think that YOU are doing to much, and not getting enough? What if you decide that YOU just aren't going to do so damn much anymore?

      Well, you can't just make that decision, because then everybody will make that decision. And then, nobody is working, and everybody still has needs. So, the government has to come down hard and demand that such-n-such work be done. We call that ..... totalitarianism.

      Now, think of how capitalism can be used to funnel greed into good behavior.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    38. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. So true. It's so true that I spit out my coffee laughing. Sad, but true.

    39. Re:5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's $5 million since 2012 or over the last 6 years, which comes to less than $1 million a year.

      Still a hunk of change.

    40. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Lol ok, no. My work is very valuable. A lot more valuable than your buddy's formula allows for apparently. Let me teach you Siberian scrubs something important.

      You start with roughly 65%. That is the money your employer gives you. That is your salary. The other roughly 35% is taken by the government: that is the tax. Then through various forms of paperwork and logistical trickery, you can earn some or all of that 35% back. The employers aren't where the taxes come from. In fact, the government taxes them, too.

      Now, from that remaining 65%, most but not all states do charge sales tax on purchases, but at most that's only 10% of each individual purchase. You're in the end left with much more than 20% unless you're doing something very wrong. Telling yourselves that the employer taxes you personally at a rate of 80% is absurd on paradigm-shift type of fundamental level even if you don't count the absurdity of the figure "80%" itself.

    41. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      My salary is a drop in the bucket compared to the eventual value of the work I do for my company but my wages are driven by supply and demand.

    42. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      Your work is valuable when your mistakes cost more than your salary and you have to make them constantly to get fired.....Unless you do something spectacular.

    43. Re: 5 million for A few camera?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking moron. I don't support Hillary or any other politician.

      Yeah, you feel stupid now, don't you?

  2. How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ... to spy on their own population, wholesale? With facial recognition and all that, bought from the Chinese?

    1. Re:How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Probably less than the UK spent to spy on their own population wholesale.

    2. Re:How much did they spend... by aliquis · · Score: 0

      ... to spy on their own population, wholesale? With facial recognition and all that, bought from the Chinese?

      Likely less than the US do.

    3. Re: How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh, someone who still believes the myth that the UK has more government CCTV than anybody else?

      If you havenâ(TM)t grasped that yet: no, we do not. This whole concept is grounded in a couple of deliberately misrepresented, provocative articles about King's Lynn from about twenty years ago.

    4. Re: How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      havenâ(TM)t

      Oi, you 'ave a license for that character set?

    5. Re: How much did they spend... by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed... as someone who's lived all their life in the UK, and travelled quite a bit, I can safely say that the UK is no worse than any other civilised place I've been to.

      Plus, I don't get regarded like an idiot that can't cross the road unsupervised.

      Plus, literally, I do not feel in fear of government one iota (except from a "what stupid thing are they doing now" viewpoint, but that's universal).

      Strange that people complaining they live freer lives than other countries that they've never been to also think they have to sustain a household armoury in order to do so.

      (P.S. The last time I was questioned in any official capacity, or had any interaction with official law enforcement bodies, was while entering the United States for a brief holiday... honestly, I've never been asked so many obtuse, unrelated, obscure questions and I hear they're going to start asking for social media details? Oh... unless you count the policeman who came to my daughter's school fair and let the kids press the siren button)

    6. Re: How much did they spend... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      P.S. The last time I was questioned in any official capacity, or had any interaction with official law enforcement bodies, was while entering the United States for a brief holiday... honestly, I've never been asked so many obtuse, unrelated, obscure questions

      If it makes you feel any better, that is exactly the experience I had while entering the UK.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: How much did they spend... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had it in Canada of all fucking places.

      I think it's really just a symptom of the universal truth that the role of customs officer across the globe is the sort of role that has a high likelihood of attracting the odd dickhead who failed at everything they wanted to do in life (like becoming a police officer) and so had to settle for what little power tripping they could do at a checkpoint on a national border instead.

      I've always found US customs officers decent, and UK customs officers nice on my return (albeit a little fucking dense), I've found Canadian customs officers to be universally complete arseholes in Ottawa and Montreal, but usually pretty nice in Toronto and Vancouver. Across the rest of the globe it's always been a mixed bag - nice and laid back in the Caribbean, corrupt and dodgy in Egypt for example.

      Personally I wouldn't judge a country by it's customs officers because the high likelihood of down and out power trippers is bound to be at odds with the norm.

    8. Re: How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, literally, I do not feel in fear of government one iota

      Ah, so you've never had a visit from the TV licensing man then.

    9. Re: How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Across the rest of the globe it's always been a mixed bag - nice and laid back in the Caribbean, corrupt and dodgy in Egypt for example.

      Or France. They don't even pretend to care who you are if you are from a western country.

    10. Re: How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then you most always tow the public line on everything. A police force in England was threatening to imprison people for making fun of a "drug bust" they made on Facebook. Then there was that Scottish guy who was in real risk of being sent to prison for making a nazi joke where the judge said the context which the joke was made was unimportant and could be disregarded when applying the law. If you don't find that terrifying, you're a fool.

    11. Re: How much did they spend... by burtosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hahahaha - Canadians don't even know how to be assholes properly, though I've seen them try a few times. I live in Minnesota and am a dual citizen and have family in Canada so I cross the border a lot. I sometimes get a few curt questions from the Canadian customs, one sent me to immigration (lol) because I had forgotten my Canadian passport and didn't let me explain I was a citizen. But in perhaps 50 crossings I was treated rudely maybe 3-5 times and it was at best a 3/10. When I filed for my social insurance number the lady behind the desk at service Canada rudely said "and why do you think you need one?" Going off my American accent she probably thought I was a medical refugee. After saying "umm, because I'm a citizen..." she absolutely couldn't stop apologizing and directed me straight to an open agent lmao, here in America they would have called the cops over and doubled down and never, absolutely never apologized.

