
Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' - dharma1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37680411
======
jacquesm
\- Is the whole embassy shut down?

\- Is there any direct reason for the timing (US elections, attack on Mosul or
other current headlines)?

\- Was there any imminent release? (last week there was an announcement of a
leak but it didn't materialize as far as I know)

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/4/13159914/wikileaks-
hillary...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/4/13159914/wikileaks-hillary-
clinton-julian-assange-google)

\- You'd assume that Wikileaks the organization will continue to work even
without Assange having internet access so what exactly will this accomplish
other than lending support to Assange's stated reasons for hiding in an
embassy to begin with?

edit: another comment here suggests the reason may be because his extradition
is imminent.

[http://time.com/4532984/wikileaks-julian-assange-
theories/](http://time.com/4532984/wikileaks-julian-assange-theories/)

~~~
mikeash
They can't possibly isolate it to just Assange, so it must be the whole
embassy.

My money is on this being an errant backhoe or similar, and Assange is just
turning it into a big deal because he can.

~~~
HillRat
On the other hand, "state actor" could certainly refer to Ecuador deciding to
turn off Assange's access. WikiLeaks tends to be fairly economical with the
truth about its own operations, so being purposefully ambiguous isn't anything
new for them.

And, while Ecuador hasn't had to deal with meaningful diplomatic repercussions
from sheltering Assange, the high-profile role WL is taking in the 2016
elections, and specifically the partisan and selective nature of their leaks,
means that Ecuador is dealing with a very different qualitative situation than
when WL was acting as an impartial if indiscriminate journalistic source.

In other words, Quito may very well be looking at the situation and deciding
that being implicated in attempts to manipulate the US election is way more
trouble than it's worth.

~~~
joshuaheard
I don't think Assange is a partisan. He's Australian after all and has no
stake in this election. I think he is releasing info on Hillary because that
is what he has and is timing the release for maximum public exposure. If he
had similar info on Trump, I firmly believe he would be doing the same thing.

~~~
edanm
It's pretty well known that Assange has a vendetta against Hillary Clinton.
Just searching for Assange Clinton on Google brings up lots of articles on the
subject.

~~~
tptacek
No, it's pretty well known that Assange _claims_ to have a vendetta against
HRC. The details of that vendetta don't make much sense. It's clearly easier
for him and his supporters to claim that they're acting out of enmity towards
Clinton --- a minor figure in virtually all of Assange's dealings with the US
--- than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly
supporting Donald Trump.

Nerddom and the left (and I'm somewhere in the overlapping circles on that
Venn diagram) have a powerful rooting interest in Julian Assange and
Wikileaks, who many of us see as a vanguard of an effort to disrupt politics
and the media, both of whom we as a demographic have little respect for. The
simple fact is that Assange is campaigning for Donald Trump. But that's very
hard for us to admit, regardless of the amount of evidence we're confronted
with.

~~~
insickness
You write as if Trump is just as dirty as Clinton and Assange is simply
choosing to not release that information. It is possible that Clinton is, as
Trump says, the dirtiest candidate in the history of politics. She's been hit
with scandal after scandal. And before you say those scandals are a result of
partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did.

~~~
daveFNbuck
The Republicans have spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars
investigating Hillary and so far, nothing has stuck. She may actually be the
cleanest candidate in the history of politics.

~~~
freehunter
I wouldn't say "cleanest". A lot of the stuff she's been investigated for is
completely true, but for whatever reason hasn't stuck. We know for a fact the
whole emails thing was completely true. She sent state secrets over a private
email server using non-secured devices, and those emails were leaked to
foreign governments. Doesn't sound "clean" to me.

~~~
JackFaker
An aside - it's been mentioned many times in recent years that the rules
regarding email for adminstration officials were never so clearly defined as
to preclude someone from running their own email server and the Bush
administration employed many non governmental email accounts and servers. They
even 'lost' Up To 22 million.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy?wprov=sfla1)
I'm honestly curious as to why that was never investigated with the same level
of intensity.

~~~
acdha
The simplest explanation is that the Democrats were only briefly in power in
Congress and going after the Bush administration didn't make political sense —
Obama rather famously called to move forward rather than fight over the past.

In contrast, a wide range of right-wing people have spent three decades and
many millions of dollars going after both Clintons, with considerable personal
demonization over that time. When Obama was elected, the GOP's goal was to
limit him to one term. That means a bunch of people had angles to exploit
anything remotely plausible: it kept the base riled up and voting accordingly,
it helped attack the sitting president by association, and maybe damage his
most likely successor. The entire email story was only discovered as part of
the endless attempts to trump up a scandal from the Benghazi attack, by which
time the pattern of relentlessly litigating everything was just the assumed
default.

There just isn't an equivalent on the Democratic side. Yes, there are people
who don't like Bush (or now Trump) but there aren't rich people pushing to
scrutinize his private life and the members of Congress don't seem to think
that's a good use of their time.

------
anthony_romeo
We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this
way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta
e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible
sexual assault were released.

Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it
became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's
name was to prime the listening audience in a way such that when information
so irreparably damaging would get released, the voters would have to choose
between continuing a corrupt government and choosing an apparently mad
authoritarian, and to soften the landing on the former. Since the RNC, Trump's
campaign has been entirely pushing "Don't believe their lies", and the
gaslighting from both sides seems to be hitting a nadir at this moment. It's
becoming far more difficult to find reality in the fog.

These are indeed interesting times.

~~~
pdx
To further what you're saying.

Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a
pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for.

The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted
out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release.

This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate
at this point, since the very emails they are trying to distract us from,
detail instance after instance after instance of such collusion.

I share your concern that we'll ever get honest reporting from the media
again, and I have to wonder how many years (decades?) this has been occurring.

~~~
droopybuns
I'd like to suggest a more significant conclusion.

The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS,
Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged.

I've been a cord cutter for over a decade. This year I graduated to pitying
people who repeat the latest front page story as naive fear-junkies.
Everything is suspect. Why burn processing cycles reading stories that on
their face are actually stupid with conclusions that are unsupported by
verifiable facts? ([http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-prepping-possible-
cy...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-prepping-possible-cyber-strike-
against-russia-n666636))

Between the Sponsored Content, Native Ads and all of the investigative
journalists who (according to DNC emails) are labeled as "friends," I have no
choice but to say "I quit." They are pretty lies that don't nourish!

~~~
javajosh
It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To
reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not
justified by fact. Manipulating the timing of release is a common tool used by
literally every public figure and institution. To characterize timing
manipulation as collusion and to imply that it means no-one can be trusted is
a critical mistake.

Given my position, I think it's useful to state what _would_ undermine the
credibility of an institution of journalism. It's actually really simple: if
it persistently reports incidents for which there is no proof, or if it
reports incidents in such a way that obscures the facts themselves (spin). Any
institution that regularly confuses _editorializing_ for _journalism_ losses
its credibility. By these rules there are many institutions that are not
trustworthy (e.g. Fox) but there are many institutions that are (the NYT).

~~~
grandalf
How is the NYT trustworthy. The front page contains a dozen or so anti-Trump
stories and zero about anything in the email leaks. I want to trust the
NYTimes but it's hard to take seriously a paper that ignores something
important. The same would be true if it had ignored Trump's leaked tax docs.

~~~
snowwrestler
That is because the recent email leaks just validated what everyone already
knew about Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

The fact that the emails were LEAKED OMG is not the newsworthy part. It is
what is in them. And largely speaking, there's not much news in them.

IMO a major problem in the U.S. today is that not many people understand how
political campaigns or the federal government actually work. So a lot of
people can be led to believe that boringly standard practices like revising
talking points over email, and getting updates on court hearings, are actually
proof of corruption. But they're not.

