5 ms·

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 ri

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.
        rurban 10y ago
        They did fail very near to the embassy. British media didn't report anything today, so the D-Notice threat is very likely. Strange security vans with a strange white side wall to be opened sidewards appeared today near the embassy.
  - AvenueIngres 10y ago
    Ok whatever.
  - roywiggins 10y ago
    They didn't even suppress the BBC from reporting breathlessly on the tweet!
- seanhunter 10y ago
  Many people have their internet service go down from time to time (I know I do) and most of the time it isn't caused by state-sponsored action/governments storming their place of residence. I've already said why I think such a storming would provide evidence that even state-sponsored actors would not be able to suppress. The Brompton Road and Sloane street both have plenty of pedestrians and vehicular traffic at 6:40am (I'm speaking as someone who used to bicycle down them every day around that time). Given no evidence to the contrary, a much better hypothesis that fits the known facts is that there was some sort of standard ISP snafu or similar tech problem.
  - JoachimS 10y ago
    Sounds very much more probable.

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.
      - rurban 10y ago
        They did fail very near to the embassy. British media didn't report anything today, so the D-Notice threat is very likely. Strange security vans with a strange white side wall to be opened sidewards appeared today near the embassy.
- AvenueIngres 10y ago
  Ok whatever.
- roywiggins 10y ago
  They didn't even suppress the BBC from reporting breathlessly on the tweet!
seanhunter 10y ago
Many people have their internet service go down from time to time (I know I do) and most of the time it isn't caused by state-sponsored action/governments storming their place of residence. I've already said why I think such a storming would provide evidence that even state-sponsored actors would not be able to suppress. The Brompton Road and Sloane street both have plenty of pedestrians and vehicular traffic at 6:40am (I'm speaking as someone who used to bicycle down them every day around that time). Given no evidence to the contrary, a much better hypothesis that fits the known facts is that there was some sort of standard ISP snafu or similar tech problem.
- JoachimS 10y ago
  Sounds very much more probable.