      At the border coming back the customs agents are assholes about 40% of the time, one asked why I was in Canada and part of my answer involved being a citizen at which point he interrupted me "Son, we don't recognize dual citizenship (lol a lie), just what kind of American are you? Son, If we went to war with Canada what side would you fight for??!?" Then he went off the goddamn handle and started to make racially charged comments about my family member names and asked me insane questions for another 5 minutes. Then I got sent to be searched. I felt lucky to have made it across alive and until I see it, Canada just dosent have the culture to put assholes like that in authority and approve of thier treatment of citizens.

    12. Re: How much did they spend... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I am guessing you are also of Western European Decent as well, with a charming English Accent.
      Culture, TV and Radio has made the British White Man seem like the general good guy. So Officials just don't get immediately suspicious of you.
      However if you don't quite meet that stereotype, and you look like someone who matches a negative stereotype. Then you will get questioned and hassled much more.

      I see a difference when I go to work where I am wearing my work cloths and rather well shaved vs. on the weekend where I am in a tee-shirt and jeans and Have a few days of beard growth. Interaction with officials move from very cordial and polite, when I am in my work cloths. To more demanding and rude when I am looking a bit more scruffy. I didn't change my Sex or my Race, or precede religion and there is a noticeable difference. Imagine if you had one of those traits as well.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re: How much did they spend... by thomst · · Score: 1

      Xest observed:

      I've always found US customs officers decent, and UK customs officers nice on my return (albeit a little fucking dense), I've found Canadian customs officers to be universally complete arseholes in Ottawa and Montreal, but usually pretty nice in Toronto and Vancouver. Across the rest of the globe it's always been a mixed bag - nice and laid back in the Caribbean, corrupt and dodgy in Egypt for example.

      Dude - "corrupt and dodgy" describes pretty much every employee of every Egyptian bureaucracy.

      They've had more than 5,000 years to perfect bureaucratic corruption, after all, so it's hardly surprising that they've managed to refine it to such an exquisite degree ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    14. Re: How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada just dosent have the culture to put assholes like that in authority and approve of thier treatment of citizens.

      Bwahaha! Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!

      Canada is just like the US, except a bit more authoritarian while pretending to be nice and polite. I would know, I live here.

    15. Re: How much did they spend... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Try being held for them for 3 hours for literally no reason before you're allowed to go on your way whilst they ask absurdly irrelevant and probing questions about your friends, family, sex life, finances, job, and search your laptop and ask who you speak to on random websites like Facebook and to aggressively accuse you of lying to try and rile you up and get a reaction.

      Believe me, Canadian customs officers most definitely do know how to be absolute cunts for no reason.

      To be fair though yes, I did cross one of the land borders at Montreal once, and they were fine there actually, so maybe it's just Montreal and Ottawa airports that are staffed by unnecessarily angry jackasses.

      You probably get an easier ride if you're a citizen too though as they ultimately have to answer to you (i.e. via your MP), my wife has Canadian citizenship and generally gets an easier ride. The only time they were shitty with her is when she left on her Canadian passport and flew back on her British passport because she didn't want to renew two passports so let her Canadian one expire. Apparently they can't track whose in the country if you're not consistent on your passports, and I believe they changed the law recently so you now legally have to travel only to and from Canada on your Canadian passport if you have one for precisely this reason.

    16. Re: How much did they spend... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I've had the anti-terror grilling in the UK and the US. Paranoid cunts.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    17. Re: How much did they spend... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      War with Canada!!!! Yay!!!!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    18. Re: How much did they spend... by ledow · · Score: 1

      If you think they are at all reflective of anything other than "stupid instances that get laughed out of court" then you're sadly mistaken.

      Every country has stories of such things and there's ALWAYS more behind it than the headline would have you belief. And even when there isn't, it gets laughed out on appeal and people sanctioned.

      Sorry, but you honestly AREN'T British if you haven't constantly taken the piss out of every establishment in the country at every opportunity, and you'll not suffer in any way, shape or form for doing so. Honestly, watch one of OUR cop-shows. They are incredibly boring and frustrating as some guy yells into a police officers face and calls him every name under the sun and the police just go "Yes, right, okay" in a display of utter, accustomed, British tolerance.

      If you think there are police (with batons, not even guns) on every corner beating the populace into line, you just haven't been to the UK.

      P.S. I've lived in some of the scummiest areas of London and Essex. I've worked in schools under "special measures" because the teenagers are kicking off so much that they have assigned police officers. And I have ZERO cause to be scared of the police or any similar organisation. If anything, I pity them immensely and I'm not sure I could apply their same coolness to that job, especially not for the wages we pay them.

      Far from being an oppressed population under a police state, we tend to live out our lives without interacting with the police at all, and then only positively.

      My father-in-law was in America once and was removed from his car at gunpoint for "failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign". I guarantee you this is true. I also don't believe it's reflective of the entire US.

      By contrast, after dropping an unnecessary second (foreign) mobile phone into a bin on Liverpool Street Station (back in the days before we imported US terror-phobia when we had bins on them), short after the July London bus bombings, without thinking, the same guy was surrounded and questioned by unarmed anti-terrorism police officers in seconds. Who were then laughing with him about the whole thing and barely even bothered to take his name.

      These things are not indicative of real life. But real-life between the US and the UK in terms of policing is RADICALLY different. Honestly, come over. Spend some time here. Find out. Police here are professional people. Highly trained. Highly regulated. Held responsible for every action, word, gesture and implication they provide.