~~~
angry-hacker
And what don't we already know about Trump? Even if true, if this is serious
journalism, why they keep printing she said he said? Wouldn't it be excellent
time to print the stories of the alleged rape victims of Bill Clinton too?
Since they publicly admit he and Hillary is a team? If you think media is not
one sides, even if sided slightly more sane side, you're out of your mind.

~~~
jphillipsio
These stories were beaten to death in the 90's. Back then, I hoped that they
would impeach Bill just so I wouldn't have to hear about it any more. I don't
think you'll find many people that want to do it all over again.

------
PJDK
I'm a bit confused by all the comments here spinning off down conspiracy
theories, but not much on facts.

"State actor" can only really mean UK or Ecuadorian government - or at the
very least one of those two must be pulling the trigger.

If it's Ecuador that makes some sense, they control the connections to the
outside world - they could just change some passwords and internet is cut. But
that would be very obviously what had happened so why not just name them.

Alternatively the UK could cut the connection from outside the embassy. I
don't see how that could be done without cutting off the internet for the
whole embassy. That would possibly be in breach of the Vienna Convention [0]
but at the very least I can't imagine it happening without creating a gigantic
diplomatic stink.

Neither of those options sound that plausible. Is there a third I've missed?
Somehow know it's Assange browsing and kill all his packets in flight?

Also, this is central London - the internet floats freely through the air.
Contingency measure is tethering?

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations#Summary_of_provisions)

~~~
mikeash
That's because there are no facts. We don't even know if the internet was cut
in the first place. (One wonders how they managed to post to Twitter without
internet access.) The "state actor" part is _completely_ unsubstantiated.

The third option you've missed is "this is all bullshit." Either because it's
not happening at all, or because the embassy's internet is down due to some
routine outage.

~~~
paralelogram
It's possible to use Twitter via SMS:
[https://support.twitter.com/articles/14014](https://support.twitter.com/articles/14014)

~~~
mikeash
It would be pretty weird if SMS were available but not data.

~~~
FireBeyond
No it wouldn't. SMS is actually a control message on the voice stream (my
words might not be precise). You can send SMS with no data connectivity.

~~~
mikeash
I meant _in this particular case_ it would be weird, because it would mean
that the perpetrators are somehow blocking mobile data but neglected to block
SMS.

~~~
FireBeyond
Right, and there are ways you can consider the validity of either method, but
to block SMS would mean blocking voice.

Perhaps a temporary data hiccup might be a more realistic solution (or
simulation, if malicious) versus "Call cannot be connected".

~~~
mikeash
I think a state actor could filter at will, since they could MITM the
connection and pass stuff through selectively. Not that I can see why they
would bother. Although I can't see why they would take this action at all,
which is why I don't believe the story in the first place.

~~~
FireBeyond
Pretty much, agreed.

------
JD557
WikiLeaks just released more information about this:
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865)

>We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT,
shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs.

------
SCdF
Instead of jumping on this as a giant conspiracy, it might be worth
considering that it's just that his internet went down.

I mean, until there is actual evidence that Hillary Clinton[1] deployed a
highly trained collection of seals (the animal, not the US military
contingent) to cut through his tube wires in the death of the night and then
pelt across hide park and hide in the serpentine, perhaps we should just
consider that public services in the UK are incompetent.

My internet went down last week, you don't see me reaching for the anti-seal
spray.

[1] Well, the robot that replaced Hillary Clinton obviously, as we all know
she's been dead for 20 years

~~~
AvenueIngres
1/ Unless you have dumped massive datasets of classified USG data I fail to
see how your situation is similar to Assange's. What might be coincidental for
you is not when it comes to JA.

2/ Since you post on HN I guess you sure understand that there is no need to
alter the physical layer if you want to ostracize a subnetwork from the
Internet.

~~~
SCdF
Except as I understand it, he has a dead man's switch set up, so all severing
his internet is going to do is have him leak everything anyway.

Also, he's not the only person running Wikileaks , he's mostly the public
persona, but there are other people who are not stuck in an embassy right?

~~~
eumoria
Yea with this being the case it's a little confusing. If they were going to
extradite, though, wouldn't that start with officially taking custody? Aka
sort of an arrest meaning taking personal devices/access away? I'm sure it's
super complicated...

------
herghost
I do find myself confused by Assange's motivation when taken in context of his
circumstances.

If he has and holds evidence of something so damaging that a tweet of the
supposed hash of the file is enough to be a threat to a person in power, then
why has he allowed himself to live under effectively self-imposed house-arrest
for the past 4 years?

I can't imagine that the Wikileaks apparatus doesn't have sufficient op-sec
and op-capability to ensure that whatever they're holding gets released
effectively should they choose for it to be, so I find myself erring towards
this being an over-played hand for the most part.

~~~
ddalex
It's akin to a nuclear exchange. You can only use it once. It's MAD.

So you hold onto it to protect a high value asset - your life. Assume that you
want charges dropped unto you - and you get that granted. Then you want
something more annoying to the powers you control - maybe that would be
granted. But at a certain point the cost to grant you wishes is going to be on
the same level as the threat you hold over me, and then I may decide to take
the fallout, and be done with it.

I suspect we're on the verge of this - Assange has something so damning that
the fallout of having him taken out in broad daylight becomes something you
contemplate. If this is so, at this point if Assange goes public with what he
knows, he's a dead man anyway.

~~~
jsprogrammer
The likely fallout of assassination is your own death. I'm not sure there is
anyone who feels like Julian's death is worth their own.

------
willvarfar
It suits Assange's narrative to say its a "state actor", just as it suited
Yahoo's board to claim "state actors" as they disclosed their latest breach.

Assange's ego really dilutes the wikileaks original goals and its no surprise
that the actual doers in the organisation upped and left in 2010.

~~~
gaur
I had a neutral opinion of Assange until he posted (and then deleted) a tweet
with echo parentheses. That made it pretty obvious he's not really in it for
any noble purpose.

~~~
SamBam
Wow. Screenshot?

(For those not aware, (((echo parenthesis))) are an anti-semitic symbol used
by white supremacists to highlight people who are Jewish.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses)

Edit: Wow, here it is: [http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-
anti-s...](http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-
semitism/)

    
    
        Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses.
    

i.e. most of our critics are Jewish. Presumably part of some kind of cabal....

Here's a white-supremacist organization praising Assange for the tweet:
[http://www.dailystormer.com/julian-assange-and-general-
flynn...](http://www.dailystormer.com/julian-assange-and-general-flynn-attack-
dirty-jews-on-twitter/)

    
    
        Anti-Semitism is rising. Everywhere. We are going high-profile.  
        Wikileaks’ Julian Assange and General Flynn this week have tweeted openly anti-Semitic tweets.

~~~
shard972
> (For those not aware, (((echo parenthesis))) are an anti-semitic symbol used
> by white supremacists to highlight people who are Jewish.

Then why do I see self proclaimed jews on twitter with the walls? I though it
was a joke.... Considering it's... twitter.

~~~
kbenson
We're talking about a news organization responsible for leaking US secrets,
with it's head using the asylum of an embassy to prevent extradition on crimes
he says are politically motivated, releasing hacked emails in an attempt to
disrupt a presidential candidacy. This was using the official twitter channel
for Wikileaks. I'm not sure what part of that lends itself to joking, and even
if it did, an anti-semitic one isn't what I would consider appropriate for a
organization such as that, and would need to be addressed specifically. Even
on twitter.

Also, how it that funny? Using Jewish stereotypes and anti-semitic labeling to
imply your critics are Jews trying to climb the social ladder? Is that
supposed to pass for humor? Maybe next he'll make some comment about a group
of people with no jobs, having great tans, and that just love to eat fried
chicken and watermelon. What a comedian, that guy.

------
Pilfer
Rodger Stone (who may have back-channel communications with Wikileaks staff
[0]) shared two tweets suggesting that this might be US backed action. Note
these tweets are still unconfirmed. At time of writing I have not yet seen
this information corroborated elsewhere.

