
Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet - protomyth
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/europe/julian-assange-embassy.html?partner=IFTTT&_r=1
======
vinhboy
Is anyone else troubled by how impulsive[0] we are? Look at the original
thread on this issue[1]. Hundreds of comments and conspiracy theories. And
this is on HN...

I am troubled by how the internet has enabled us to gossip on a global scale.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725427)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12737178](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12737178)
\- someone pointed out I actually did not know the meaning of the word
"reactionary", which was my original word choice.

~~~
AvenueIngres
> Hundreds of comments and conspiracy theories.

There was little to no information available and Wikileaks had released pre-
commitment hashes just hours before.

Conspiracy theories are not intrinsically evil you know. They are a natural
byproduct of lack of information + high stake issue.

And it should be no surprise that conspiracy theories arise when talking about
Wikileaks, a non-profit defying the most powerful political/military apparatus
on earth. And with that, right in the middle of v. high-stake national
election.

People speculate, they try to infer what is going on despite lacking
information and uncover hidden power dynamics. I recommend you read
Thucydides's War on Peloponnese just so you can realize how conspiracies are
daily occurrences in politics and any structure that holds power. Now what you
should not do is believe all of them uncritically. This is another thing. I
don't think it is the case here.

> how reactionary we are?

I don't think we have the same definition for the word reactionary? What do
you mean?

~~~
vinhboy
Wow. I admit it. I went all these years without actually knowing the meaning
of the word "reactionary".

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

It's one of those words you think you can derive meaning from using context
clues, but in this case I was wrong.

That is really not the word I thought I was saying.

The word I should have used is "impulsive".

Thank you for correcting me and teaching me something new.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I was surprised by this word too, some two years ago. You never know when a
phrase you took for granted actually turns out to be a political label!

------
hammock
Wikileaks: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop
Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.

[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788369924175441920](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788369924175441920)

~~~
untog
You know the wikileaks Twitter account _is_ Assange, right? I'm going to wait
for a reliable third party report on this one.

~~~
arkitaip
Is Assange the only one using the wikileaks twitter account? Because it's
batshit crazy at times [https://heatst.com/politics/wikileaks-posts-and-
deletes-anti...](https://heatst.com/politics/wikileaks-posts-and-deletes-anti-
semitic-tweet-as-it-does-putins-bidding-for-trump/)

~~~
neves
The guy is locked with Ecuadorian TV and English food. It is completely
plausible that he goes batshit crazy at times. :-)

~~~
thingexplainer
While I agree that Assange has been under an incomprehensible amount of stress
for such a long time, he is getting increasingly radical and less
journalistic, such as his (edit: alleged) vendetta against Clinton.

~~~
imron
He has repeatedly stated that he would happily release information on Trump
and the Republicans if someone would leak it to him.

~~~
thingexplainer
I'm sure he would, that doesn't make it appropriate to use leaked information
to carry out a vendetta.

edit: getting source

~~~
imron
Is it really a vendetta though (genuine question, I'd be happy to see a
source), or is it just that the people leaking information to him are doing it
at this time, and he's releasing it for 'maximum impact' which has been what
Wikileaks always tries to do?

~~~
thingexplainer
Wikileaks should not serve the agenda of it's sources in reporting
information, but of the citizens of the world who need more transparency that
they claim to represent.

Here you are:

[https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-
bias-...](https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-
point/)

People talk a lot about how Putin is an opportunist. I think he saw how bitter
Assange was becoming and understood if he gave him the documents, he could
step back and let him carry out his vengeance against a woman who had a huge
role in forcing him to ground in the embassy ("can't we just drone this
guy?"). I'm told this is a Rule of Power. But that is speculation.

~~~
imron
Note the key phrase from that article 'led to speculation that...'

In any case, here's Assange himself discussing this exact thing recently:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6mARUrPtXk&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6mARUrPtXk&feature=youtu.be&t=5019)

Doesn't seem like much of a vendetta according to him.

~~~
thingexplainer
It'd been a while since I'd read the article, and you're right, I
oversimplified in my memory. I appreciate the counterpoint (though I can't
watch it at the moment).

~~~
imron
Here's part of his answer:

"There’s been a lot of misquoting of me and WikiLeaks publications. In this
particular case, the misquoting has to do with that we intend, or I intend, to
harm Hillary Clinton or that I don’t like Hillary Clinton. All those are
false. They come about as a result it seems of this campaign and those who are
trying to personalize our publications."

------
wnevets
Assange and wikileaks make it really hard to support their cause.