      What you're referring to are media-blown instances missing 99% of the facts. P.S. the judiciary are NOTHING to do with the police force at all. They aren't allowed to be, they are entirely separate, and blurring the two shows your ignorance.

    19. Re: How much did they spend... by ledow · · Score: 1

      In actuality... nope.

      And I didn't have a TV for about 5 years.

      You just write them a polite letter that says "go away" and then tend to stop bothering you until someone else moves into that house again. Or you buy a TV (the shops have to dob you in by law).

    20. Re: How much did they spend... by alexo · · Score: 1

      A country is obligated to let her citizens in even if their travel papers have expired (or lost) as long as they can prove their citizenship status.

      I once flew to visit my parents abroad and did not notice that my passport (of the destination country) had expired. They told me straight away that if I didn't take care of it during my stay, I would not be able to fly out back home.

    21. Re: How much did they spend... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Its toe the line, not tow. The police are not in a disabled boat that needs to be towed back to shore.

      Though this might solve a few problems if they were.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    22. Re: How much did they spend... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Canada just dosent have the culture to put assholes like that in authority and approve of thier treatment of citizens.

      Bwahaha! Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder!

      Canada is just like the US, except a bit more authoritarian while pretending to be nice and polite. I would know, I live here.

      And you don't live in the US. I hear the same bitching from my family that lives there, they feel just like you because they don't experience all America has to offer. Every time I need a light hearted break from the harsh reality here I tune into Canadian news and listen to the cure problems you have there. Tredau crapping out on represtational voting, aww we have a corrupt greedy toddler dismantling the EPA, HUD, Department of Education, and who is breaking every promise America has made to the world under obama ruining our international reputation further. Aww, you sold a few APC to the saudis who might use them to kill civilians, trump sold 200 billion in planes, missles systems, and weapons of war to definately ethnicity cleanse Yemen. Oh and the poor Canadian guy who got a heart attack and was flown to ND hospital with no medical recriprocity so he owed 100k hospital bill and it was national news lmafo!!! I know three people who got fkd harder by the healthcare system here, that story happens every 5 minutes lmafo. But do go on about your problems, I've been depressed by the news lately.

    23. Re: How much did they spend... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I've been ruded to coming into Canada from the US. Later I realized they were probably trained to do that in an attempt to fluster a crook into making a mistake.

      If I were writing a process for them, I might do that.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    24. Re: How much did they spend... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I've always found US customs officers decent, and UK customs officers nice on my return (albeit a little fucking dense), I've found Canadian customs officers to be universally complete arseholes in Ottawa and Montreal, but usually pretty nice in Toronto and Vancouver. Across the rest of the globe it's always been a mixed bag - nice and laid back in the Caribbean, corrupt and dodgy in Egypt for example.

      I've found most customs everywhere is about answering their questions without setting off any flags, which mostly involves knowing where you are going to be staying and what you are going to be doing. If they ask you some question that lets you ramble on enthusiastically about what you are going to be doing or have done, they'll usually tell you to shut up, finish your paperwork, and get you on your way. Personally, I've found the easiest way to get through customs is to wear the leather jacket with the studs, the offensive band t-shirt, big boots, and all the metal accessories I have to take off for security, and tell them I'm going to/coming from a music festival. They usually never even give me an opportunity to ramble on to one of their questions. The one exception tot hat seems to be crossing the physical border into Canada. Then they want to see cash. I didn't have $50 cash in my pocket because I was planning to withdraw local money from an ATM once in country for best exchange rate like I always do, and had me park to the side and go talk to some woman who was litterally explaining how they are not responsible for the damage done to my car when they take it apart, when I pulled out a ATM slip with my bank balance on it showing I had money, and then they let me go and waved me through without any more questions.

    25. Re: How much did they spend... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      War with Canada!!!! Yay!!!!

      On cold, clear nights, you can hear sounds from sharpening hockey sticks eerily drifting across the border.

    26. Re: How much did they spend... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are just ugly? As a tall attractive man, I’ve never had problems with authorities anywhere. Hell, in China, they didn’t even ask for id at checkpoints.

    27. Re: How much did they spend... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If it makes you feel any better, that is exactly the experience I had while entering the UK.

      The UK border guards are fuckers. I've been asked obtuse, obscure questions where they wouldn't accept the truth for an answer and I'm fucking British with a valid passport.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    28. Re: How much did they spend... by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      It's a cat detector van...

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    29. Re: How much did they spend... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Maybe they thought you were going to help Assange.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re: How much did they spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They kicked your asses last time you tried to invade them

    31. Re: How much did they spend... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I pointed this out to my wife, that if they denied her entry, they'd be breaking human rights law.

      I'm also not sure they could stop her leaving frankly either, because she's got dual British citizenship and I don't think they can arbitrarily detain you over something like an expired passport unless it's actually a criminal offence, so as much as they huff and puff about having to travel on that passport, I think if you really wanted to push it they could neither stop you entering, nor leaving on another passport quite frankly. In fact, she could simply just not even mention she has Canadian citizenship and enter and exit on her British passport like anyone else and I doubt they'd even know.

  3. RT has real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Russia today has been talking about this for weeks. Pamela Anderson even did a press conference but American propaganda outlets (fake news like CNN) refused to cover the story,

    9-11 was definitely an inside job. AE911Truth org

    1. Re:RT has real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You know what's also an inside job? Putin and his links to jet fuel that melts steel beams.

    2. Re:RT has real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pamela Anderson even did a press conference

      She should know all about things being fake...

  4. I think hes done a service for mankind.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hes welcome to stay in my hunting cabin in Canada; indefinitely.

    1. Re: I think hes done a service for mankind.. by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meh. I'd offer him my embassy... Oh, wait!