1) _" John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with "grave
consequences for Equador" if Assange is not silenced @StoneColdTruth"_ [1]

2) _" Reports the Brits storm the Ecuadorian Embassy tonite while Kerry
demands the UK revoke their diplomatic status so Assange can be seized"_ [2]

It really does make me wonder what documents Wikileaks might have that could
make US diplomats so riled up.

[0] [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-stone-back-
chann...](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-stone-back-channel-
julian-assange)

[1]
[https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/787858612844695552](https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/787858612844695552)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/787863160149598208](https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/787863160149598208)

~~~
AvenueIngres
> that this might be US backed action

I doubt the USG is involved in this. They have a pretty solid track record of
both respecting human rights and due process. Keep in mind the US government
is the most ethical government in the world. Assange, on the other hand, is a
rapist and a Russian puppet trying to hijack the US election. He probably is a
Trump supporter in disguise and a closeted systemd committer. If that wasn't
enough, there are multiple reports claiming that Assange does not respect PEP8
in his code. This last thing was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

~~~
harry8
I nearly bit. Well played.

~~~
mirkules
Yeah me too. I had to look up PEP8 to finally get it.

------
unixhero
From the bowels of 4Chan

[https://i.imgur.com/abcVS6q.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/abcVS6q.jpg)

~~~
fractal618
I'm afraid to look

~~~
noer
It's not that bad, it's an imgur link and the only thing objectionable about
the image is an abstract version of pepe.

That said the content of the post is pretty unbelievable.

TL;DR: a 4chan poster claiming to be an intelligence officer says that the
United States forced Ecuador to allow extradition of Assange.

------
haberman
I'm still processing this information, and holding out to form a full opinion
until more details become available/confirmed.

In the meantime, I'm curious, for people who are angry about this: suppose it
is actually true that Assange is working together with Russian hackers in an
attempt to influence a US election. Do you believe there is any point at which
governments should intervene to protect national sovereignty and integrity of
the political process?

If WikiLeaks was releasing dirt on both candidates I would feel much
differently.

~~~
Kequc
There is no evidence Russia is involved. Given what was apparently Podesta's
password coupled with a lack of two factor authentication, these leaks
wouldn't have exactly required a team of elite hackers. But even if it was
Russia. No, you cannot justify a hot war as a result of cyber crime. That is
absolutely insane and Clinton is flat out dangerously wrong on that point.

The releases expose corruption, it isn't necessarily partisan. Wikileaks used
to release documents about George W Bush, and Putin as well.

~~~
bduerst
>There is no evidence Russia is involved.

That's not what the FBI investigation is saying:

> Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Homeland Security
> Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday that they are confident that senior-level
> Russian officials were involved in the hacks.

[http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-
wikileaks...](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks-
hack-fbi-statement-229675)

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
Because we haven't seen _any_ collusion between the DNC and the FBI this
year...

~~~
bduerst
We haven't, unless you've got some proof I don't know about. That's actually a
pretty absurd claim.

Are you implying that the DNC intentionally leaked the emails to wikileaks and
are colluding with the FBI to blame Russia?

~~~
khattam
>Are you implying that the DNC intentionally leaked the emails to wikileaks
and are colluding with the FBI to blame Russia?

Nope. He's just implying that FBI and DNC are working together.

What is more likely though is: DNC was hacked, Wikileaks is doing what it has
done for 10 years i.e. releasing information so that it makes maximum impact
and Clintons are trying to damage-control by implying that Russia is
involved... all while telling their Russian friends to pretend as if they
support Trump (who has never worked with anything Russian ever... unlike the
Clintons).

~~~
bduerst
Except the FBI cyber crime division, independent of the Clintons or the DNC,
is the one accusing the Russians of making the hack. The FBI, whose sole
purpose is to protect the U.S. against terrorist and _foreign intelligence_
threats.

> Trump (who has never worked with anything Russian ever... unlike the
> Clintons)

I can't tell if this is satire. Trump's campaign manager was responsible for
installing 2 Pro-Putin dictators [1]. Also considering that Assange works for
RT [2] (Russia's international Propos machine [3] which is all pro-Trump ATM),
I think it's _more likely_ that the FBI isn't fabricating facts here when they
say the hack was related to Russia.

[1] [http://www.politifact.com/global-
news/article/2016/may/02/pa...](http://www.politifact.com/global-
news/article/2016/may/02/paul-manafort-donald-trumps-top-adviser-and-his-ti/)

[2] [https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-
show/](https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_\(TV_network\)#Propaganda_and_related_issues)

~~~
shard972
Kellyanne Conway hasn't installed russian dictators, that's really out there.

~~~
bduerst
Which is why it was Paul Manafort. Read the link if you really don't know.

------
Iv
My understanding is that we do not have any proofs of life from Assange. It
could be many things: assassination, deal with Ecuador, extradition by Ecuador
or someone else, simply an internet censorship, a PR stunt by Assange.

All is possible. This guy lives a fucking dystopian nightmare.

~~~
ctz
It could be any of these things. It could also be BT OpenReach.

~~~
Monotoko
Definitely most likely.

------
staticelf
From a Swedish perspective the Julian Assange case is particular close to the
heart since it really shows how corrupt even our courts and politicians are.
Sweden is rated as one of the countries with the lowest corruption but still 6
years have passed without even interviewing him for the pathetic accusations.

The entire case is a joke and whatever the US-election result is, it's bad for
the entire world since our corrupt politicians will do whatever American
corrupt politicians say.

~~~
rimantas
How do you suggest Sweden should interview him? Attack an embassy?

~~~
jacquesm
Just go visit. He already agreed that it would be ok long ago.

~~~
dagw
It's not that simple. They had to find a procedure that is acceptable to
Swedish, Ecuadorian and British courts. These negotiations have only recently
been completed and a meeting has tentatively been booked for the end of
October.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, I'm sure that there was no way this could have been done faster and that
the statue of limitations in Sweden running out had nothing to do with it. /s

~~~
dagw
Sure it could have been done faster, but that doesn't mean the necessary legal
negotiations where trivial.

~~~
jacquesm
It doesn't mean they had to take years either.

~~~
icebraining
In my (Western European!) country, a women was just arrested after being
convicted in 2000. I don't know the Swedish legal system, but it doesn't
surprise me that such a thorny issue takes a long time.

------
Shank
Seems to me like whichever "state party" this was didn't consider the
implications behind their actions. Wikileaks has released insurance files in
the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't, automatically or not,
trigger a dead man's switch for more leaks.

If you're a state party trying to prevent leaks, silencing Julian is probably
the worst way to go about it. It would be arcane not to think of this scenario
and plan for it.

~~~
Solinoid
So long as we're all speculating, perhaps the state actor who leaked the
documents to Wikileaks in the first place didn't agree with Assange's schedule
and wants to trigger the dead man's switch.

Well, I'm off to read some classic Tom Clancy.

~~~
Roritharr
That sounds sensible, they say it's over 500GB of Documents. The release of
such a flood of files would swamp all "public intelligence capacity" until
after the election.

If you looked at how long it took to find the gold nuggets in the Podesta
mails it sounds reasonable willing to force their hand.

~~~
FireBeyond
I think that any intelligence community that couldn't digest 500GB in full
text / keyword searching (keywords that are likely already configured/known)
between now and the election would be a pretty sad intelligence community.

Apropos of the keyword list, dissecting the corpus could be done in a few
hours with a promo-code worth of AWS time.

~~~
hulahoof
I think "Public Intelligence Capacity" was referring to the ability for use
regular members of society to find and verify meaningful information from the
leaks.

~~~
Roritharr
Yes, i thought more of "people on 4chan" than actually any Intelligence
Service of any nation state. I'm pretty sure they are mining it, but there
would be political fallout from publishing their findings.

------
Tomte
Ecuadorian president Correa is outgoing, not running for another term. There
will be a new president in a few months and it is almost inconceivable that a
new president could be nearly as accomodating as Correa towards Assange.

Something is going to happen in the next few months. Question is, how much
agency does Assange really have left?

------
DougN7
I am getting so damn sick of all of the corruption we're seeing in governments
all around the world, including the US/UK. Makes me want to vote for Trump and
take the whole crooked system down (unfortunately, that would cause a LOT of
pain for good everyday people).