~~~
burkaman
I don't really get their strategy. Wouldn't these leaks be much more damaging
to Clinton if WikiLeaks at least appeared to be unbiased? It's not like they
need to be vocal, there are armies of people poring over every single release.
Why not just let the documents speak for themselves?

~~~
skylan_q
Wikileaks can't appear to be unbiased to those who will perceive them as
biased as a result of releasing info that may hurt Hillary Clinton.

What would they have to do to appear unbiased but still be able to release
information damaging to the DNC and Clintons?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
The Panama Papers journalists managed a fair balance. They vetted and
presented the papers while defending their sources' integrity and anonymity.
Interpretation was left to third parties.

------
unclewaltr
His internet was cut, but they have landlines. Is it really Ecuador's
obligation to provide him uninterrupted internet access? What else are they
obligated to provide? They're giving him a place to hang his hat for free. We
have no idea what kind of house guest this guy is. If WikiLeaks requires
Assange to have internet access to function, it speaks poorly of how organized
they are.

------
nateberkopec
How does this affect Assange's supposed "dead-man" switch? Wasn't the idea
that he has the push the switch every 24 hours? Wouldn't that require internet
access?

~~~
dogma1138
Does he even has a dead-man switch? It is quite contradictory to his own
philosophy or releasing everything without any consideration or censorship.

If he is holding something excessively damning it's quite problematic for for
his supports and him, eventually that information would start losing it's
value and it will not be a dead-man switch anymore.

This is also a problem because it forces him to dig more and more dirt that
can be used as a dead-man switch rather than releasing the information.

~~~
squidfood
> It is quite contradictory to his own philosophy or releasing everything
> without any consideration or censorship.

You mean the philosophy that has him releasing material with carefully timed
consideration to maximize attention to his own pet cause?

~~~
MichaelGG
Carefully timed means biggest impact, which means Wikileaks stays high
profile, gets more funding, etc. There's nothing wrong with being a bit self
serving if that results in an overall higher score on whatever your final
criteria are.

~~~
squidfood
Fine, but then one can't claim his philosophy has anything to do with
"releasing everything without any consideration or censorship." He is de-facto
censoring/holding back knowledge that he possesses, with a specific agenda in
mind.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Yeah, like someone submitting stories at a certain time of day to HN instead
of just when the idea hits them... oh sure, of course _they_ would say "I
thought you might find this interesting, that's all I'm doing here", but I'll
feel secure in the knowledge that you'll show up to call out their "specific
agenda".

------
chvid
I don't get it. What is the status of mr. Assange? Has he communicated with
anyone in the past 24 hrs. If so what did he say?

~~~
aljones
Seems like they're being purposely vague.

~~~
bduerst
Seems like it. Just an hour or so after the "Assange's internet was cut"
tweet, they tweeted for donations even though people were asking for updates:
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787915227924992000](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787915227924992000)