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    2. Re:I think hes done a service for mankind.. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I gaurantee you that if the UK government wasn't so determined to put him in jail (possibly followed up with a one way flight to federal pound me in the a** prison in the USA) he would be in a country with no extradition treaty with the USA, UK or EU by now.

    3. Re:I think hes done a service for mankind.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      federal pound me in the ass prison in the USA

      FTFY

  5. Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by captbollocks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    to get a new credit card couriered to a backwater in Brazil because he thought he was helping the world by publishing my personal details and my credit card details on WikiLeaks.

    All because I subscribed to a geopolitical newsletter which I used for research to write investment reports, but WikiLeaks thought I was part of an international private spying network. If I was I certainly wouldn't be on /. I would be drinking martinis on a tropical island whilst contemplating my next mission.

    The good news is that eventually he will have some sort of medical emergency and will have to be taken to a hospital. Hopefully, I will get my money back then by laying a bet that he will be put in a dark hole somewhere.

    1. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Relevant username?

    2. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Are you sure your not a government worker? I mean, putting someone in a dark hole for life over $200 does sound like one.

      I

    3. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by captbollocks · · Score: 2

      Are you sure your not a government worker? I mean, putting someone in a dark hole for life over $200 does sound like one.

      I

      Not a govt. worker. Whilst I don't have any respect for him these days, I don't want to necessarily see him in a dark hole, but I won't mind making money out of his misfortune since he has made money from mine.

    4. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well cross your fingers then and wait. They can bring doctors to him. Even for something like appendix surgery.

    5. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by butzwonker · · Score: 0

      Thus spoke Captain Bollocks. Poor schmuck lost $200. So SAD!

    6. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by pots · · Score: 0

      Er... Wikileaks just publishes what other people send them. If they published your information, it means that your information was already compromised.

    7. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by captbollocks · · Score: 5, Informative

      Er, actually they selectively publish what people send them, usually to suit whatever PR strategy they are using at the moment.

      Yes, the information was compromised already, but now I am stuck with my personal information (not to mention the 10,000s of others) on WikiLeaks for anyone to get hold of it.

    8. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what about the 100 million others with their personal information on the darkweb for anyone to get ahold of?

    9. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      got you, so like, you'd rather just not know about it ... Wikileaks problem here is exposing your ignorance and you are suitably upset ..... poor muffin

    10. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... your name came up in a wikileak?

      Obligatory Clerks Reference:

      "Anyone working on that death star knew the risk involved. It's their own fault."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    11. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

      Regardless, your information was compromised. If Wikileaks didn't publish it, you may not have ever known.

    12. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, by people who've been conned into thinking they're doing a public service rather than serving the geopolitical interests of Russia.

    13. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've searched probably around 1tb of dumps for my info or info relevant to my work or family. I've never found my own information so don't assume your shit is automatically on the darkweb. My data has been compromised but only by parties who have no profit motive and an even stronger incentive to keep it secret than the people they stole it from, so no darkweb.

      And please just stop talking out of your ass in general.

    14. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck him, I had to spend $200 to get a new credit card couriered to a backwater in Brazil because he thought he was helping the world by publishing my personal details and my credit card details on WikiLeaks.

      Yea, I'm pissed at him too for this exact same thing.

      I obtained your credit card info first damnit, and was planning to do some pretty bad things with it.
      No one knew I had it, even you didn't know.

      Then wikileaks had to go be a jerk and publish the fact I had it, and now you know and went and replaced that credit card with a new one so I couldn't use it. What a fucker Julian is!!

      But at least I'm lucky that you blame him instead of me.

      PS, yes the above is made up and fictional. But there is a person out there in the world who could say word-for-word what I just typed and it be the truth.
      The fact you refuse to even admit your credit card info was taken by a criminal, let alone blame that criminal or anyone else related for it happening, means the problem can't and won't be solved.
      Blaming or punishing Julian for what that or those other criminals actually did is effectively allowing the criminals to get away with it too.

      But it's OK, I know cause and effect is way too difficult for a mere human to understand. This way of doing things is just easier.

    15. Re: Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has been submitted to WL but not published? Hint: nothing.

      I suspect you are carrying water for the Kremlin.

    16. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by pots · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing your point here. Yes the information is on Wikileaks, plus whatever other websites which have also published it. Because it's compromised information and that's how that works. How are you tying that fact to blaming your loss of $200 on Wikileaks? Are you saying that you wouldn't have needed a new card if Wikileaks hadn't published your compromised information? That is not true.

    17. Re:Fuck him, I had to spend $200 by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      He is literally the definition of a shitweasle. Even looks like one.

  6. It's not paranoia by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Funny

    But it also writes that relations between Assange and Ecuador have badly deteriorated over the past several years. In 2014, Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network.

    He annoys people and they are out to get him. It's not paranoia, he just can't help himself.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:It's not paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This kind of jackasses always make excuses and cry that people are just bad with them without reason.

    2. Re:It's not paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      This kind of jackasses always make excuses and cry that people are just bad with them without reason.

      A closet muslim

    3. Re:It's not paranoia by tinkerton · · Score: 1, Troll

      He crosses the CIA and the US government. So they destroy his reputation and they destroy him to show everyone who's boss. They just can't help themselves, it's standard procedure . From the article:

      In an extraordinary breach of diplomatic protocol, Assange managed to compromise the communications system within the embassy and had his own satellite internet access, according to documents and a source who wished to remain anonymous. By penetrating the embassy’s firewall, Assange was able to access and intercept the official and personal communications of staff, the source claimed.

      In tweets on Tuesday WikiLeaks denied that Assange had compromised the embassy’s network. “That’s an anonymous libel aligned with the current UK-US government onslaught against Mr Assange,” WikiLeaks wrote, adding that its editor-in-chief was not in a position to respond.