~~~
pavlov
Yeah, the best way to cure a flu is to shoot yourself in the head.

~~~
tomp
Hillary => no change. Trump => change. Positive or negative? Who knows...

~~~
pavlov
What do you mean, "who knows"? Seriously, I have no idea how you can listen to
anything Trump says and come away with the idea that he represents positive
change.

Granted, most of Trump's output is not even properly formed sentences, so
maybe he's doing a malformed data denial-of-service attack on voters' senses?

~~~
tomp
He seems to be interested more in internal issues. Less wars abroad and de-
escalation of tensions with Russia.

He also seems to be quite anti-globalization, anti-TPP etc. Slapping Wall St
banks would be cherry on top.

In any case a change of "elites" (if not economical, at least political) would
be welcome. Probably won't be _less_ corruption, but _different_ corruption
instead.

Re: Trump's speeches - mostly non-sensical, yes, but at least he's not
_pretending_ to be truthful. Personally, I don't have any trust in what
Hillary says either - even though her lies are much more sophisticated and
eloquent.

~~~
pavlov
_He seems to be interested more in internal issues._

It seems extremely generous to characterize Trump as being interested in
anything at all except himself. All accounts suggest that he doesn't read. On
his private plane he watches his own TV appearances. He has put his name on a
hundred products, but he's not an entrepreneur and doesn't care at all about
developing the actual products.

Trump claims to be an expert on taxes, at least... But his former accountant
Jack Mitnick says he did all the work, and when Trump visited once a year, his
wife was actually asking more questions than Trump himself.

Really the best-case scenario for a Trump presidency is that his quantum-sized
attention span moves to something else and he leaves the United States to run
itself, like he did with the Trump University. That means Vice President Mike
Pence would be the effective president, supported by a Republican Congress...
And you can look at Pence's track record to see whose interests he represents:
ultraconservative fundamentalist Christian Republicans. Pence is as much part
of the establishment as Clinton. Is that really the change America needs?

 _Trump 's speeches - mostly non-sensical, yes, but at least he's not
pretending to be truthful._

What do you mean by that? He is definitely pretending to tell the truth. For
example, since last week he has been saying that the election is rigged
against him and there will be widespread vote fraud. There is not a shred of
evidence of this. Republicans all over the country are actively countering the
notion that the election is somehow being rigged. Yet Trump persists. That's
not a harmless white lie -- no candidate has questioned the legitimacy of US
elections since before the Civil War.

------
anondon
When Assange accesses the internet, I am guessing that state actors would be
trying to see what his traffic contains. How would a person in such a
situation access the internet and be sure that his traffic cannot be decrypted
and/or there is no man in the middle modification of his traffic. For the sake
of discussion, assume he has a brand new laptop with Debain/tails or another
FOSS OS. The general consensus seems to be to avoid MacOS and Windows in cases
where your life is on the line.

~~~
Kenji
He needs good friends who host VPNs for him. TOR would also be a good thing.
Maybe a combination of both.

Of course, those friends would have to visit him in person and give him some
public keys or something to verify their identity.

~~~
pilif
_> He needs good friends who host VPNs for him_

then the state actors would just bug that good friend.

~~~
rtpg
which would require infecting the VPN machines themselves? Just wiretapping
isn't sufficient because of public key encryption

Assuming the nodes themselves are not compromised (big ask) and identity can
be confirmed(like via key exchange), state actors can listen as much as they
want to the wires, they won't be getting much.

Except if some private key were out there...

~~~
tP5n
> Just wiretapping isn't sufficient

Please explain, I was under the impression that the above could not reasonably
be claimed anymore with any kind of certainty [1][2][3]. Perhaps I'm
misunderstanding something important here or the 'Happy Dance!!' slide [4]
made me paranoid.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/how-the-nsa-could-
pu...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/how-the-nsa-could-put-
undetectable-trapdoors-in-millions-of-crypto-keys/) [2]
[http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/cisco-firewall-
explo...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/cisco-firewall-exploit-
shows-how-nsa-decrypted-vpn-traffic/) [3]
[http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/how-the-nsa-can-
brea...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/how-the-nsa-can-break-
trillions-of-encrypted-web-and-vpn-connections/) [4]
[http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35515.pdf](http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35515.pdf)

~~~
rtpg
in the slides, check Slide 28. There's a bunch of useful software for
wiretapping, but they need access to things like the Pre-Shared Key, or to be
using an easily-exploitable connection mechanism like PPTP.

Of course router/firmware exploits cannot be prevented in the general case, so
NSA-likes could figure out a way get in. But the null hypothesis is still that
the NSA cannot crack strong encryption without some sort of pre-built backdoor
IMO.

Based off of the leaks, NSA gets into things via two ways: \- poisoning the
encryption methods \- social engineering/legal coercion to get keys

------
fnordo
According to Wikileaks it's the Ecuadorian Embassy that cut his access.

"We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT,
shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs."

~~~
tptacek
I'm absolutely just shocked that it was his own hosts that cut him off.

------
harryf
The more I look at this, the more it seems like a brilliant move by Assange to
force the media to report more on Wikileaks and the Podesta emails, not just
Trumps locker-room antics.

~~~
mejari
Locker-room antics of sexual assault?

~~~
harryf
Oh you mean that thing that is currently everywhere right now? Thanks for
reminding me!

Almost had my mind off it for 2 minutes while reading this Intercept article
about Hillary's relationship with the press
[https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-
leak...](https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-
clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/)

~~~
mejari
You... you literally brought it up yourself. Why are you angry at me for
responding to your own point?

~~~
harryf
Why do you assume I'm angry? I'm quite happy while questioning your agenda

~~~
mejari
My "agenda" was a direct response to your comment. You act like I'm trying to
change the subject or something.

------
throwaway98237
Perhaps this is this election cycle's "October Surprise"?

If this is Clinton attempting to seal-the-deal on the election, I'm officially
not voting. Anyone that uses the power of the state (read: the power of the
gun) to silence speech is a non-starter in my book.

~~~
mark_l_watson
I don't feel comfortable telling anyone who to vote for - a personal decision
that is no one else's business. I will say that for myself, when I was filling
out my early mail-in ballot yesterday, it was an easy decision voting for Jill
Stein. Our political system is corrupt and when lots of people (in the many
millions) vote for 3rd party candidates, that at least makes it harder for the
establishment to maintain the misdirection that our two party system gives
voters any real choice.

EDIT: you may have noticed the establishment propaganda instruments like MSNBC
and Fox News have a real campaign to discredit all 3rd party candidates in all
elections. Chuck Todd did a particularly shameless review of many 3rd party
candidates, mocking them, and mocking people who would vote for any 3rd party
candidates. What an asshole, and what un-American behavior. Everyone's opinion
should be respected.

~~~
fnovd
>Our political system is corrupt and when lots of people (in the many
millions) vote for 3rd party candidates, that at least makes it harder for the
establishment to maintain the misdirection that our two party system gives
voters any real choice.

So you're saying that voting 3rd party makes it harder for "the establishment"
to fool people into thinking they had a choice to begin with? That voting
makes it harder for the media to fool you into thinking your vote matters?
That drinking the Kool-aid makes it harder for Big Brother to trick you into
drinking the Kool-aid?

~~~
mark_l_watson
I don't think I am being fooled, but most people would say that. I totally
support friends and family who are voting for Trump and Clinton, even if I
like neither of them.

------
chvid
I assume the guy has more than one internet connection (ie. 3G and cable) and
that they have all been cut.

