5 ms·

That would make little sense: If they wanted to storm, why cut the Internet ahead of time and give advance warning?

AvenueIngres 10y ago
It is not clear whether Assange is tweeting or a third-party is. For all we know, they could have stormed and the only information available to the person maintaining the Wikileaks twitter account is that Assange cannot be reached. The situation is not clear atm.
- Xylakant 10y ago
  The Ecuadorian embassy in London stormed without as much as a trace on the internet? Come on - I like a good conspiracy theory, but that's going a little far, isn't it? It would require the Ecuadorian government to hold tight and then storming the embassy wouldn't make sense - they could just have kicked Assange out and called the local police who'd happily pick him up.
- seanhunter 10y ago
  Seriously? Here's the Ecuadorian Embassy: https://goo.gl/maps/gtwjXtGrv9p https://goo.gl/maps/gtwjXtGrv9p Note that it's not in the middle of nowhere, it's right behind Harrods (ie 100 yards away from one of the busiest shopping streets in one of the world's largest and most diverse cities, with 1000s of people walking by every minute carrying cellphones). Do you honestly think anyone could storm such an embassy and not have a massive media footprint? When the Iranian embassy was stormed there was wall-to-wall coverage on the news, and that was in the 1980s, before every second person on the street had a cellphone and twitter.
  - AvenueIngres 10y ago
    1. Calm down. No one is saying this is what happened. No need to get on your high horses. 2. At the time the Internet got cut-off it was 6:40am in the UK. Pretty early. 3. The British government has the power to issue DA-notice to media outlets. 4. "Storming" the Ecuadorian embassy would not take a lot of manpower. This isn't a raid of a Mexican cartel. There is no resistance to expect, the adversarial repercussions would be diplomatic. 5. "For all we know" - means that this is an hypothesis. We are speculating. If you have up-to-date information, feel free to share.
    - Xylakant 10y ago
      > 3. The British government has the power to issue DA-notice to media outlets. Surely they can suppress all blogs and all of twitter and facebook at the same time. Oh, hold - why didn't they suppress the tweet we're discussing. > 4. "Storming" the Ecuadorian embassy would not take a lot of manpower. This isn't a raid of a Mexican cartel. There is no resistance to expect, the adversarial repercussions would be diplomatic. It require a little more than a bobby walking up to the door and asking politely. It's fairly likely that this would get noticed by someone passing by - mind you: That's not somewhere in the woods, it's central London. > "For all we know" - means that this is an hypothesis. We are speculating. No. You are speculating. The null hypothesis is that nothing of that sort happened. Apart from handwaving speculation you haven't offered anything that would even resemble proof or supporting evidence.
      - cmdkeen 10y ago
        Firstly D-notices are only advisory, while the media tend to comply with them they are in no way legally enforceable. Secondly central London has rather good wifi and 4G coverage. Presumably the "appropriate contingency plans" are to switch his phone's personal hotspot on and carry on as normal. Though there might be a nasty phone bill coming down the line.
        makomk 10y ago
        I'd be surprised if the police or military couldn't dig out a jammer from somewhere if they wanted to - or just turn off the local cell towers for a while. Wouldn't be the first time.
        Xylakant 10y ago
        And there'd be no report on the Internet that cell coverage around the Ecuadorian embassy mysteriously failed? They'd have to compel every person in the area to keep quiet or to not leave the area.
        10y ago
rtkwe 10y ago
What could he really do with advance warning and no communications? Assange can't really run anywhere so the most he can really do it bunker down in a safe room or something, which he's probably ready to do anyways at a moment's notice any ways. Given that cutting off internet before means he can't do any new live data releases ("Maybe he screwed up setting up his dead man's switch?" unlikely but possible at this point) and means that during a raid there'd be no heroic live stream from inside the safe room "resisting the oppressive dogs of the US government come to silence him." I don't really see what there is to gain from a raid to seize him now though. Presumably wikileaks is capable of trickling out whatever 'damning' emails/cables/files they already have without him so it's probably not the goal.