~~~
Karunamon
I think the consensus is that tweet is sent out on a regular schedule.. it
just had really unfortunate timing given the events.

~~~
bduerst
No it isn't - they don't automate their donation tweets. They deliberately
dropped it after the vague tweet about Assange being cut off.

------
paulmd
You know when a guest just won't catch a hint and leave? "Oops the internet
went out again".

Assange has been couch-surfing for _6 years now_ and by all accounts he's not
a particularly good house guest. Nobody likes that arrogant asshole who gets
drunk and smashes up your furniture. [1]

Sure, he doesn't have anywhere to go, but at the end of the day that's not
Ecuador's problem. He's thrown himself on their good graces and he's not being
very gracious about it. Indeed he's even working with Russia to stir up
trouble - not just publishing Russian-sourced material, but working directly
with Russia, to the extent that RT was linking into Wikileaks content even
before Wikileaks announced they were up [2]

I imagine the police reports filed earlier this month alleging that he was
trying to groom an 8-year-old for sex online aren't helping matters either
[3]. That's very possibly the direct catalyst for cutting off his internet at
this juncture.

On a personal level I do feel bad for Assange. It can't be easy to be in de-
facto house arrest in someone else's house for 6 years, so it's not surprising
that he's succumbing to some potential alcohol-related issues and lashing out
on a personal and professional basis.

[1] [https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/mr-white-and-mr-
blue](https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/mr-white-and-mr-blue)

> A security guard was on duty at around 8:30pm on 6 September, when Assange
> was in the embassy with two associates. Around this time, the guard
> discovered that Assange had made his way into the embassy’s secure control
> room – a room strictly off-limits to him – and started tampering with the
> security equipment. This led to a scuffle between Assange and the guard that
> caused damage to the embassy’s equipment.

> The report then details conflicting accounts of what happened. According to
> the security guard’s account, Assange was asked to stop messing with the
> embassy’s systems and to leave the secure room, which he initially refused
> to do. The guard alleges that Assange then punched over a computer monitor
> before grabbing him by the shirt. This led, according to the guard, to an
> altercation for a number of minutes that spilled out into the corridor.

> Assange’s account lays the blame on the security guard, who he claimed had
> accosted him.

> A filmmaker who was present for the incident, the report notes, told embassy
> staff he did not see the beginning of the scuffle, but that Assange was “out
> of control” and very upset, and clearly wanted to be verbally offensive and
> to provoke a reaction.

> However, just a few months later a separate report notes a similar incident
> of seemingly erratic behaviour from the WikiLeaks chief shortly before dawn
> on 4 January 2013. The report painstakingly notes Assange’s movements from
> minute to minute – further evidence of how closely the Ecuadorians monitored
> “Mr Guest” – reporting that he seemed to wake at 6:05 that morning. Then,
> just five minutes later, the security guard heard a loud crash from
> Assange’s room.

> The report painstakingly notes Assange’s movements from minute to minute –
> further evidence of how closely the Ecuadorians monitored “Mr Guest” –
> reporting that he seemed to wake at 6:05 that morning. Then, just five
> minutes later, the security guard heard a loud crash from Assange’s room.

> Assange came to the door, assuring the on-duty guard that everything was
> fine, but (according to the guard’s account) seeming to try to block his
> view of the room’s interior. A few minutes later, Assange left the room
> carrying his laptop into a nearby room designated as his bathroom, where he
> remained for a period of hours.

> During this time, the memo continues, the guard was able to see inside
> Assange’s bedroom, where a large, smashed bookshelf was strewn across the
> room. The guard took photographs of the room’s condition.

> Assange later told embassy staff that the bookshelf had fallen over of its
> own accord, according to the same memo, but this seemingly did little to
> assuage their concerns about the wellbeing of Assange or those around him.
> As before, the incident was passed up the embassy’s chain of command –
> reference is made to a daily report on his activities – including, once
> again, “Mr White” and “Mr Blue”.

> The report notes with concern a regular comment in “internal daily reports”
> on Assange recording his tendency to “shout and talk incoherently” at night,
> attributed to night terrors. It then goes on to note: “This episode is
> nothing more than the result of the stress that Mr Assange could be feeling
> as a result of his isolation.

> The report continues in quite a critical manner as to Assange’s intrinsic
> “nature”, independent of his stressful situation, stating that his “evident
> anger” and “feelings of superiority” could cause stress to those around him
> — “especially the personnel who work in the embassy, mainly women”.

> The report contains multiple recommendations to improve the situation,
> including a proposal from “Mr Blue” for regular assessments of Assange’s
> physical and mental health, regular meetings with Assange’s confidantes to
> assess his demeanour and state of mind, and efforts to prevent Assange
> becoming isolated.

> The report also notes a need to “control access to alcohol”.

[2] [http://usuncut.news/2016/10/13/breaking-evidence-russia-
is-b...](http://usuncut.news/2016/10/13/breaking-evidence-russia-is-behind-
wikileaks-dump-just-became-startlingly-obvious-details/)

> RT America tweeted with a link to the documents at 6:09 AM. However,
> WikiLeaks had not yet announced the release. They didn’t do so, in fact,
> until 23 minutes later.

> How did RT America know that the emails were being released and how did they
> know where to find the documents? It’s looking more and more like Julian
> Assange and WikiLeaks are working directly with the Russian government to
> destroy the Democratic presidential candidate.

[3] [http://www.prweb.com/releases/united-nations-
report/julian-a...](http://www.prweb.com/releases/united-nations-
report/julian-assange-wikileaks/prweb13750603.htm)

> Toddandclare became a participant in the UN Global Compact program in May
> 2016. This required them to release certain company records to the UN,
> including details of their legal interactions with Assange — which by then
> included a report from the Royal Bahamas Police about an investigation into
> Assange. (Assange is no longer involved in KATIA.)

> On September 28 this year a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas
> reported to the police that their 8-year-old daughter was “sexually molested
> online” by Assange on Toddandclare.com, including propositioning her “to
> perform oral and anal sex acts.” She was presumably accessing the site
> through her 22-year-old sister’s account. Whether these chats were recorded
> or not isn’t clear but the family claims they identified Assange.