What is the point of these tweets:

    
    
       pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809
    
       pre-commitment 2: Ecuador eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72
    
       pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74
    

?

(From WikiLeak's twitter account.)

Are they hashes of some larger documents and somehow verify authenticity? Some
kind of keys or passwords? His dead man switch?

~~~
saint_fiasco
It says pre-commitment so it looks like a dead man switch. If something really
bad happens to Assange and someone releases documents about Kerry/Ecuador/FCO
we can look at the hashes and see if they match. That way we know it's not
some fake leak by an opportunist.

~~~
airesQ
If that is assassination-insurance should those bytestrings be keys to decrypt
files that are already in the wild?

Anyhow, I find the tweets very interesting. But I lack the context to know
what they mean. Were those tweeted before the blackout? After?

The UK FOC thing is particularly interesting. This might sound silly, but
perhaps somebody at MI5 was not happy the possibility of Foreign Office
correspondence being leaked and decided to something, anything, to stop it
from happening.

~~~
saint_fiasco
They were tweeted just before announcing the blackout. My guess is that when
the blackout happened they tweeted the pre-comitment as soon as they could
just in case.

They are not the keys because nothing that terrible happened yet. All they say
is that they have files on those topics, and if someone in the future releases
keys to some files, and those decrypted files' signature is as it says on the
tweet, then they must come from Wikileaks, since they posted that signature.

------
heisenbit
Wikileaks was about sharing facts.

Wikileaks today is about curating facts, interpretation and using facts
towards an end.

The "fact" state actor w/o proof is another step away from the roots.

~~~
gjolund
Wikileaks was leaking stuff I agreed with.

Now it isn't.

Wikileaks is bad.

------
raesene6
hmm I would suggest there's something more to this than "Internet cut off".
There's pretty much no chance you could cut off all connectivity from a
building in the heart of london
([https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Embassy+of+Ecuador/@51.4...](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Embassy+of+Ecuador/@51.4989645,-0.1636488,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x4876053ed57c44f1:0x4e64e9ae1448cd14!8m2!3d51.4989645!4d-0.1614601))

From that location you have Base station's covering all 4 major UK mobile
networks and I'd guess a large number of wi-fi hotspots.

So to "cut off" internet access, you've got to cut all BT lines in and out of
the building, block all 3/4G signals all round the building and block each and
every wi-fi band around that area, without smegging up all the frequencies in
a very central part of london, right next to large shopping areas like
Harrods.

you cant' just cut off devices known to belong to Assange, as anyone can buy a
4G router with cash from a shop in London which isn't easily attributable to
him.

oh yeah and I forgot there's the satellite internet bit they'd need to block
too.

~~~
rhino369
You are reading too much into "internet cut off." There is no indication that
mobile or satellite connectivity is blocked. Hell there is no real reason to
believe that the fiber was actually cut off.

~~~
raesene6
That's a view, I thought I was explaining why "Internet cut off" was likely
not the case (or at least not the only case). Wikileaks are suggesting that
he's been cut off by a state actor. I'm pointing out why that's pretty
unlikely.

------
Tycho
A lot of people paid a lot of money to get the Clintons into positions of
power. A lot of people need to protect their investment.

------
olivermarks
An enjoyable Twitter thread
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562)

------
imron
Well, I guess that's one way for a state actor to confirm the leaks are
real...

------
labster
If that state party is Ecuador, I'll laugh out loud.

~~~
sflicht
Whatever action was taken (and I'd bet that it was the UK acting on behalf of
the US government) was almost certainly done with the Ecuadorean government's
"permission" \-- although that permission might have been obtained somewhat
coercively.

------
rottyguy
A bit of an interesting dilemma in the spirit of transparency. Given an N-way
race, do you just reveal secrets pertaining to one participant (since this may
be all you have) or do you with-hold until you can reveal secrets from all
participants?

~~~
jerhinesmith
I've been struggling with this a lot. Granted it's pretty much all
speculation, but if it is a state actor that is giving Wikileaks this
information, and if said state actor was trying to influence the election, I
question the responsibility of Wikileaks. It could also be (and I'm aware of
this) simply that they're exposing information on "my" candidate, in which
case maybe I'd feel differently if was the other way around.

I'm glad this was posted on HN, because I'm looking forward to a (hopefully)
more informed discourse than I found on Reddit.

~~~
Mikeb85
Given that most of the leaks are emails from a single party, when said party
was known to use a weak email server, which was known to have been hacked at
one point, my guess is that it could be anyone, and doesn't need to be a
'state actor'.

PS. Have you seen the Podesta emails? They range from hilarious to pretty
disturbing.

~~~
NoGravitas
I'm definitely grateful for his risotto tips.

------
ComteDeLaFere
From the article -

"There was no way to immediately verify if he had been knocked offline, and if
so, how a state actor was suspected."

As far as I can tell, no one has verified any of this. Given JA's recent
bizarre state of mind, I'm not sure where all of this breathless HN commentary
is coming from.

~~~
niftich
How could one verify this?

~~~
ComteDeLaFere
You just proved my point. How does he know it's a "state actor"?

~~~
khattam
>How does he know it's a "state actor"?

You'd have to ask him that. Unfortunately, he is not allowed to talk.

------
wbhart
Ecuador's Foreign Minister Guillaume Long recently noted [1] that the embassy
has problems with internet connection and telephone and that it was their
belief the connection was being interfered with (hacked).

It is very likely Assange knows the difference between an internet connection
that is just suffering an outage, and an internet connection that has been
deliberately cut. If the "outage" only affects the embassy, and no other
clients on the same fibre, and if the ISP is unable to give information due to
"security issues", that would for example, be a big red flag, I would imagine
(I have no insight into what the situation really is, I'm just giving a for
instance).

Wikileaks also seems to be a broadly decentralised organisation, from what
little they've given away in past press releases about how they operate. I'm
sure I remember they once boasted about their crypto phones, etc. So it is
unlikely Assange has lost contact with the world, or that he personally is
maintaining their Twitter feed. The issue here is more what this portends,
rather than what it might do to Wikileaks.

[1] [http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/London-Threatens-
Quito...](http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/London-Threatens-Quito-Over-
Assange-Ecuador-Foreign-Minister-20160626-0022.html)

------
dantillberg
This story only states that Assange told them this along with his suspicion
that he's been targeted by some state, not e.g. a tree falling or a jackhammer
mis-jackhammering.

BBC has not verified any of those claims, and they went and reported it
despite the fact that part of it either isn't clear or doesn't make sense --
what does it even mean to have his internet "cut"?

This story could just as well turn out to be of a tree or a jackhammer.

~~~
ng12
If it were BT's fault surely they would provide an outage notice?

------
markwaldron
What are the odds that Donald Trump has reached out to Assange and made a deal
with him? I don't think it would be outside the realm of possibility that
Trump would say if he won he'd push for the US to drop charges against Assange
(although that doesn't clear him of the charges brought by other countries) in
return for Assange releasing whatever information he has on Hillary leading up
to the election.

~~~
3princip
Considering that Hillary wanted to "drone" him, it's a safe bet Trump can
hardly be worse, deal or no deal.

------
puppetmaster3
14 Wikileaks associates are also cut off from the internet:

[https://twitter.com/danrolle/status/788019208453890048](https://twitter.com/danrolle/status/788019208453890048)

~~~
FireBeyond
I love the double standards on that thread:

"This happened! Why? We said so! Gospel truth!"

Interfering with the election?

"Why? Because they said so? Fool!"

------
jagermo
PSA: Do not visit the Donald subreddit if you want to stay sane.

The tinfoil hats run really hot there.

------
puppetmaster3
[http://imgur.com/d1XcYp6](http://imgur.com/d1XcYp6)

Twitter has deleted whatever periscopes that were near or around the
Ecuadorian embassy.