      .
      Of course it's a made up claim. That's also people just doing their job.
      Your job is to be gullible and to despise Assange.

    4. Re:It's not paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I despise him because he's a rapist and a fugitive. I don't give a fuck whether he hacked the Ecuadorian embassy's network or not.

    5. Re:It's not paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't anything about what the CIA says about Assange, I only know what Assange himself has said and how he acts. He is doing the best he can to make enemies of everyone. Now he's alienated himself even from his gracious hosts. I would not blame Ecuador for giving him the boot.

    6. Re:It's not paranoia by tinkerton · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You despise him because you're an induhvidual eh. Apparently the idea is that if Assange is anything less than perfect we can easily betray him and your standards are so very high that everything Assange has contributed melts away when you consider the charges. Here's an article about the UK pressing Sweden to keep up chasing Assange.
      https://www.theguardian.com/me...
      I've started following Craig Murray's blog on this. Some kind or rapist that Assange, a real Weinstein! There are degrees of indecency, and if even Sweden had to be pressed to go after Assange I doubt any other country would have.
      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...

    7. Re:It's not paranoia by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's ok to like what he built while also thinking he's a lousy person.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:It's not paranoia by tinkerton · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      I agree but that's not how it works. The way character assassination works is that first you dig up everything that is ugly about a person, true or not, and make that the central issue. After that you can claim anything you want, that Assange is working for the Russians for instance and it's easily believed. And then you can claim the next thing and it ever becomes more easy. You want to know some really nasty folks? The people going after Assange. Somehow that thought occurs to nobody. Assange has been locked up in the Embassy for years, and for what, 8 weeks or something, he's been denied virtually every form of communication. Meanwhile stories are launched that he betrayed the trust of the Ecuadorians. But does anyone feel like these people are real scum who are attacking press freedom and destroying people? Uh no, never thought of that. They must be very concerned with justice. Yes, that's it.

    9. Re:It's not paranoia by butzwonker · · Score: -1

      In other words you're a gullible idiot, a useful tool, and that's why you despise him.

    10. Re:It's not paranoia by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You want to know some really nasty folks? The people going after Assange. Somehow that thought occurs to nobody.

      That thought occurs to everybody. There are Hollywood movies about it even. Sorry, you're not original.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:It's not paranoia by jythie · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people dislike both Assange and the CIA.

    12. Re:It's not paranoia by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      In general. But I'm telling what I see when Assange turns up in a news item.

    13. Re: It's not paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but why give him any more credit than we do for any of the other Russian Trolls in their propaganda machine?

    14. Re: It's not paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he's obviously not a Russian troll. Assange has decided a long time ago to publish essentially anything he gets without much filtering. You can reject that policy or welcome it, in any case following the policy doesn't make him a Russian troll. The policy surely is useful for disinformation campaigns, but again, that's not the same as active trolling. Besides, there is still some vetting of the information.

      Assange has a personal clinch with Hilary Clinton and her followers, some of which suggested that he should be rendered illegally and subjected to torture, others suggesting that he should be killed by a drone strike. That made him useful to the Russians, no doubt about that, but his dislike of Clinton was also not totally unfounded. It's not as if the CIA was not running smut campaigns against him - one of his accusers in Sweden happened to be involved in a CIA-sponsored anti-Castro group and now is hard to find and works in some shadowy relief aid groups in the middle east. What a coincidence!

      You need to attempt to stay fair and unbiased in assessments of actions of persons like Assange, otherwise you're just becoming a political tool like he himself.

    15. Re:It's not paranoia by houghi · · Score: 1

      I like driving my New Beetle on the Autobahn.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re: It's not paranoia by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Because he's obviously not a Russian troll.

      Anyone against Hillary is a Russian troll!

    17. Re:It's not paranoia by thomst · · Score: 3, Informative

      tinkerton sneered:

      You despise him because you're an induhvidual eh. Apparently the idea is that if Assange is anything less than perfect we can easily betray him and your standards are so very high that everything Assange has contributed melts away when you consider the charges.

      Actually, I despise the sonofabitch, too - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his sex life.

      Instead, it has everything to do with the contents of more than 11,000 Twitter DM's between Assange and a select group of "long term and reliable supporters" of Wikileaks that were leaked to The Intercept by a member of that group, and published on Valentine's day, 2018. (How's that for irony?)

      Those DM's make it Waterford clear - in Assange's own words - that, far from being the neutral information broker he has always portrayed it as, Wikileaks always was, instead, an instrument designed to impose his own, personal agenda on the USA in particular, and the world, in general. It was - and is - engaged in a deliberate propaganda campaign to sway public opinion in favor of the Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential campaign, and in favor of Russia (as what Assange claims to be a necessary counterbalance to American influence on the international stage, a positive influence on the world, and, bizarrely, a weak - and helpless - victim of American covert tampering).

      It's transparently obvious from even a cursory scan of the trove that Julian Assange is, at best, arrogantly delusional about how geopolitics works in the real world, is determinedly ignorant of how American domestic politics actually influences its international policies and actions, and is either grossly misinformed about, or is deliberately misleading his key financiers (because that's what, from context, his audience of "long term and reliable supporters" consists of) regarding the effectiveness of Vladimir Putin's covert operations to destabilize democracies not just in the USA, but globally, as well. Regardless of which is the case, in these DM's to his inner circle of "reliable" supporters - one of whom, I remind you, is unquestionably responsible for having leaked them to The Intercept - his determination to influence the USA's 2016 election against Hilary Clinton, and for Donald Trump is repeatedly, explicitly made clear (as is his belief, all historical evidence notwithstanding, that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are the primary authors of American global adventurism).