It is not clear whether Assange is tweeting or a third-party is. For all we know, they could have stormed and the only information available to the person maintaining the Wikileaks twitter account is that Assange cannot be reached. The situation is not clear atm.

Xylakant 10y ago
The Ecuadorian embassy in London stormed without as much as a trace on the internet? Come on - I like a good conspiracy theory, but that's going a little far, isn't it? It would require the Ecuadorian government to hold tight and then storming the embassy wouldn't make sense - they could just have kicked Assange out and called the local police who'd happily pick him up.
seanhunter 10y ago
Seriously? Here's the Ecuadorian Embassy: https://goo.gl/maps/gtwjXtGrv9p https://goo.gl/maps/gtwjXtGrv9p Note that it's not in the middle of nowhere, it's right behind Harrods (ie 100 yards away from one of the busiest shopping streets in one of the world's largest and most diverse cities, with 1000s of people walking by every minute carrying cellphones). Do you honestly think anyone could storm such an embassy and not have a massive media footprint? When the Iranian embassy was stormed there was wall-to-wall coverage on the news, and that was in the 1980s, before every second person on the street had a cellphone and twitter.
- AvenueIngres 10y ago
  1. Calm down. No one is saying this is what happened. No need to get on your high horses. 2. At the time the Internet got cut-off it was 6:40am in the UK. Pretty early. 3. The British government has the power to issue DA-notice to media outlets. 4. "Storming" the Ecuadorian embassy would not take a lot of manpower. This isn't a raid of a Mexican cartel. There is no resistance to expect, the adversarial repercussions would be diplomatic. 5. "For all we know" - means that this is an hypothesis. We are speculating. If you have up-to-date information, feel free to share.
  - Xylakant 10y ago
    > 3. The British government has the power to issue DA-notice to media outlets. Surely they can suppress all blogs and all of twitter and facebook at the same time. Oh, hold - why didn't they suppress the tweet we're discussing. > 4. "Storming" the Ecuadorian embassy would not take a lot of manpower. This isn't a raid of a Mexican cartel. There is no resistance to expect, the adversarial repercussions would be diplomatic. It require a little more than a bobby walking up to the door and asking politely. It's fairly likely that this would get noticed by someone passing by - mind you: That's not somewhere in the woods, it's central London. > "For all we know" - means that this is an hypothesis. We are speculating. No. You are speculating. The null hypothesis is that nothing of that sort happened. Apart from handwaving speculation you haven't offered anything that would even resemble proof or supporting evidence.
    - cmdkeen 10y ago
      Firstly D-notices are only advisory, while the media tend to comply with them they are in no way legally enforceable. Secondly central London has rather good wifi and 4G coverage. Presumably the "appropriate contingency plans" are to switch his phone's personal hotspot on and carry on as normal. Though there might be a nasty phone bill coming down the line.
      - makomk 10y ago
        I'd be surprised if the police or military couldn't dig out a jammer from somewhere if they wanted to - or just turn off the local cell towers for a while. Wouldn't be the first time.
        Xylakant 10y ago
        And there'd be no report on the Internet that cell coverage around the Ecuadorian embassy mysteriously failed? They'd have to compel every person in the area to keep quiet or to not leave the area.
        10y ago

rtkwe 10y ago

What could he really do with advance warning and no communications? Assange can't really run anywhere so the most he can really do it bunker down in a safe room or something, which he's probably ready to do anyways at a moment's notice any ways. Given that cutting off internet before means he can't do any new live data releases ("Maybe he screwed up setting up his dead man's switch?" unlikely but possible at this point) and means that during a raid there'd be no heroic live stream from inside the safe room "resisting the oppressive dogs of the US government come to silence him." I don't really see what there is to gain from a raid to seize him now though. Presumably wikileaks is capable of trickling out whatever 'damning' emails/cables/files they already have without him so it's probably not the goal.