------
tschiller
Assange has been scheduled to be interrogated by Sweden today (October 17th)
since at least mid-September [1]. Both the internet outage and the pre-
commitments are likely related to that. For more analysis (and the evaluate
the evidence yourself), follow along at
[https://www.opensynthesis.org/boards/14/who-cut-wikileaks-
fo...](https://www.opensynthesis.org/boards/14/who-cut-wikileaks-founder-
julian-assange-s-internet-access/)

[1] [http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/europe/julian-assange-
question...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/europe/julian-assange-questioning-
ecuador-sweden/)

------
dghughes
Did he try turning his router off then on again?

------
werid
Verizon support is on the case...

[https://twitter.com/VerizonSupport/status/787890336270090240](https://twitter.com/VerizonSupport/status/787890336270090240)

~~~
akerro
Why does Verizon end their messages with something like ^FEM or _DB or_ DMW?
What does it mean?

~~~
Jonnax
Multiple support agents use the same account so by having a small tag at the
end the customer knows who they are speaking to.

------
ajross
How sure are we that this isn't just a stunt by Assange? He can have visitors
in the embassy. All that's required is for someone to hand the guy a burner
phone and poof: twitter access!

So either he's in custody, or faking the whole thing IMHO. Surely his buddies
in London should be able to verify the former, and if they can't they'd surely
be screaming like hell that "We can't find Julian!".

The fact that everyone is radio silent tells me this is a stunt, honestly.

------
Kenji
I wish I could help Assange. This guy deserves a medal, and barely any country
has enough morals to host him. Here we have a presidential candidate seriously
saying "Can't we just drone this guy?" (Hillary Clinton, obviously) and barely
anyone stands up for him. People get extradited because otherwise there will
be economic embargos. Trade your morals for a 4K TV. Disgusting.

~~~
cylinder
For the average population of the US, just say someone's actions increase the
possibility of a terrorist attack, and you will have majority backing to throw
them to the wolves (and I mean literally). There's nothing I can do as an
American. Swedes, you have more power per capita, you should fight to get
these ridiculous rape charges dropped so he can make safe passage to Ecuador.

Amazing how Bob Woodward was a journalist hero who went onto have
unprecedented access to future Presidents for his books and yet this is
Assange's fate. It's disgusting.

------
stale2002
Oh man! Whats the upcoming Monday Surprise going to be! They have been hyping
it up. Leaks for everyone! Freaking leak Christmas over here.

~~~
evgen
Given current trends with Wikileaks-distributed Russian intel dumps, the
upcoming 'surprise' will be another big fat nothing-burger. Most likely case
is that Assange went a step too far in using the Ecuadorian's hospitality just
to become a Russian cut-out and at some point his ongoing attempts to
influence the election (and failing miserably at that) reminded the
Ecuadorians that they were gaining nothing by hosting him and now were looking
at another four years of fallout. TBH I don't think anyone really cared too
much about Assange, but his desperate need for attention ended up leading him
to play with fire.

~~~
tenpies
> Russian intel dumps

Has there been any evidence of this yet? I trust the government and main
stream media to accurately report the geographic source of technical
transactions about as much as I trust Facebook with privacy.

~~~
cookiecaper
There is no hard evidence that Russia is involved. Representatives of well-
known internet security firms have stated that they believe the attack comes
from the Russian government, but have nothing to provide other than their
professional opinion (which is not based on specific data afaik).

The Russia myth comes from everyone repeating each other and pretending like
it's fact. I don't really think Americans think of Russia as the big boogeyman
anymore so that whole propaganda spiel is of dubious advisability.

~~~
maxerickson
It's not just company reps, the US government issued a statement to the
effect:

[https://www.dhs.gov/node/23199](https://www.dhs.gov/node/23199)

~~~
alva
Read the statement very carefully. At no point do they actually say, or
directly suggest that Russia is behind the Podesta and DNC leaks.

The media and some politicians are full force memeing this, saying USG blames
Russia for the hack and leaks. The statement does not say this in the
slightest.

~~~
maxerickson
_We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only
Russia 's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities._

Those aren't really weasel words.

~~~
alva
>Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and
techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion
there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that
only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

There are weasel words if you are led to believe they are referring to the
DNC/Podesta hacks. Again read carefully. To which activity are they referring
to in that sentence?

~~~
maxerickson
Just promise to issue a mea culpa if they ever indict specific individuals
like they have in the past.

[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-charges-five-chinese-
milit...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-charges-five-chinese-military-
hackers-cyber-espionage-against-us-corporations-and-labor)

[https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-
attorney-a...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-
announces-charges-against-seven-iranians-conducting-coordinated)

------
TheSockStealer
Before everyone picks up their handy pitchforks and torches (too late?), in
times like this I am reminded of Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)

------
alexandercrohde
I think we should modify the Geneva convention to make cutting internet access
illegal. I think everybody should have the freedom to express their ideology,
even if jailed. It has always been legal to write letters from prison, it
should be a fundamental right to express dissent, particularly when it's
political.

~~~
angry-hacker
Publishing from prison as a service? Maybe there is market for it...

------
sflicht
A little more unsubstantiated info from Reddit [0].

[0]
[https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vu5l/red_alert...](https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vu5l/red_alert_wikileaks_on_twitter_julian_assanges/d8vfhtg)

~~~
threeseed
Don't forget this is the subreddit that has believed every bizarre, alt-right
conspiracy theory under the sun. You do nothing but make yourself look
ridiculous posting that nonsense.

~~~
davesque
Wow...I can understand that not everyone would agree with this comment, but
how can this end up in the grey?? Have people actually visited /r/the_donald
lately?

~~~
barleyworth
Yeah, that subreddit is terrifying. I'm more afraid of the people in there
than any other terrorist group. E.g. another comment on the same thread says
very matter-of-factly: "Let's just say by now you should have already bought
multiple guns."

------
nateberkopec
I wonder if he's bluffing with the MD5 hashes that were tweeted out. No way to
know.

~~~
45h34jh53k4j
SHA-256; MD5 too easy to find collisions now. This hash is broken never us it.

It doubt its a bluff, as JA hasn't bluffed with these things before.

------
novalis78
Interesting documentary from Project Veritas Action
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY)
just published today.

------
nstj
675 comments and no one actually knows what we're talking about.

What does "cut" mean? Why can't he just use a hotspot?

~~~
dancek
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865)

So if Ecuador decided to cut his internet access, they may just have
confiscated every device Assange has.

~~~
nstj
Makes perfect sense with that knowledge. Thanks for the heads up.

------
pjlegato
The "state actor" is Ecuador: [http://www.wsj.com/articles/wikileaks-says-
state-party-disru...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/wikileaks-says-state-party-
disrupted-assanges-internet-connection-1476714296)

------
Overtonwindow
I saw something a moment ago that Ecuador cut his internet. Anyone know of why
this would have happened?

------
toehead2000
The article doesn't say whether he tried turning it off and then turning it on
again...

------
Nadya
I had began archiving the /news and /newest because a lot of the Wikileak
threads I was upvoting were _disappearing into the ether_. Seems they were
getting mass-flagged/killed, this one survived. Also seems there has been
discussion earlier today but the threads were mass-flagged off the front page.

Previously:

    
    
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929 [208 points, 144 comments, buried]
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724507 [50 points, marked as dupe]
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724939 [23 points, buried]
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724525 [7 points, marked as dupe, dead]
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725175 [3 points, buried instantly]

~~~
leereeves
Doesn't Hacker News automatically bury posts that get a lot of comments?

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
No, not that I've ever seen. Though they do have a habit of burying/flagging
topics pertaining to the release of documents when they concern a particular
party. First few times could be brushed off as coincidence but over the last
few months topics from DCLeaks, Guccifer and Wikileaks have been targeted

------
arviewer
How much is a 4G dataplan in London? Even when he uses 100GB that should be
payable by them. Is that blocked as well? Then they have to block out that
area, and that won't go unnoticed.

~~~
iraklism
You can block mobile with directional means. It can be very targeted.

