Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday October 17 2016, @07:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the where's-the-nearest-Starbucks? dept.

Multiple sources reporting:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37680411
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/17/wikileaks-says-assanges-internet-link-was-severed-by-state-party.html
http://time.com/4532984/wikileaks-julian-assange-theories/

Wikileaks has announced that Julian Assange's internet access had been intentionally severed by a state actor. I would assume this means they disrupted a VPN connection he had rather than just cutting all internet access to the Ecuadorian Embassy, but again details are limited.

The announcement of disruption was also preceded by multiple strange tweets of random numbers (likely crypto keys) that appear to be part of a dead man system activated by the disruption.

takyon: The full tweet states "Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans." Wikileaks recently released Part 9 of the Podesta Emails. Also at CNET and Ars Technica.

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

Perhaps the embassy's perennial guest has finally overstayed his welcome?


Original Submission   Alternate Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @08:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17 2016, @08:34PM (#415382)

    ‘Remember, it’s illegal to possess’ WikiLeaks Clinton emails, but ‘it’s different for the media,’ says CNN’s Chris Cuomo

    Putting aside the question of if it is illegal to posess Clinton's leaked emails (I *think* it is not illegal to merely locate and possess them, but I am not a lawyer), the sad thing is that this statement that "it's different for the media" is true.

    The government has several times taken illegal action (either accidentally, or nefariously), and much like in international politics, might-makes-right. In a very real sense, media are different, much like the powerful are different just by nature of being powerful. It's very much a realpolitik idea that being part of the media, with a large organization with proven deep pockets and willingness to raise a fuss, does make things different (not more or less illegal, just different in practice).

    For example, consider "protecting sources." If Congress calls an ordinary person to reveal a confidential source, and the person refuses to do so, the person is thrown in jail for Contempt of Congress and forgotten about until they give in. If Congress calls on a reporter to reveal a confidential source, and the reporter refuses to do so, the reporter is also thrown in jail for Contempt of Congress just the same. The difference is that their media organization, and probably all media organizations, herd together to raise awareness and a fuss (not to mention pay legal bills), until the person is released.

    Moreover, given past history of fighting and the deeper pockets, it is much more likely Congress would give up faster because they know there is less chance of outlasting the media. Plus the ability to stonewall requests better through staff-lawyers, plausibility deniability, and numerous other advantages large organizations have that individuals don't.

    You don't have to like it (and probably shouldn't)... but it is true. :(

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday October 17 2016, @08:51PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday October 17 2016, @08:51PM (#415396) Journal

    My take is that once Wikileaks, considered a media organization even by the U.S. government, processes and releases leaked information, it is legal to look at even if it is classified (with the exception of federal employees and members of the military who may be subject to policy restrictions). The Podesta emails are mostly personal emails with no classification involved AFAIK.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]