      But, hey, don't take my word - or the Intercept's - for that. Instead, read their most germane Twitter DM's for yourself, and come to your own conclusions ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    18. Re:It's not paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must have hit a little too close to home to be downmodded like that.

    19. Re:It's not paranoia by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's ok to like what he built while also thinking he's a lousy person.

      I'm not actually 100% sure it is. The thing is, it takes a certain kind of person to build something like wikileaks, and a person driven to do something like that is basically never going to be a nice person.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re: It's not paranoia by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting point. But I do like Wikileaks.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:It's not paranoia by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I generally accept that people are pretty much flawed, though I am less tolerant when bullying is involved and I react here because it feels too much like 'two minutes hate' and that is because of a successful campaign.

      Wikileaks is important because it reintroduces a degree of checks and balances to power where it's mostly lost. The watchdog function of the mainstream is almost gone. That argument by itself may not provide enough drive for someone to actually go ahead with it so I accept that those who actually make it work are fairly radical. I don't know that much about Assange and I don't know what to look for in the twitter links you give. That he is not likable? Something worse than rape? He despises Clinton. I understand that, I think my opinions are similar in that respect. I don't see why that would disqualify him. His comment (i assume it's his) that if Clinton is elected the end result taking in account all the pressures would be worse than if the GOP got elected is legitimate(though it appears to be wrong). Making a lot out of it is misleading. Or it's just being misled by the propaganda war. It certainly does not mean he's pro GOP or pro Trump. Or working for the Russians. He's working for civil society and against the established power.

      Wikileaks is a neutral broker in the sense that if you deliver the data, they will make it available. Maybe they could be tempted to play with the timing depending on the material, but likely much less than mainstream media. Mostly the politics will shine through in the publications of Wikileaks themselves, but since they excel at providing the actual sources with it that is not really a major flaw.

      What I find ridiculous is that there could be serious discussions about wikileaks and instead people get upset about bias and attitude.
      The main issue with wikileaks is that instead of becoming a back end for the publishers: them providing leaked data to journalists - they became their own publisher, and they filter lets things through much more radically than mainstream. Wikileaks reflects Assanges politics in that power is self-serving and there is need for resistance. It does function as checks and balances but it hopes for more radical changes.
      That is because of the mistrust of the mainstream media and a strong sense to give power to the people. Again, there are very good reasons for that but that is a radical step. It's withdrawing trust in the system. Compare it to Snowden. He gave his material to Greenwald and gave the full responsibility for what to publish to Greenwald. From then on it was out of Snowden's hands and if Greenwald decided to sit on something then Snowden had no say in it.Greenwald himself kept working with the Guardian despite serious conflicts - often Guardian dragging its feet about publishing. That attitude means 'Ok the system is seriously flawed but I stay within the system'. It doesn't necessarily mean Greenwald's view on the state of the media is less pessimistic. The difficulty with radicals is not necessarily their analysis but their solutions.

        Afterwards Greenwald started the Intercept which in many respects is mainstream: it publishes things which would have been published elsewhere without any problem, like the links you provide. So the Intercept is flawed and compromised as well but overall it provides good value. It often does not do the adversarial journalism Greenwald himself believes in, but it has enough of it. It can publish things like this condemnation of what is happening to Assange, which cannot be done in the mainstream: https://theintercept.com/2018/...

      I believe in checks and balances and I'm no revolutionary but I think in the current state there should be room for both Assange and Greenwald. Your comment that Assange doesn't know what he's talking about is plain wrong.

  7. Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You keep bees, you will get stung.

  8. Remember Folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2014, Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network.

    It's only okay when government does it.

  9. Time to show him the pavement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assange has always been a petulant twat. This is both an endearing and off-putting quality. Bottom line though, he is a guest of the Ecuadorian embassy and has cost them a bundle of money, space and privacy. He has violated thier trust with not so much as even a courtesy reach-around. I think they shoudl invite him to greet his adoring fans at thier balcony again and push him out. Given the Trump / Russia / Wikileaks connections Assange has jumped the shark in terms of legitimacy and utility. Time to boot him out.

  10. the enemy of your enemy is not your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Even if you think the gov'ts of the USA and UK are pure evil, that doesn't make Assange some come lately Robin Hood. He is a wicked man with his own wicked agenda. He isn't looking to liberate you, he's looking to be the one in power over you.

    1. Re: the enemy of your enemy is not your friend by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      What a load of garbage. Assange is not not out on an epic quest toward world domination, nor does he want to control me. All he's done on a world scale is point out certain truths by providing information.

      Also, he has he has helped stub out a few political dynasties that needed bright light shined on them.

  11. Re: Assange allegedly breached the embassy's netwo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you get to steal their honey and sell it at a nice price.

  12. The most like consequence of this by DrXym · · Score: 1
    If Ecuador knows who was meeting Assange and what they were talking about then the chances are the UK/US does too - by spying on Ecuador's spying.

    What is funny to me is that Assange allegedly hacked through a firewall and gained access to the embassy's own personal network. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

    1. Re:The most like consequence of this by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Yeah it does make you feel more ok with it if Ecuador now finally hands over Assange doesn't it.

  13. Skepticism required by barcarolle · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Verge: US media outlet. The Guardian: UK media outlet. Focus Ecuador: nobody ever heard of them before until now, but The Guardian felt it necessary that the story be co-written by people associated with it. That this may be disinformation is at the very least a strong possibility.

    1. Re: Skepticism required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More likely is that Focus Ecuador found out the details of the story but sold it to The Guardian and The Verve to get international distribution.