------
bedhead
Pretty interesting comparing the reactions to this and Snowden.

------
puppetmaster3
(related)
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720758](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720758)

------
evgen
Aaaaaand like all of Wikileaks' dumps, this one turns out to be completely
overblown BS. Boots on the ground confirm that absolutely NOTHING is happening
at the embassy, no one is breaking in and the report out of London is the
standard Monday morning complaint about the morning rain and the annoying
signal failure on the Central line that is messing with commutes.

If Assange did lose internet access it is because the Ecuadorians changed the
wifi password and didn't tell him. I am absolutely sure that we will be
getting a mea culpa from Roger Stone any minute now...

~~~
tripzilch
Would you please provide a link to these "boots on the ground" sources?
Otherwise your comment doesn't really contribute much.

~~~
evgen
Sorry, this is all old news to us in London who have been listening to the
echo chamber freak itself out for 12 hours over a bit fat nothing. Here is a
quick pointer to a similar query that went out to /r/London when the first
tweets were sent:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/57w670/amy_truth_th...](https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/57w670/amy_truth_that_the_ecuadorian_embassy_has_been/?st=iuecy9dp&sh=fe68caa7)
and people on the scene confirmed that contra the Roger Stone claims there was
no 'assault' on the embassy. For chuckles I actually went by this afternoon
and there was absolutely nothing to see. Verizon (who provides a lot of
business connectivity in London) has been having problems in some places for
most of the day, and it is a somewhat wet Monday so it is possible some lines
shorted, but so far there is no confirmation that Assange has lost internet
access and no indication from the outside that this is anything other than
another day here in rainy London.

------
puppetmaster3
Question to Hillary: Isn't it a fact that the product that U are actually
selling is US government policy?

------
pcl
One would imagine that he could get his hands on a cellular modem or a WiFi
signal if he really wanted to.

------
nickysielicki
HN was particularly skilled at seeing through the FUD around the FBI iPhone
crack, and this forum has also held a healthy skepticism for the way in which
the FBI was able to break Tor and find DPR of Silk Road. I don't think it's an
outrageous claim to say that in general, a sizable portion of this website
(though perhaps still a minority) believes that the FBI has historically held-
back information to the point of it being dishonest-- particularly with
regards to statements they make around technology. Is that fair to say?

In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to lean more conservative than most
people, especially relative to HN. So maybe I have my partisan goggles on
here, but why are so many people buying into the idea that there is solid
evidence that Russia is actually behind these leaks?

Details are _incredibly_ hard to come by. Try doing a Google search and look
for yourself. You'll find dozens of articles that rehash the joint DHS and FBI
statement (dare I link to submarine.html?), and after a couple pages you'll
find their statement itself, but none of these articles or statements contain
_actual details_ for why they believe what they believe around these more
recent hacks, which, to me, is indicative of a huge problem in and of itself
with our media-- not (necessarily) bias like the Trump camp is saying, but
simply a lack of basic technical intuition to question a basic premise. It
happened with the iPhone, it happened (to a lesser degree) with Silk Road, and
I think it's happening here, too.

Pew research from 2014 said there was a little bit under 4MM people working in
the tech sector in the US. For comparison, a quick Google suggests suggests
there are roughly 1.25MM lawyers in this country. And yet, when a
controversial court decision is made and journalists are expected to write on
it, the press generally is able to grok the arguments made and summarize it in
some form. If a presser is held, they are capable of asking relevant questions
and challenging things. I don't think that's the case when it comes to
anything related to computers, and I think that's indicative that our liberal
arts colleges are failing to stay up-to-date. They are creating well-rounded
individuals that are prepared for life in the 1990's. If you go to J-School,
you get a short but sweet background in political science and maybe some
philosophy and maybe even logic... But as far as I'm aware, if you don't
graduate with a degree in CS, everything that you understand about computers
is done on your own time, and that's not hyperbole.

Anyway, as I understand it, the DHS and FBI believed that the DNC leaks came
from Russia entirely because some tools were left behind on a couple
vulnerable machines, and these tools were used before by Russian state actors.
I think I read somewhere that there was an IP embedded within these tools that
had been used by Russia before... So the narrative is basically that these
professional state-backed hackers did not try to mask their identity
whatsoever, and left a card saying, "Russia wuz h3r3, lel!". And to be clear,
maybe that's 100% what happened. I don't know! But the point I'm trying to
make is that I don't think _anyone_ can say that they "know" who was behind
these hacks with any kind of confidence.

And I can understand why that would be good enough for journalists who don't
know better. And with the media reporting this so widely, I can understand how
this would permeate into the general population. But I think a lot of Hillary
supporters around here are subduing their skepticism to avoid cognitive
dissonance, and I think that sucks.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to lean more conservative than
> most people, especially relative to HN. So maybe I have my partisan goggles
> on here, but why are so many people buying into the idea that there is solid
> evidence that Russia is actually behind these leaks?

Among other reasons, because cybersecurity experts who, insofar as they have
partisan political bias that they might act on would be more likely to oppose
Clinton and the Democrats than aid them, were the first to confidently
attribute the hacks to specific threat actors tied to specific components of
the Russian intelligence apparatus. (DHS and NSA much later jointly announced
the same conclusion that private cybersecurity experts had previously
reached.)

~~~
nickysielicki
[https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-
democ...](https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-
national-committee/)

I'm still not certain that the presence of a Russian RAT necessarily means
that Russia was behind this.

------
known
How can we protest?

~~~
back_beyond
A vote for Trump is protest.

------
freeusa
Assange rape is an allegation only. Current U.S. administration ignores U.S.
constitution. This smells of support for Hillary Clinton, not justice for
Assange.

------
Yetanfou
Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous
with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim'
still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards. Only later when those
two women who thought they'd scored a celebrity found out he'd been rather
generous in dealing out his celebrity amongst those who offered him
hospitality did they come with a claim of rape. Should he have used a condom?
Yes, if only to protect both himself as well as his partners from whatever
they managed to share amongst them. Does this constitute rape? Given the fact
that they'd had intercourse several times before during the same night I don't
the claim would stick.

Meanwhile 5 rape suspects were released without even being indicted because
the rape victim - a 33yo physically handicapped (wheelchair-bound) Swedish
woman - did not 'resist enough' for the allegations of rape to stick,
according to the prosecutor [1]. Might it be so that a physically handicapped
woman has problems 'resisting enough' due to her handicap and the position in
which she was placed - in the toilet, out of reach of her wheelchair?

So, Sweden, please define rape for us uninformed bystanders. If forcing a
handicapped woman to have sexual intercourse with up to 6 men (5 of whom were
arrested, the sixth was never taken) is NOT rape but having more sex with a
willing partner who was fine with having sex before IS rape we do need some
guidance to know what is right and what is wrong there. It would be good to
know given that I live in Sweden, maybe I'm guilty of something I did not
realise before?

[1]
[https://www.google.se/search?q=rape+gotland+wheelchair](https://www.google.se/search?q=rape+gotland+wheelchair)
(pick your source)

~~~
slg
>the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards

>the fact that they'd had intercourse several times before

I don't care what you think about this specific case, but statements like
these show a great deal of ignorance about how most sex crimes happen and the
relationship between the abuser and the victim.

~~~
lakmear
By that logic, a guy who had completely consensual sex may be unable prove it
wasn't rape. There has to be a limit on what you can call rape or men will
have no protection from false accusations.

~~~
dragonwriter
Er, if you have a justice system that requires proof of innocence rather than
proof of guilt, that is a bigger problem than any line-drawing around the
boundaries of rape.

If there is not consent (or capacity for consent) at the time of the act, it's
rape. In any reasonable justice system, the proof problems that come up, in
certain situations, with that clear definition weigh in favor of the accused,
since they make it difficult to prove that sex occurred without consent.

------
dominotw
This story keeps getting flagged as a dupe.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724507](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12724507)

for another thread that was on front page when most of US was asleep

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722929)

Mods, would it possible to keep this story up?