~~~
retox
PRWeb is an unfiltered wire service, anyone can put any old bullshit on there.
That article links to googlecaches rather than a reputable source. I'd be
careful of libelling people if I were you.

~~~
paulmd
It's a Google Cache because Todd & Claire were subsequently delisted from the
UN Global Compact program [1] and their report was removed.

I can't speak to their particular reputation or the veracity of the conduct in
the police report, but they seem to be standing by their police report. You
can view a copy of it on their official Facebook site account [2] as well as a
followup on their website [3]. Unprofessional and goes off the rails IMO but
they're sticking to their story.

As for my own post, I'm not making claims on my own and I have no particular
reason to regard Todd & Claire's claims as factually untrue. Not proven
either, but my posts certainly don't rise to the factual standard of libel
("knowing/reckless disregard of the truth"/"provable malice").

[1] [https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-
gc/participants/8376...](https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-
gc/participants/83761-T-C-Network-Solutions)

[2]
[https://www.facebook.com/toddandclare/posts/1191392577583146](https://www.facebook.com/toddandclare/posts/1191392577583146)

[3] [https://www.toddandclare.com/datinglife/online-
dating/united...](https://www.toddandclare.com/datinglife/online-
dating/united-nations-statement-julian-assange-wikileaks/)

~~~
makomk
I'm not surprised they were kicked out. The UN Global Compact is a PR thing
for businesses that lets them announce their commitment to the Global Compact
principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment, and anti-
corruption. It does not make them a "United Nations member" or give them the
ability to "formally asked the United Nations" to do anything, let alone
"conduct an urgent legal review of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention’s decision on Julian Assange". Using it to pretend something they've
written is a "UN report" is an astounding abuse of the program. Presumably
they abused the system that lets them upload an annual statement of support
and communication on progress to do so, then got banned when someone actually
looked at their upload.

------
dimino
How important is Assange, himself, to WikiLeaks? If he's critical to its
operating capabilities, why?

~~~
jelly
I believe his functional importance is in keeping dead man switches from
triggering, the site is his insurance policy. He also gives an interesting
public face to the website, given he is permanently embroiled in scandal.
Arguably Assange's keeping wikileaks in the public eye is more important than
his technical or mechanical function

~~~
vkou
> I believe his functional importance is in keeping dead man switches from
> triggering, the site is his insurance policy.

This serves Assange more then it serves WikiLeaks.

------
robrenaud
How hard is it to get a cell phone with tethering? C'mon, this can't really be
a big deal.

~~~
raverbashing
No difficulty whatsoever

~~~
astrodust
When you're stuck in an embassy and surrounded by people you can't trust, and
you're a de-facto enemy of the state? I'm sure a lot harder than you think.

~~~
raverbashing
No 'intrinsic' difficulty, that's an extrinsic difficulty.

------
raverbashing
Assange is still living and being protected there, right?

This is the important support.

------
DominikR
WikiLeaks is tweeting that US media will soon run with the story that Assange
is a pedophile and took $1 million dollars from Russia.

[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788413380843503616](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788413380843503616)

These people running the US government must be complete morons to even
consider running this story. (yes: the US media is controlled by the US
government, I have no doubt about it)

~~~
fixermark
Unless the story is true, of course.

~~~
DominikR
Unless there is proof that it is again a lie:

[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788465568722612225](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788465568722612225)