    2. Re:Skepticism required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Focus Ecuador: nobody ever heard of them before until now

      You hadn't, but that doesn't mean no-one had. It only takes a few seconds of Googling to find, for example, an article they published back in 2016 on Medium about corruption in Ecuador.

    3. Re:Skepticism required by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      You missed something somewhere. What about The Guardian's wish to credit Focus Ecuador makes the story possibly "disinformation"? Or alternatively what about The Guardian being British and the Verge being American makes it that? (If this is some kind of weird ass smear about The Guardian, well, you do know The Guardian is one of the only independent media outlets in the world, right? It's owned by a self-contained trust that exists solely to publish The Guardian and related newspapers, and the trust itself is run by journalists. It has its biases but it's not in any way establishment or government controlled - hell, they've had MI-5 enter their offices and smash their computers in the past, and were one of the first newspapers to raise the profile of Wikileaks, and assisted them for a time.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re: Skepticism required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so bloody obvious this is what is really happening, only incompetent people won't see it.

      Focus Ecuador? what is that supposed to be??? no one knows those new guys... sounds more like the country motto: FOCUS ECUADOR!

    5. Re:Skepticism required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/death-drugs-and-hsbc-355ed9ef5316

      The Guardian, in contrast, has loudly and triumphantly congratulated itself for reporting on the HSBC Swiss bank scandal despite the bank putting its advertising relationship with the newspaper “on pause.” Yet the newspaper has refused to cover Wilson’s story exposing HSBC fraud in Britain. Why?

      Here’s something you won’t read in the Guardian. During the Treasury Select Committee meeting on 15th February, it emerged that the newspaper that styles itself as the world’s “leading liberal voice” happens to be the biggest recipient of HSBC advertising revenue: bigger even than the Telegraph.

      According to the Guardian Media Group’s annual financial review last year, its American website, Guardian US, delivered “record online traffic” in the form of over 20 million unique monthly users “representing year-on-year growth of 12%.” User growth permitted a dramatic increase in advertising revenues: “Revenues from US operations more than doubled on the previous 12-month period, reflecting advertising demand and sponsorship deals with partners such as HSBC, Netflix and Airbnb.”

      HSBC’s “partnership” with the Guardian Media Group has thus played an integral role in enabling the Guardian’s US venture to maximise its revenues, and expand its work.

      The Guardian’s links with HSBC go beyond mere advertising. Much has been made of the fact that the newspaper is owned and run by The Scott Trust, originally created in 1936 “to safeguard the title’s journalistic freedom.” The paper, wrote leftwing columnist Owen Jones in the wake of Peter Oborne’s revelations, “is unique for being owned by a trust rather than a media mogul.”

      I have a lot of respect for Jones, who is doing important work, but his assertion here is untrue and misleading.

      The Guardian is not owned by a trust at all. In 2008, “the trust was replaced with a limited company” that was accordingly re-named “The Scott Trust Limited.” Though not a trust at all, but simply a profit-making company, it is still referred to frequently as ‘The Scott Trust,’ promulgating the widely-held but mistaken belief in the Guardian’s inherently benign ownership structure.

      The new company purports, like many other corporate entities, to be guided by a range of commendable values, including the task of maintaining the Guardian’s editorial independence. The problem, of course, is that the Guardian functions under the same sort of corporate structure as any other major media company.

      The chair of the Scott Trust Ltd. board is Dame Liz Forgan, who has repeatedly called for the financial sector to contribute more to the arts. Two years ago, her attitude to the sector was revealed when she described government tax-cuts to the wealthy as “helpful changes in the tax law,” but opined that the “huge new wealth created in the City” as a result was only problematic because it is not “finding its way to the arts.” British financiers, she suggested, should follow the exemplary model of Russian oligarchs, who “respect and value their culture.” It is difficult to understand how corrupt oligarchs with nothing better to do than lavish stolen wealth on obscene ‘artistic’ pursuits of concern to a tiny Russian minority should in anyway be considered a model for Britain, given the record levels of impoverishment in Russia (thanks in no small part to neo-liberal austerity), not to mention growing inequality in the UK manifest in demand for food banks which in 2013 had rocketed up by 54%.

      Forgan is deputy chair of the board of the British Museum, where she was appointed a trustee in 2008. According to minutes of a British Museum board meeting that year, the board approved a bank mandate to open an HSBC accoun

  14. Unity Is Sure Guarantee for Building Independent N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    May. 15, Juche 107 (2018) Tuesday

    Unity Is Sure Guarantee for Building Independent New World

    Unity of the forces for independence against imperialism is a sure guarantee for building an independent, new world.

    If the non-aligned countries and other developing countries maintain firm stand of independence and get united closely to wage common struggle, it would be possible to marginalize the imperialist forces and successfully foil their aggression and interference, defend the sovereignty of countries and nations and realize the global independence.

    What is important above all is to maintain independence in achieving the unity of the forces of independence against imperialism.

    Unity is aimed to oppose all forms of domination and subjugation and build an independent new world and, therefore, it should be oriented toward the struggle against imperialism.

    The non-aligned movement constitutes the leading force for building a free and peaceful, new world. The movement has to be steadily strengthened as long as the imperialist forces pursuing domination, interference, aggression and plunder and expanding the military bloc for aggression exist on the earth.

    Actions should be waged against the moves to disintegrate and disable the non-aligned movement. The member nations of the non-aligned movement have to stand against the imperialists' separation and estrangement moves with the strategy of unity and get closely united on the principle of mutual respect, non-interference, equality and reciprocity.

    When the world progressive people stand strongly with the might of unity based on independence, will it be possible to make the imperialists helpless and accelerate the building of an independent new world.

    Kim Sung Gol

  15. Assange: "The Five Million Dollar Man!" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    They are made of pure gold or what lol ???