~~~
sctb
The Twitter thread got buried mostly by flags and the flamewar detector, and
though we usually override those penalties when it's clear that another
discussion will just take its place, sometimes we're sleeping off another
political controversy.

We'll avoid marking this one as a duplicate and try to merge the discussions
as best we can.

------
dbg31415
To anyone thinking of voting for HRC... I get it, she's ostensibly better than
Trump.

But she's still horrible. We have serious problems, problems that will destroy
all faith in Government, if left unchecked -- and problems HRC won't address
because she's too busy exploiting and expanding them.

She prefers 0 transparency -- this runs in total contradiction to democratic
values. Anyone who opposed the levels of secrecy under Bush / Cheney should
also oppose HRC.

The choice isn't Trump or HRC, the choice is to vote your conscience.

* Hillary Clinton Liked Covert Action if It Stayed Covert, Transcript Shows - The New York Times || [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/politics/hillary-clinto...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-was-open-to-covert-action-abroad-hacked-transcript-shows.html?_r=0)

* Stone: Secrecy is the Enemy of Democracy | University of Chicago Law School || [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/stone-secrecy-enemy-democra...](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/stone-secrecy-enemy-democracy)

------
VertexRed
Shouldn't be too difficult to surpass by temporarily using mobile data or
setting up an antenna for long-range wifi.

~~~
KevinEldon
Assuming Assange is free and living.

~~~
VertexRed
Well if he wasn't the Wikileaks team would've said something. He also has
other people working for him which would be able to help him out with this.

And thanks for the downvote.

------
DominikR
Pure coincidence I'm sure. It's got nothing to do with protecting Hillary
Clinton and claims by many (including Matt Drudge, Milo Yiannopoulos) that
today some kind of sex tape (lesbian) of her is going to leak.

~~~
gragas
What do you mean "pure coincidence"? How could a state actor cutting off
Assange's internet be a coincidence with anything? It was done _on purpose_ by
_someone_ for _some reason_. That is by definition not a coincidence.

~~~
DominikR
I'm trying to be sarcastic, of course it isn't a coincidence.

~~~
gragas
Ah. I didn't get that. Maybe include /s next time.

------
brooklyndude
I'm just so over Assange. Good. Cut his damn internet access. He's really
starting to remind of that kid who just bugs you so much. Just go away please.

That gigabyte file he's holding onto? Supposed to be a bunch of cat gifs, or
so an "insider" told me.

------
handelaar
He is, at the instigation of a hostile foreign government, eyeball-deep in
criminal activity designed to interfere with a democratic election being
conducted by an Ecuadorean ally.

Cut off his wifi? Little toad is lucky they just don't boot him out onto the
pavement.

~~~
wavefunction
Your description of the situation is of course opinion, as there has been no
proof of allegations that Wikileaks is acting on behalf of anyone other than
their own interests.

------
johansch
More speculation:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3842846/Rumors-
swirl...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3842846/Rumors-swirl-Pamela-
Anderson-poisoned-Julian-Assange-vegan-meal-Pret.html)

"Rumors that Pamela Anderson 'fatally poisoned Julian Assange with vegan meal'
spread after 'coded' Wikileaks tweets lead to speculation that he triggered
'dead man's switch'"

~~~
BinaryIdiot
That was quite an amazing read. So many good conspiracy theories and none of
them are as good as this one.

------
ewr24
Lets not forget why he is there. No internet access seems like very little
punishment for what he did.

~~~
mythz
which is?

~~~
BinaryIdiot
I'm assuming parent is referring to the sexual assault and rape allegations
against him. Depending on which side you're on you may believe they're made up
charges to get him locked up or you may think he's a criminal hiding from
doing said things to multiple women (2 IIRC).

FYI, at the moment the statute of limitations have ended for the sexual
assaults and the rape statute ends in 2020.

~~~
mythz
It's hard to believe the Ecuadorian government is complicit with helping a
rapist escape justice. Rape allegations also fall neatly into NSA/GCHQ's
playbook for character assassinations.

Seems more likely the reasons for taking political asylum in a non-US alliance
embassy, is, political.

~~~
cmdkeen
For crying out loud. He went to the UK Supreme Court arguing that he shouldn't
have to face extradition and that the crimes he was accused of weren't crimes
in the UK and didn't warrant extradition. The Supreme Court disagreed
vehemently and he jumped bail before he could be extradited to Sweden.

~~~
mythz
Which doesn't prove guilt only that he wanted to avoid extradition. If he is
innocent and believes the allegations were manufactured whose purpose was to
eventually extradite him to the U.S. (plausible given their convenient
timing), he'd have every reason to want to avoid extradition.

Assange has always been opened to being questioning over the allegations
(within the Embassy) and the Swedish prosecutors only recently agreed to allow
him to be interviewed within the Embassy, which is strangely set to happen
today (17 October 2016).

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The “the rape allegations were made up so Sweden can extradite me to the U.S.”
line never made sense. The UK is even friendlier with the US than Sweden is,
there's no way he couldn't be extradited from the UK.

~~~
cmdkeen
It is also worth pointing out that the UK has to give permission for onwards
extradition from Sweden to the US if a request were to be made. If the
ultimate game plan for the US was to engineer his extradition it seems a
little odd to not have requested it from the UK alone while he was here,
rather than have to throw the Swedish legal system into the mix as well. Both
Sweden and the UK are required to not extradite when there is a risk of the
death penalty being applied - so that wasn't an issue either.

The whole "but the Swedes won't guarantee not to extradite him" is neatly
covered by the whole point the US hasn't requested an extradition, and no
legal system can or will get involved with hypothetical situations.

~~~
makomk
As I understand it, the UK government has to give permission for extradition
from Sweden, but extradition from the UK to the US requires the support of
both the UK government and the UK courts - and extradition requests from the
US are held to a higher standard of evidence than ones from the EU. The UK
government is certainly pretty friendly to the US so that's no obstacle, but
the UK courts are less predictable.

------
marcoperaza
My guess is that the US is applying pressure on Ecuador. They want the leaks
to stop.

Ecuador already has incentives to stop helping Trump, as Trump has recently
taken a hard line against Latin American strongmen, of which Correa, President
of Ecuador, is one. Some assurances from Hillary, and threats from Obama,
could have been enough to push him over.

I imagine that one of the currently unspoken fears that the Democrats have
with wikileaks is that they've built up immense credibility and could choose
to cash it in by dropping a fake leak a day or two before the election. Or
they could drop an incredibly damaging REAL leak, which is even scarier for
the Democrats. There's no doubt that the Clintons have skeletons in their
closet.

What I find extremely disturbing is that Obama was fine with RT and Wikileaks
when they were mostly advancing the then-leftist agenda of better relations
with Russia and US non-interventionism. Now that things have shifted and they
are now undermining Obama's agenda and chosen successor, he's suddenly
discovered his inner cold warrior.

The real winner here is Mitt Romney. The Democrats mocked him, nothing short
of laughing in his face, when during the 2012 election he said Russia was our
biggest geopolitical threat. Obama, around the same time, was caught telling
the Russians he could be "more flexible after the election". They took that
flexibility and marched all the way into Ukraine, Syria, and (allegedly) DNC
and Clinton email servers with it. Obama owes him an apology.

~~~
gok
I don't necessarily agree that Obama himself was fine with Wikileaks, but it's
certainly true that many on the American left loved the leaks when they
revealed ostensibly embarrassing details about things they do not support (the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and then suddenly got rather upset when the
leaks revealed ostensibly embarrassing details about things they do support
(Clinton). Of course the same could be said about many on the right.

~~~
arkitaip
It could be said about every one of us. Heck, I found myself being annoyed at
Wikileaks during the past days because of the DNC leaks and I don't even
support them or Hillary Clinton. Bias is one helluva drug.