    Back in the 70's, $6 Million would have bought you a whole Bionic Man.

    But I guess Assange is not a former astronaut and test pilot, so Ecuador didn't consider that extra investment.

    Although, it would have been definitely cool for them to be able to brag:

    "We have a Bionic Man in our London embassy!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Assange: "The Five Million Dollar Man!" by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I'm getting old.

    2. Re:Assange: "The Five Million Dollar Man!" by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      It was cheaper due to the initial research already being complete. I mean, the US broadcast an entire series of documentaries over the public airwaves.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  16. Re: Assange allegedly breached the embassy's netwo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only thing Assange produces is piss & shit but you're welcome to eat/drink that down if you still believe in his holy personage.

  17. publish it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So? Harper-Collins will pay more than that for the book rights. Hey, Ecuador, I want a percentage.

  18. Hang him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking traitor

    1. Re:Hang him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking traitor

      Hang who for betraying what country?

    2. Re:Hang him by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he means Australia? However I have not heard of the Australian Government mentioning Assange as a traitor.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
  19. Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this were true, there'd be some evidence shown on wikileaks or fox news.

  20. Skepticism of skeptic required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just check out this guys comment history.

  21. Kick his a** out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And send him to Gitmo!

  22. Kick Assange to the curb by mysidia · · Score: 1

    In 2014, Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network.

    Seriously? After all the hospitality they've provided Assange? They need to write up formal charges for this and extradite him for computer crimes committed at the embassy. He should get a LONG stay in an Ecuadorian prison that will make the Sweden rape allegations look small by comparison.

    1. Re:Kick Assange to the curb by swb · · Score: 1

      True or not, overstated or not, you'd think that Assange would be of a mind to be as deferential as humanly possible to the the embassy, located in a country desperate to nab him, which was sheltering him.

  23. I hope the UK spent 100x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reap what you sow!

  24. Re:Assange allegedly breached the embassy's networ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > You keep bees, you will get stung.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    ROFL!

    Very good joke :)

    +5 Funny.

    I suspect most of slashdot (like 99.999%) will not get your joke :)

  25. Phrasing is everything, in "news" stories... by zarmanto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network. ...

    Rough translation: Assange found that little placard with the WiFi password written on it for all to freely use, discovered an open share on one of the embassy's network-connected computers (but probably didn't find anything particularly interesting on it) and then he casually turned on his VPN to tunnel through the embassy firewall and log into Wikileaks.

    It feels to me like certain high profile personalities in the media (like Assange, but certainly not limited to him) are all-too-often treated like they possess some sort of super-intelligence, and can do shockingly amazing things with computers. The reality is likely to be underwhelming most of the time, when you break down the colorful but vague terminology into layman's terms.

    1. Re:Phrasing is everything, in "news" stories... by PPH · · Score: 1

      It really could be this simple.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Phrasing is everything, in "news" stories... by zarmanto · · Score: 1

      Great scene... and now I have a sudden urge to go home and watch the movie again. (Oh, but if only I could up-vote comments in my own thread...)

  26. Incorrect strategy, numba one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2014, Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network.

    I knew it! Julian Assange is a Borg.

  27. Wikileaks *always* pushed a political agenda by drnb · · Score: 1

    He turned Wikileaks from a service publishing information to the public while protecting the source to a political weapon to push a specific political agenda.

    Actually wikileaks *always* pushed a political agenda. Their famous gulf war video was edited so as to remove the fact that the journalists killed were essentially "embedded" with an armed insurgent group while blocks away American troops were fighting other insurgents. Hang with insurgents near a firefight and you run the legitimate risk of getting Apache'd.

    Wikileaks was the same during the Bush and Obama years, the only difference is that some cheered during the former and others cheered during the latter. The difference only being the politics of those cheering.

    1. Re:Wikileaks *always* pushed a political agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except America didn't belong in that country. They were an invasive, occupational force. This means efforts to kill those Americans are noble, patriotic acts of resistance. Which is something the Americans did to the British. And something the native Indians did to the Americans.

      If you measure them by the yardstick of the Founding Fathers, these are all noble acts of legitimate resistance.

      Obviously the modern American narrative only suits itself. It's okay to have "embedded" journalists if they agree to print whatever propaganda the intel dicks have cooked up, and promise not to print anything that might "hurt troop morale" because at it's heart - America is a basically giant hippocritical faggot.

    2. Re:Wikileaks *always* pushed a political agenda by drnb · · Score: 1

      Except America didn't belong in that country.

      Irrelevant. Your political opinion does not disprove wikileak's political agenda, it merely exemplifies the the political beliefs behind wikileaks's political agenda.

    3. Re:Wikileaks *always* pushed a political agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's irrelevant. That's the American way of pointing out how it's entirely revelant. Wikileaks might be a huge, comprimised p.o.s but if they release files that can verified as authentic who cares? What kind of idiot goes "oh that release hurts my candidate so now this is untrue". Or irrelevant. Too bad if you don't like it. Even if Wikileaks is a commie psy-op front with a secret North Korean agenda.

  28. Google can fix that by drnb · · Score: 1

    Cameras are cheap. People to watch them, however, aren't.

    Google is working with the Pentagon to fix that.

  29. Now adjust for inflation by drnb · · Score: 1

    Back in the 70's, $6 Million would have bought you a whole Bionic Man.

    Now adjust for 40+ years of inflation. Might want to review the costs using modern components too. :-)

  30. weird priorities by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Spending $5m on Assange seems like weird priories from a country where 25% of the population makes less than $2/day.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  31. American's still butthurt after all these years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm always amused by the outrage expressed by Americans regarding Assange. Yep he certainly outed the US doing terrible and embarrassing things. You blame him for snitching rather than looking at your own actions. Sad really.